CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 4, 2024, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.
PACIFIC GROVE MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.
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.
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
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 Public Comment
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) PGCC 9-4-24
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Sloat Avenue between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue Agency Negotiator(s): Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Negotiating Party(ies): (Comstock)
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from LULAC on August 23, 2024, attached.) Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Receive report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 9-4-24
Agenda No. B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel – Initiation of Litigation Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) Number of Cases: One (Arising out of letter received from LULAC on August 23, 2024, attached.)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
Attachments
LULAC District 12 Letter
PGCC 9-4-24
PGCC 9-4-24
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, September 4, 2024, 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.
Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.
PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.
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://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Coletti
PGCC 9-4-24
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Recognizing The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove Point Pinos Lighthouse Restoration PG 11
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive proclamation.
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
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 August 21, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting PG 14 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
PGCC 9-4-24
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
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 20
Reference: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
Recommended Action:
1. Receive the report.
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. Community Goals and Work Plan Review for FY 24-25 PG 22 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive the Goals and Work Plan Update.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Water Allocation Update for 520 Lighthouse Avenue Mixed-Use Project PG 28 Reference: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Receive report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Monterey One Water Board of Directors 2024 Mid-Year Highlights PG 30 Reference: Nick Smith, Mayor Pro Tem
Recommended Action: Receive report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
PGCC 9-4-24
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Promissory Note and Agreement for 157 Grand Avenue PG 32 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Approve a new Promissory Note and Agreement with IC PG Property Owner, LLC for water entitlement for the hotel project at 157 Grand Avenue (APN 006-173-002), accelerating the water entitlement payment by 12-months and revising the project ownership.
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
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. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director PG 38 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 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
3. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
4. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study – August 2024 PG 42 Reference: Jessie Catacutan, Interim Administrative Services Director Recommended Action:
PGCC 9-4-24
Recommended Action:
Adopt the FY 24-25 Recommended Fees (Attachment III) and Resolution No. 24-XXX (Attachment IV) to create and adopt the City’s FY 24-25 Master Fee Schedule.
1. Direct the City Manager to propose an increase in fees for City Council consideration using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a cap of 5%, in May of each of the next three years.
2. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Direction to the City Manager regarding Outdoor Dining Guidelines for Bulb-Outs Reference: Matt Mogensen, City Manager PG 162
Recommended Action: City Council to review, comment, and provide direction to the City Manager regarding:
1. The draft goals and objectives of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines under development;
2. The current precedent of the Pacific Grove outdoor dining streetscapes; and Example features, structures and amenities of model and poor outdoor dining facilities noted in field visits of various communities.
3. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project PG 205
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
Receive bids and authorize the City manager to prepare a budget amendment to allocate funds for the Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project for an amount of $339,304.66 which includes the base bid, a 25% construction contingency and 15% engineers oversite.
1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities C. Discussion Regarding California Voting Rights Act Issues, Impact of Ballot Measure for Measure Z (Proposes Reduction from Six Councilmembers to Four Councilmembers) and Letter Received from LULAC on August 23, 2024 and Motion to Provide Direction to City Manager PG 207
Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:
Discuss California Voting Rights Act issues, Impact of Ballot Measure Z (Proposed Reduction from Six Councilmembers to Four Councilmembers) and Letter Received from LULAC on August 23, 2024.
1. Motion to Provide Direction to City Manager regarding the California Voting Rights Act which could include returning to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent to
2. PGCC 9-4-24
Act which could include returning to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large Elections to By-District Elections and retain a demographer to assist in that transition process or such other action related to this item as the Council determines appropriate.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Outdoor Art Donation Proposal of Stained Glass "The Butterflies" from Nader Agha Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager PG 361 Recommended Action: 1. Discuss proposed gift of a stained-glass window and provide direction the City Manager.
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
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 9-4-24
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: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Recognizing The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove Point Pinos Lighthouse Restoration
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive proclamation.
Attachments
Proclamation
PGCC 9-4-24
Mayor’s Proclamation
Recognizing The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove
Point Pinos Lighthouse Restoration
WHEREAS, The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove in 2007 created a Lighthouse Preservation Committee for the purpose of fundraising and restoration of the Point Pinos Lighthouse. This led to an agreement with the City of Pacific Grove to “provide overall leadership and coordination, and contribute to the repair, restoration, and preservation of the Point Pinos Lighthouse” commencing 14 years ago on September 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Point Pinos Lighthouse was lit February 1, 1855, and is the oldest continuously operating lighthouse on the West Coast of the U.S. It is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. The building has been restored to 1937-1945. The Adobe Chapter-Questers provided room furnishings replicating the Emily Fish lighthouse keeper period (1893 – 1914); and WHEREAS, Point Pinos Lighthouse ownership was transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to the City of Pacific Grove in 2006. And since becoming a city museum, it is a top Pacific Grove tourist attraction with over 25,000 visitors annually from CA and across the world. Notably the lighthouse is still an active U.S. Coast Guard aid to navigation; and WHEREAS, The Heritage Society raised funds, built a gift shop and bathrooms, obtained professional restoration and interpretative plans, restored lighthouse exterior and interior, built a fence, sidewalk, and archways, lowered the cellar; created new displays and a video, installed chimney caps, updated electric wiring, installed internet, provided kitchen and bathroom period furnishings, created a backyard garden, expanded native planting, etc; and WHEREAS, The Heritage Society volunteers contributed over 20,000 hours to the lighthouse.
Ongoing restoration includes the lantern and roof. Volunteers meet weekly on Tuesday mornings and currently focus on landscaping and maintenance of the fence and buildings.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Bill Peake, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Pacific Grove do hereby recognize The Heritage Society of Pacific Grove volunteers for their outstanding efforts to restore and preserve the Point Pinos Lighthouse for all to enjoy. ________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove Photos & Volunteer List attached.
PGCC 9-4-24
2009 Michael from San Jose, Wikipedia
2024 Bill Peake, Pacific Grove
Volunteers
Lynn Archer Steve Honegger Bill Peake
Jeff Becom Doug Howe Ted Rose
Christine Bertko John Hudson Jan Rose
Bob Bourke Pat Lovejoy Fred Sammis
Ray Byrne Reiko Michisaki Gary Stotz
Mike Cronin George Mika Dennis Tarmina
Donna Foote Jack Mix Mark Travaille
Nina Grannis Dan Myers Jim Turley
Earnest Greer Lowell Northrop Claudia Vierneisel
Sean Hadley Anne Oja Al Washburn
Ken Hinshaw Chris Patton et. al.
PGCC 9-4-24
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: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Minutes of the August 21, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 8-21-24
PGCC 9-4-24
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, August 21, 2024, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 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: Staff requested Regular Agenda item 11A be removed from the agenda to return at a future Council meeting.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted 7-0, to approve the regular agenda as modified.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Small Business and Entrepreneurs Presentation
Action: Received 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. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Susan Goldbeck, Daniel Miller, Jane Haines, Carmelita Garcia, Karen Paul, Jenny Hart, Mike Gibbs, Lisa Ciani, Thom Akeman, Nancy Parson, and Peter Cowley.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8C was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, DRAFT PGCC 9-4-24
2 Council voted 7-0, to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 7, 2024 City Council 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
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 24-012 Amending Section 2.06.010 (a) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Relating to Residency Requirement for City Manager.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Second Reading of an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Lease between Lighthouse Fellowship and the City of Pacific Grove
Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 24-013 approving an amendment to the lease between Lighthouse Fellowship and the City of Pacific Grove for the use of City owned property located at 515 Junipero Avenue, commonly known as the Community Center, in the City of Pacific Grove, and authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment #2 and any Letters of extension of the Lease.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Fourth Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Check Register for July 2024
Recommended Action: Received the check register.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Monarch Sanctuary Annual Report This item pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Reference: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager Recommended Action:
1. Receive report.
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
DRAFT PGCC 9-4-24
3 9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Motion to Approve Business Improvement District Advisory Board Applicants Action: Approved the appointments of Business Improvement District Advisory Board Applicants Alessandro Bush and Alexa Sims
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Minutes: June 18, 2024 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes: June 10, 2024 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Museum Board Minutes - 5/9/23, 11/14/23, 2/14/24
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
**************
8.C. Monarch Sanctuary Annual Report This item pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Public comment received from Jane Haines, Carmelita Garcia, Daniel Miller, and Christine Walkingstick.
Action: Received report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. City of Pacific Grove's Conflict of Interest Code This item was pulled and will return to a future Council meeting.
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action:
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 2.40, Conflict of Interest, to account for the addition, deletion, and modification of positions listed as “designated employees”; determine that, for the purposes of the City of Pacific Grove’s (City) Conflict Code, the City is the “agency;” approve the updated Conflict Code; and
4. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
DRAFT PGCC 9-4-24
4 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Motion to Authorize City Manager to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Cannabis Consulting Services
No public comment received.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Council voted 7-0, to authorize City Manager to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Cannabis Consulting Services.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the Police Officers Association (POA)
Public comment received from Daniel Miller.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted 7-0, to adopt a Resolution No. 24-037 approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the Police Officers Association to cover the period of July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc.
Public comment received from Daniel Miller.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted 7-0, to authorize the Mayor to execute Master Services and Purchasing Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for five years for Fleet cameras, Body Worn cameras and Taser equipment for a total amount not to exceed $407,855.99.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Reinstallation of Crosswalks and Stop Sign at Fountain Avenue and Pine Avenue Public comment received from Daniel Miller, Carmelita Garcia, and Christie Thomas.
Action: Discussed the reinstallation of crosswalks at the intersection of Fountain Avenue and Pine Avenue, where a previously existing crosswalk has been removed. Staff will provide an update to Council at its September 4, 2024 meeting.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacific Grove Deer Awareness Annual Report by Carmelita Garcia Public comment received from Kim Akeman and Lisa Ciani.
DRAFT PGCC 9-4-24
5 Action: Received presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular and special meetings at 7:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: __________________________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 9-4-24
Agenda No. 8 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alyssa Kroeger, Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Housing Element Monthly Status Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive the report.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
On December 20, 2023, City Council approved the first amendment to the contract with Rincon Consultants, initiating the preparation of the Housing Element Update (HEU), along with related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Subsequently, City Staff and Rincon Consultants continued/commenced work and provided the seventh monthly progress report update to Council on August 7, 2024. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:
July 29, 2024: Staff provided Rincon with the City’s 2016 Final Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Compliance Plan, as requested.
August 5, 2024: Rincon provided the second amendment request for the Rincon Housing Element contract to staff for review and discussion.
August 6 - 7, 2024: Staff updated the Housing Element webpage with new materials and resources.
August 8, 2024: Housing Element Leadership Team met to discuss the second amendment request to the Rincon Housing Element contract.
August 13, 2024: Rincon delivered the draft Climate Change and Vulnerability Assessment for staff review and provided an updated second amendment request for the Housing Element contract to staff per the August 8th discussion.
August 15, 2024: Rincon submitted July invoice materials to staff.
August 19, 2024: Staff drafted the agenda for the August 22nd check-in meeting to discuss with the Housing Element Team. Staff reviewed Rincon’s July invoice and deliverables. Contract Management. Staff replenished Planning Commissioners' supply of the updated Housing Element Half Sheet Handout (V2) while tabling at the Pacific Grove Farmers’ Market to inform the community about the Draft Housing Element (DHE) and to direct them to the one-stop-shop Housing Element website.
August 20, 2024: Staff distributed the agenda for the August 22nd check-in meeting to the PGCC 9-4-24
August 20, 2024: Staff distributed the agenda for the August 22nd check-in meeting to the Housing Element Team.
August 21, 2024: Rincon provided the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with an email update on the current status of the City’s DHE.
August 22, 2024: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps related to the Housing Element Update (HEU), second contract amendment, and the associated Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Element amendments, as well as the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
August 26, 2024: Staff updated the Housing Element webpage and created table signage for the Planning Commissioners’ Housing Element outreach tabling efforts underway. Staff began drafting the second amendment and related documents for the Rincon Housing Element contract, scheduled for City Council in September.
Housing Element Team includes City Planning, Housing, and City Manager staff, City legal representation, and Rincon/subconsultant staff.
Housing Element Leadership Team includes City Manager, Community Development Director, Housing Program Manager, Rincon Principals-In-Charge, and Rincon Project Managers.
Staff will provide a monthly status update to the Council throughout the process, leading to an adopted and certified Housing Element. For more information, please visit the Housing Element Webpage:
www.cityofpacificgrove.org/HousingElement
OPTIONS
N/A – This is information only.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
PGCC 9-4-24
Agenda No. 8 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Community Goals and Work Plan Review for FY 24-25 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Goals and Work Plan Update.
DISCUSSION
At the April 19, 2023, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted its Areas of Focus, Goals and Milestones for 2023-2025, including a workplan (attached to this agenda report) that details the anticipated delivery dates for the goal milestones by fiscal year quarter. Staff has been consistently working towards the goals and milestones since adoption. The workplan was reviewed by the City Council at the February 28, 2024, City Council Special Goals Meeting and Budget Workshop for current status and to discuss if the Goals and Milestones are still relevant to the priorities of the City Council. The Council opted to continue the work outlined in the workplan through the remainder of this fiscal year and Council term.
Attached is a matrix containing Community Goals by priority area, the milestones, and the progress made through August of 2024. The Goals/Milestones that are gray are completed, the yellow-highlighted items are in progress, and the orange-noted rows are items that the work effort is large enough it will continue after the end of 2024.
OPTIONS
The options available to the City Council:
1. Review the current Work Plan and modify the Plan as necessary: or
2. Provide the City Manager with additional direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to this report. All goals and work efforts noted in the matrix are allocated resources through separate agenda items, capital project, budget line item approvals, or contracts.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
PGCC 9-4-24
Attachments
2023-2025 Community Goals & Work Plan
PGCC 9-4-24
NEW MANDATE GOALS
QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year) LEAD DEPARTMENT
Status
Percentage
Complete Additional Notes
Complete 100%
Q4 FY22/23
Rec/PW /CMO /ASD
YES NO Q4 FY22/23
Rec/PW/CMO
Complete 100%
Ql FY23/24
Rec/PW/CMO Complete 100%
Ql FY23/24
Rec/PW/CMO Complete, Ongoing 100%
YES NO
Expand or reinstate afterschool and recreational activities, including recreation and sports programs.
Q4 FY22/23
Rec/PW/CMO
Partially Complete,
Ongoing 90% Always Ongoing
Revised Ql
FY24/25
ASD/Rec
Draft Complete
95%
Draft Fee study proposed for adoption on
September 4, 2024 City Council Agenda.
Fees have been reviewed thoroughly and
adjustments made to meet this goal.
Revised Ql
FY24/25
ASD/Rec
Draft Complete
95% Draft Fee study proposed for adoption on
September 4, 2024 City Council Agenda
QUARTER Flscalyear
Ql July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-May-June
Same milestones as above.
YES No
Evaluate fees for use/rental of City faclllies (e.g. Chautauqua Hal, etc.) to incentlvlze more use by the community.
Assess facility rental fees and submit new proposed fee schedule to the City Council for consideration.
Implement new fee schedule.
PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove offers robust and accessible recreational and cultural activities for all ages.
MILESTONES FOR 2023
Expand hours and services of the Youth Center
Submit comprehensive recreation plan to City Council for expanded services, activities and programs; receive Council input.
(Plan components include: recruitment strategy, proposed budget including additional FT and Seasonal PT employee hours, expanded hours of operation for all recreational facilities including the Lighthouse. ThePlan will also explain the delta btween 2019 service offerings to what is orooosedl.
Recruit and onboard additional Seasonal PTE (current and expanded summer 2023 programming).
Recruit and onboard additional FTE.
Complete implementation of comprehensive recreation plan (that includes expanding hours, activities and services for the community).
Attachments
Community Goals & Work Plan 2023-25
PGCC 9-4-24
NEW MANDATE GOALS
QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year)
LEAD DEPARTMENT
Status
Percentage
Complete Notes
Revised Q2
FY24/25 PW/ASD/CMO
Partially Completed 90% Staff entered into an agreement with selected contractor to perform the assessment and
received draft reports for the Police, Fire,
City Hall, Youth Center and Public Works
facilities. Reports will be presented to City
Council in Q2 of FY 24/25
Revised Q2
FY24/25 PW/ASD/CMO
No yet initiated 0% Implementation to begin Q3 of FY 24/25 Revised Q2
FY24/25
PW/COO
Initiated 50% City staff released an RFP and proposals
where due May 29th. No proposals had been
received. Staff is seeking alternatives
Revised Q2
FY24/25
PW/CDD Initiated 0% Traffic Safety Commission to hear
presentation from TAMC on SRTS.
Subcommitte with PGUSD also discussing
and hearing presentation on 9/10/24
PW/CDD 0% This action will not take place prior to the end of Q2 23/24
QUARTER Fiscal vear
Ql Julv-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-Mav-June
PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove prioritizes capital needs and maintains community assets NO
Complete Streets Poley: adopt a plan to Implement the design of safe walking paths, sldewalks and bike lanes. Including slgnage.
Retain the services of a qualified firm to assess the City's multi-modal transportation network, including all associated transportation policies and the proposed general plan transportation element, and to draft a Complete Streets Policy and safe routes to school map - specific to the needs of the Pacific Grove community.
Develop and adopt a draft policy and safe routes to school map; shepherd through the Traffic Safety Commission for feedback and public review.
Incorporate policy elements for implementation as a part of subsequent CIP streets infrastructure improvements.
Implement recommendations for the development and adoption of a new Capital Improvement Plan. effective July 1, 2024, including a new asset management program.
MILESTONES FOR 2023
YES NO Enhance the process, prioritization, scheduling and completion of CIP projects.
Select consultant to recommend a new approach for Capital Improvement Program, including the development of asset management schedules, recommended funding and prioritization to address ongoing repair and replacement of City facilities, assets and infrastructure. Select a consultant to develop asset management schedules and recommended funding to address repair and replacement of City facilities, assets and infrastructure as part of defining a new approach to CIP process.
YES
PGCC 9-4-24
NEW MANDATE GOALS
QUARTER OF
COMPLETION (Fiscal
Year) LEAD DEPARTMENT
Status
Percentage
Complete Additional Notes
Revised to
Q2 FY24/25 PW/CDD Partially Completed 90%
RFQ and plans had been released and
proposals had been received in Q1 of
2024/25. The Climate Action Sub -
Committee is reviewing 3 received proposals
and will bring recommendation to Council in
Q2 of FY 24/25
Revised Q2
FY24/25
PW Initiated 90%
Revised Q2
FY24/25 PW Not yet initiated 0%
Q2 of FY 24/25
Q4 FY23/24 PW
Completed 100%
Staff hosted a community tree planting event
and planted 50 trees associated with Arbor
day. Staff has planted numerous other trees
throughout town and in GW park.
Q4 FY22/23 CMO/CDD Completed Proposal was too high, considering revisings to the RFP to lower costs
NO NO Protect Wldllfe and Habitat. Revised Q2
FY24/25
CDD/CMO Initiated Pending new RFP above or Council
appropriation of $300,000
CDD/CMO
This action will not take place prior to the end
of Q2 23/24
Q4 FY22/23
PW Initiated 70%
Study expected to be completed in Q3 of
2024/25
NO NO
Review, update and implement George Washington Park Master Plan.
Revised Ql
FY24/25
MFD/PW
Complete 100%
The final CWPP report is available online:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/cwpp
PW/MFD
Initiated
Improvements consistent with the GWP
master plan commenced in September 2024.
Improvements were halted at the request of
the Council & BNRC; Until an updated plan
is approved or alternative direction provided,
only required maintenance for safety will be
executed. Will not be completed prior to end
of Q2 24/25
QUARTER Fiscal year
Ql July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-Mav-June
Release a public draft of LCP amendments for review and City Council adoption; submit to California Coastal Commission for LCP Amendment.
Hire a consultant to conduct biological assessment of GWP in order to update and recommend implementation measures of the GWP master plan.
PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove Implements environmentally sustainable practices that protect wildlife and the coastal community. '.
PD/CMO
Receive and review Monterey Fire Department's Community Wildfire Protection Plan for impact to GWP (harmonize and align).
Implement Council adopted policies for GWP Master Plan in alignment with approved City Council direction.
Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed by the BNRC.
YES NO
Initiate and complete a Citywide Tree Improvement and Management Plan (e.g., planting In pubic areas,
sustainable tree maintenance and removal strategies, review and replacement of non-native plants and species,etc.).
Complete comprehensive Title 12 revisions; revisions focus on replanting compliance and tree appeal process; to be reviewed City Council.
Plant and maintain (e.g., additional labor) 150 native trees on public property and public right-of-way.
Train CSOs in wildlife protection.
Draft and issue RFQ for Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments.
Review and rank RFQ responses: make recommendation for City Council to award contract.
MILESTONES FOR 2023
YES NO Initiate and Complete a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
Receive recommendations from City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Subcommittee to authorize funds for a consultant: present to BNRC and then City Council for review and additional input.
Present proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to BNRC and This action will not take place prior to the end then City Council for review and adoption. of Q2 23/24
Reviewed by BNRC in January, April and
July of 2024. Staff is finalizing the document
and plans to bring it to Council in Q2 of FY
24/25
PW/CDD
PD is working with Good City (consultant)
on this matter. Training will also be provided
by MB Aquarium staff. (PD is waiting for
the Aquarium to identify staff to train CSO's
on the coastal wildlife. CSO's are continuing
to collect data on calls for service regarding
wildlife and coastal contacts initiated by the
CSOs. This data is to be turned over to the
consultant at the end of 2024).
Initiated
Revised Q2 FY24/25
PGCC 9-4-24
NEW MANDATE GOALS
QUARTER OF
COMPLETION {Fiscal
Year}
LEAD
DEPARTMENT Status
Percentage
Complete Notes
Initiated, Ongoing 20%
Q3 FY23/24 Ongoing
Q3 FY23/24
CDD
Complete, Ongoing 100% The Planning Commission considered the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element on October 5th
and 12th, and made recommendations. These
recommendations were brought forward to
Council on October 18th.
NOP issued on January 26, 2024 for the
preparation of the EIR. EIR Scoping Session
was held with the Planning Commission on
February 15, 2024. Staff and consultant work on
the DEIR is underway.
Q3 FY23/24
CDD
Complete 100% Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on November 1, 2023. City received formal
HCD comments on January 31, 2024. Staff and
consultant are reviewing HCD comments and
preparing revisions to the Draft Housing Element
accordingly. Working to identify alternative
sites/methods to meet RHNA after the removal
of the three "Unclassified" sites. Alt
sites/methods were presented to PC on June 13,
2024 and CC on July 17, 2024. Rincon and staff
are preparing a revised Draft Housing Element to
be submitted to HCD in Fall 2024.
Revised Q2 FY 24/25
CDD
Ongoing
60%
Likely summer 2025.
Revised Q2
FY 24/25 CDD
Ongoing To follow certified Housing Element
YES YES Initiate a feaslblllty and site selection process for the design and construction of an affordable housing project
Revised FY 2024/25
CDD
Ongoing To follow certified Housing Element
Revised FY 2024/25
CDD
Ongoing To follow certified Housing Element
QUARTER Fiscal year
Ql July-Aug-Sept
Q2 Oct-Nov-Dec
Q3 Jan-Feb-March
Q4 April-Mav-June
PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
POLICY VALUE STATEMENT: Pacific Grove supports a diversity of affordable housing opportunities.
Present findings and staff recommendations to City Council for direction.
Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission, including DEIR (if necessary).
Submit draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for comments.
Prepare and present draft 6th Cycle Housing Element to the City Council for final adoption and EIR certification (if necessary).
Prepare 6th Cycle Housing Element draft with Rincon Consultants to deteremine an inventory of feasible development sites for affordable housing.
Determine outside developers' interest in sites selected in Housing Element to develop affordable housing.
City Council review and consideration of preferred site, including selection of preferred market and/or non-profit developer.
MILESTONES FOR 2023
Review, audit and conduct field visits for prior second unit report.
NO YES Complete Housing Element Update (MANDATED}
Integrate HCD revisions into the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element YES NO Explore and assess the grandfathering of existing nonconforming ADU's CDD
Ongoing 80%
May best be addressed on a case-by-case basis
with the Building, Planning, and Housing
Departments in collaboration as inquiries come
in to CDD
Q3 FY23/24
CDD
CDD
PGCC 9-4-24
Agenda No. 8 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Water Allocation Update for 520 Lighthouse Avenue Mixed-Use Project CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
DISCUSSION
Municipal Code Section 11.68 governs the City's water distribution regulations. In 2019, water became available and the City was able to begin the sale of water allocations to individual properties/projects.
In July 2020, the City issued a Promissory Note to sell and transfer approximately 3.5725 acre-feet of water entitlements to a large-scale mixed-use project located at 520 Lighthouse Avenue. The project included 10 residential condominium units along with ground floor commercial uses. To date, six of the ten residential condominium units have been sold and the City has collected $375,000 ($62,500 per unit). There are four remaining residential units that will need to secure and pay for their water allocations prior to final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy.
Associated water allocation reports were provided to City Council on April 21, 2021 and January 19, 2022.
OPTIONS
Direct staff to take additional or alternative action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact in receiving the report.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
520 Lighthouse Avenue Condo Sales
PGCC 9-4-24
Unit # Status Date to Title
Co.
Rcvd
Recorded
Finaled by
Bldg.
Appendix A
to Finance
201 Sold 6/6/2024 6/14/2024 yes yes Recorded
202203 Sold 6/25/2024 7/9/2024 yes yes Recorded
204205 Sold 11/15/2023 11/15/2023 yes yes Recorded
301302303 Sold 5/21/2024 5/24/2024 yes yes Recorded
304 Sold 8/1/2023 8/1/2023 yes yes Recorded
305 Sold 6/29/2023 no record yes yes Recorded
6/18/2024
11/15/2023
5/20/2024
8/1/2023
6/28/2023
6/5/2024
520 Lighthouse Avenue Condos
Date to City
Mgr.
Page: 1 of 1
PGCC 9-4-24
Agenda No. 8 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Smith, Mayor Pro Tem
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Monterey One Water Board of Directors 2024 Mid-Year Highlights CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
Attachments
Mid - year M1W
PGCC 9-4-24
Board of Directors: 2024 Mid-Year Highlights
Wastewater Infrastructure
Monterey One Water continues to prioritize the maintenance and improvement of its infrastructure. A selection of critical infrastructure projects designed to ensure reliable conveyance and treatment of wastewater in progress throughout Q1 and Q2 included:
• Monterey & Seaside Pump Stations Upgrades (reliable conveyance) • Headworks Bypass Project (Regional Treatment Plant update) • Secondary Clarifier #1 & 2 Drive Replacement (Regional Treatment Plant update) Regional Collaboration
• The City of Salinas owns and operates the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility where agricultural processors discharge their industrial wastewater along with some urban runoff . Due to severe winter weather and potential flooding that occurred throughout winter 2024, the facility become inoperable and M1W was able to divert agricultural processing water to its Regional Treatment Plant for treatment and safe disposal (Feb-April 2024). • Staff will be working with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (WRA) to review the findings of a financial audit related to the production and distribution of recycled water for agriculture irrigation and river water. The terms of the Amended and Restated Water Recycling Agreement are ambiguous and the agencies will be collaborating to create greater clarity and transparency related to indirect costs and internal controls.
Pure Water Monterey
The Pure Water Monterey Project continues to perform as designed, meeting the strict state and federal water quality parameters outlined in its permit requirements.
• In Fiscal Year 2024, the Agency produced 3,819 AF of purified water for the potable water supply via groundwater replenishment. 3,500 AF supports the current water supply while 319 AF is stored in the groundwater basin for future use.
• An Expansion of Pure Water Monterey is underway. Construction remains on track for operation by the end of 2025. Critical purification equipment is scheduled to begin arriving this fall with electrical equipment to be delivered starting in December 2024. To date, the Expansion Project has received ~$42 million in grants from state and federal sources. This will directly offset construction costs.
Renewable Energy
• The Monterey Renewable Energy and Electrical Utility Reliability Study was finalized in spring of 2024. This joint effort with ReGen Monterey, the neighboring solid waste and reuse district, assessed the ‘highest and best use of wastes and waste by-products’ of the two agencies. The goals of the effort are to 1) reduce GHGs through the capture and productive use of landfill and digester methane gas; 2) support California legislation on organics diversion and clean energy generation; and 3) create a reliable, sustainable energy portfolio for M1W and ReGen that eliminates power interruptions and reliance on the California Independent System Operators grid. • M1W is also pursuing consultant support to optimize tax incentives made available through the federal government’s Inflation Reduction Act for construction related to renewable energy progress.
Administration
• Monterey One Water's Residential Low-Income Sewer Assistance Program offers reduced service fees for qualifying residential customers. Program parameters were expanded for fiscal year 2024-2025 and enrollment in the program increased 65%. The 2024-2025 is currently full, but enrollment is annual, based on Board allocation of funds, and enrollment will reopen in 2025 for the next fiscal year. • Monterey One Water’s billing process will continue to be bi-monthly and will not move to your property tax statement. Although the Board of Directors unanimously approved the initial implementation, final ratification by the Board did not receive the required 2/3 majority support. Boronda, City of Monterey, and Moss Landing jurisdictions opted to move their wastewater collection fees to the property tax statement; M1W will no longer bill for those fees.
PGCC 9-4-24
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: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Promissory Note and Agreement for 157 Grand Avenue CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a new Promissory Note and Agreement with IC PG Property Owner, LLC for water entitlement for the hotel project at 157 Grand Avenue (APN 006-173-002), accelerating the water entitlement payment by 12-months and revising the project ownership.
DISCUSSION
The Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) sets forth water distribution rules in Title 11. Chapter 11.68 governs Water Entitlement processes by which potable water made available by funding and operation of the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (PGLWP) are available for sale. The City began sales of entitlement water in July 2019.
At the September 1, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance 21-023 to approve a code change to 11.68.040 Entitlement Water to enable Promissory Agreements associated with payment of entitlement water sales. Per PGMC 11.68.040 (c), City Council approval shall be required for the City to enter into any promissory agreement related to payment for entitlement of water. The maximum amount payable pursuant to the promissory agreement shall not exceed 90 percent of the purchase price with a 10 percent deposit required at the time of the execution of the agreement.
The new hotel at 157 Grand Avenue currently under construction (The PG Hotel) requested approval to defer the payment of the water entitlement, due to the scale of the project. The project had a water demand of 8.816 acre-feet and was required to pay the PGLWP $1,542,800.00 for the water allocation. On February 2, 2022, the City Council approved a Promissory Agreement with Rohnert Park RI LP, Belvnus, LLC, Travel Inn Associates, LP, and Mohammad Rezfor for the deferred water allocation payment until the issuance of the final occupancy permit. This was projected to occur in December of 2025.
The project was sold to IC PG Property Owner, LLC, on May 19, 2023. The new owner further refined the project and the water demands were adjusted downward due to the removal of a spa, dining capacity, and the number of rooms. The resulting water demand calculation now equals 6.355 acre feet, a reduction of 2.461 acre-feet. This reduction will allow the PGLWP additional supply to assist other projects in need of additional water supply.
PGCC 9-4-24
The new Promissory Note and Agreement holds the same terms as the initial agreement, but accelerates the payment for water allocation by one year from December 2025 to December 27, 2024. The new Promissory Note and Agreement also documents the new ownership as the other party instead of the initial project owner.
OPTIONS
Do not approve Promissory Note and Agreement. This action is not recommended as the advantages of the new Promissory Note and Agreement would not be realized. The Council may direct the City Manager to take alternative action as well.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The initial Promissory Note and Agreement entered on February 2, 2022, with Rohnert Park RI LP, Belvnus, LLC, Travel Inn Associates, LP, and Mohammad Rez, allowed the developer of a large project, as defined in PGMC 11.68.040, to leverage financing so that the large financial outlay associated with the purchase of water can be deferred until the time of final inspection and certificate of occupancy. The initial water allocation of the 2022 Promissory Note and Agreement was for 8.816 acre-feet for a cost of $1,542,800. An initial deposit of $154,280 (10%) was paid as required. The final 90% payment in the amount of $1,388,520 was required to be paid prior to issuance of the final occupancy permit.
The project was sold to IC PG Property Owner, LLC, on May 19, 2023. Subsequently, the project designs were refined and the water demands adjusted downward accordingly as a spa was removed, dining capacity reduced and the number of rooms reduced. The resulting water demand calculation now equals 6.355 acre feet, a reduction of 2.461 acre-feet. This reduction also results in a lower overall water purchase price of $1,112,125. With the 10% deposit on file credited, the final water purchase payment due on December 27, 2024, is $957,845.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Promissory Note and Agreement
PGCC 9-4-24
PROMISSORY NOTE AND AGREEMENT
(Project Name)
$957,845.00 Pacific Grove, California
________________, 2024
This Promissory Note and Agreement (“Note”) is dated August __, 2024, by and between the CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, a California charter city (“City”) and IC PG PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Owner”) and is made in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below.
Recitals
1. Pursuant to that certain Grant Deed, dated May 17, 2023, and recorded on May 19, 2023, as Document No. 2023015332, in the official records of Monterey County, Rohnert Park RI LP, Belvnus LLC, Travel Inn Associates LP, and Durrell Pacific Grove LLC, conveyed to Owner the property located at 157 Grand Avenue, in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California (APN No. 006-173-002) (the “Property”);
2. On September 8, 2023, City issued to Owner a building permit to commence construction of a hotel project on the Property;
3. On May 28, 2024, City granted to Owner a Water Entitlement of 6.355 acre-feet per year (“Water Entitlement”) dedicated to the Property, pursuant to the ASSIGNMENT OF A PORTION OF MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULE 23.9 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE WATER ENTITLEMENT (“Assignment”), subject to the payment therefor; and
4. Pursuant to the Assignment, Owner owes City $957,845.00 to fully pay for the Water Entitlement.
Agreements
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Owner promises to pay to the City, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of Nine Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred FortyFive and 00/100 Dollars ($957,845.00), as further discussed hereinbelow, in accordance with the terms and conditions described herein.
1. Owner agrees to pay City $957,845.00 in full, on or prior to December 27, 2024.
2. This Note shall accrue interest at the rate of zero percent (0%) per annum provided Owner is not in default hereunder. Should Owner be in default under the terms of this Note, interest on the unpaid principal of this Note shall accrue interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum.
3. To the extent applicable, Owner shall maintain its corporate existence in good standing in California. Owner shall maintain in force all licenses, approvals, and agreements, the loss of which could have a material adverse effect as to the performance on this Note. Owner shall provide to City a Certificate of Good Standing from the appropriate authority, PGCC 9-4-24
submitted within ten (10) days upon request by City, certifying that Owner is in good standing to conduct business within the State of California.
4. All sums remaining unpaid under this Note shall become immediately due and payable, at City’s option, upon ten (10) calendar days’ notice without further demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, on the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. Owner’s failure to make any payment when due under the terms of this Note; b. The filing of a petition in bankruptcy by, or the initiation of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws against the Owner;
c. Upon expiration or revocation of the building permit associated with the Property; or;
d. If any interest in the Property is sold, transferred or conveyed to any person, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
5. Upon any event of default referenced above, City may at City’s option, upon ten (10) days’ calendar notice without further notice, demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, may revoke in full or in part, the Water Entitlement. In the event that City revokes the Water Entitlement, Owner shall be under no obligation to pay the principal or any interest on this Note.
6. City shall have the right to be fully reimbursed by Owner for all of its costs and expenses to the extent not prohibited by applicable law, including but not limited to, outside collection agencies and reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred to collect amounts due under this Note.
7. If any action is commenced which arises out of or related to this Note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and expenditures in the action, in addition to costs and expenditures otherwise allowed by law. Recovery of these fees or expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding. In any matter arising out of or relating to the bankruptcy of Owner prior to the payment in full of this Note, Owner agrees to pay all of City’s costs and expenditures, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees, which may be incurred in enforcing or protecting City’s rights and interests.
8. No failure of delay by City in exercising City’s rights under this Note shall be considered a waiver of such rights.
9. Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be given in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (c) by facsimile or email, or (d) by a commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and such notices shall be made to CITY and OWNER at the addresses listed below.
10. Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this Note must be in writing and signed by City and Owner. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Note.
11. City and Owner shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in performing under this Agreement and Note.
PGCC 9-4-24
12. This Note shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.
Venue for any action shall be in the County of Monterey.
13. This Note may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Note.
14. Any individual executing this Note on behalf of City or Owner represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Note on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Note.
15. This Note, including the exhibits and any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire agreement between City and Owner with respect to the subject matter of this Note and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between City and Owner as of the effective date which is the date that City signs this Note.
16. If any of the provisions contained in this Note are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Note as of the day and year written below.
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
ADDRESS: ___________________
____________________
Email: __________________________
BY: _______________________________
As approved to form: City Attorney
DATE: __________________________
By: ____________________________
City Manager
DATE: __________________________
By: _____________________________
Mayor
DATE: ___________________________
PGCC 9-4-24
IC PG PROPERTY OWNER, LLC
ADDRESS: 8084 S. Wallace Ct., Suite A
Englewood, CO 80112
Email: Gary. [email protected]
By: PACIFIC GROVE INVESTORS, LLC
As MANAGER
By: _____________________________
Gary Roffe, Manager
DATE: ___________________________
PGCC 9-4-24
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: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
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
3. 4. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION
On August 21, 2024, the Council adopted Resolution 24-037 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 2024, 2025 and 2026. The salary increases and the effective dates are listed below.
1. 3% salary increase effective July 7, 2024; and
2. 3% salary increase effective the first full pay period in July 2025; and
3. 3% salary increase effective the first full pay period in July 2026.
Additionally, as part of the MOU, the salary step percentage between steps 5 and 6 and steps 6 and 7, will increase from 3.75% to 5%.
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 implement the salary change for the first increase of 3% effective July 7, 2024.
PGCC 9-4-24
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. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City’s website, http://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/about-city/human-resources/salaries-benefits-and-mous 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 53.53 56.21 59.02 61.97 65.07 67.51 70.04 New Hourly Police Sergeant 55.14 57.89 60.79 63.83 67.02 70.37 73.89
Current Hourly Police Officer 46.33 48.65 51.08 53.63 56.32 58.43 60.62 New Hourly Police Officer 47.72 50.11 52.61 55.24 58.01 60.91 63.95
OPTIONS
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The projected annual fiscal impact to the General Fund is listed below:
Year 1
FY 24/25
$114,478 is budgeted for the 3% COLA. $36,000 will need to be amended in the budget for the percentage increase amounts between steps 5 and 6, and steps 6 and 7.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 9-4-24
ORDINANCE NO. 24-
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 new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Pacific Grove Police Officer Association; and
2. The MOU is effective from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027; and
3. The MOU contains three salary adjustments; and
4. The first salary adjustment takes effect on July 7, 2024; and
5. The second salary adjustment takes effect the first full pay period of July 2025; and
6. The third salary adjustment takes effect the first full pay period of July 2026; and
7. Modifications to the salary classification plan are for Police Officer and Police Sergeant Classifications only; and
8. Modifications to the salary classification plan must be amended for each described date; and
9. 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
10. The City Council ratified the MOU and its implementation measures, including salary adjustment; and 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, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
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 9-4-24
City Of Pacific Grove
ProposedNew Salary Schedule - POA Hourly Rate
Eff. Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
July 7, 2024 524-001 Police Sergeant 55.14 57.89 60.79 63.83 67.02 70.37 73.89 Eff. Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
July 7, 2024 516-001 Police Officer 47.72 50.11 52.61 55.24 58.01 60.91 63.95 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 7, 2024.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this day of September 2024, 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 9-4-24
Agenda No. 11 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jessie Catacutan, Interim Administrative Services Director MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Cost of Services (User Fee) Study – August 2024 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the FY 24-25 Recommended Fees (Attachment III) and Resolution No. 24-XXX (Attachment IV) to create and adopt the City’s FY 24-25 Master Fee Schedule.
1. Direct the City Manager to propose an increase in fees for City Council consideration using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a cap of 5%, in May of each of the next three years.
2. DISCUSSION
At the City Council Meeting on February 1, 2023, the Council directed staff to approve the contract with Matrix Consulting Group (MCG) for proposals to develop a Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study. The goal of the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) was to provide a comprehensive analysis identifying the appropriate distribution of citywide administrative and overhead costs to all City operating departments, divisions, and programs. The analysis included developing an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-Compliant CAP to satisfy the requirements established by OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribe Governments, Title 2 CFR 225; and a Full Cost Allocation Plan to allocate central support departments to operating functions. The OMB-Compliant CAP can be used to support the reimbursement of indirect costs on Federal and State grants, while the Full CAP can be used to establish indirect costs between departments and overhead rates. The Full CAP served as part of the foundation for the Fee Study. The last Fee Study, also the first one for the city, was completed in April 2018 and was presented to City Council on May 2, 2018.
The Fee Study used a widely accepted “bottom-up” approach to cost analysis. Department representatives were asked to identify the positions and the amount of time spent on each individual fee activity. This information, along with the City’s budgeted salaries, benefits, allowable expenditures, and the indirect costs identified in the CAP were used to establish the “full cost” of providing a service.
Each department reviewed the inputs prior to finalizing the attached report (Attachment I). It should be noted that the fee study does not include rates for the rental or sale of land or property; however, it does provide a formula to assist in cost recovery for land use related to filming. All land and property sales or rentals are not limited to the cost recovery principles associated with fees, as they can be sold or leased at market rate.
The table below provides budget, estimated revenue (unaudited) and percent of revenue generated by PGCC 9-4-24
The table below provides budget, estimated revenue (unaudited) and percent of revenue generated by each unit for FY 23-24. We have only included units that have generated over $10,000 (see note below). A projected 5% overall increase in Revenue for FY24-25 would be $205,000.
The City Council adopted Fees, Charges, and Cost Recovery Policy (No. 400-4 – Attachment II). The purpose of the policy is to guide the City Council’s establishment of fees for service, fines, and other charges for service, in order to help ensure consistency in fee setting rationale. The policy is intended to provide broad guidance for service areas, without providing detailed guidance for all fee categories.
Staff has reviewed each proposed fee discussed in this report both individually and collectively per service area to ensure the proposed fees meet the intent of the policy while maintaining cost recovery levels for the service area as a whole. The table below is a summary of the 2024 overall cost recovery based on proposed fees and a summary of the city cost recovery policy by each respective unit. In addition, the bar chart below demonstrates the full compliance of the proposed fees with the minimum percentage of cost recovery from city policy No. 400-4.
PGCC 9-4-24
It is important to note that individual fees may be higher or lower than the recommended cost recovery for a service area. For example, Planning and Building (Community Development) fee may be achieving 100% cost recovery while another is achieving 70 %. Collectively, they are above the 80% cost recovery goal, but the fees are adjusted based on staff experience, reasonableness of the increase from the last study, or other factors.
It has been six years since the previous study and many variables have changed. Certain fees, primarily in Community Development, are seeing larger increases as a result. Driving the increases are rising operational costs since 2018, and the fact that the 2018 study did not include certain administrative overhead costs. Taking the approach of understanding the full cost of a service requires the administrative overhead to be considered.
The details in Attachment III study reflects the current fees (citywide), the full-cost of fees needed to recover costs from the 2024 user fee study and the staff recommended fees that will be used to update the FY 24-25 City’s Fee Master Schedule. The proposed fees were increased or decreased according to the total cost from the 2024 user fee study except for Cemetery site sales. Below in this report is a further explanation about Cemetery site sales fees.
The City Council’s Community Goals and Work Plan contains a goal to “Evaluate fees for the use/rental of City facilities.” This study was an opportunity to look closer at the costs associated with providing the use and rental of City facilities and revise as appropriate. The result is a staff recommended reduction in the majority of fees associated with the rental of City facilities, as shown in Attachment III, page 40. In addition, staff has revised and/or proposed moderate increases compared to the cost for Parks and Recreation program fees as shown on Page 36 of Attachment III to remain competitive and for the best interest of the community we serve.
The Cemetery site sales total cost was based on buying new land. Staff recommends a 10% increase and not increasing by almost 200% based on total cost to remain competitive (see picture below for example). Should the city acquire additional plots from the Methodist Church or construct a new mausoleum, the city’s cost will increase and these site prices will need to be reevaluated.
PGCC 9-4-24
While the Council has adopted a cost recovery policy (No. 400-4), the Council may adopt a lower fee to encourage or acknowledge community stewardship. An example could be a dog license fee that offers a reduced rate for an altered pet ($25 vs $55 with the same cost). This would be consistent with the City’s existing fee structure.
Additional information in the report includes policy considerations, referencing industry indexes for annual updates, a sample schedule for formal fee updates and a special Filming Fee supplement.
OPTIONS
· Take an alternative action and provide direction to the City Manager.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this report (additional revenue generated to be determined based on final fees approved).
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Attachment I - User Fee Study Report
Attachment II - City Cost Recovery Policy No. 400-4
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Proposed User Fees
Attachment IV - Resolution No. 24-XXX FY 24-25 Master Fee Schedule PGCC 9-4-24
Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT
August 2024
Attachment I
PGCC 9-4-24
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 4
3. User Fee Study Methodology 8
4. Results Overview 11
5. General Administration 12
6. City Clerk 14
7. Cemetery 16
8. Planning 20
9. Building 26
10. Fire 31
11. Library 32
12. Point Pinos Lighthouse 33
13. Local Water Project 34
14. Police 35
15. Public Works 38
16. Parks and Recreation 41
17. Cost Recovery Considerations 47
Appendix – Comparative Survey 51
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 1
1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Pacific Grove, California.
Project Background and Overview
The City of Pacific Grove last conducted a formal fee study in 2018 and has since updated fees based upon annual inflationary factors. The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate time and cost assumptions from the 2018 analysis and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing City services based upon the current organizational structure and processes. Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Administrative Services, Planning, Building, Police, Public Works and Cemetery, and Parks and Recreation. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.
General Project Approach and Methodology
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:
Table 1: Overview of Cost Components
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2024 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.
Indirect Program, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.
Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a particular service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged.
The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 2
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items.
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2024 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model. • Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established.
• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department and City management has reviewed and approved these documented results.
A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.
Summary of Results
Overall, the detailed documentation of the Study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide Departments and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service.
The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.
Considerations for Cost Recovery Policy and Updates
Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to make any necessary updates to their formal cost recovery policies and continue with their annual updates to fees for service. The following subsections highlight the importance of reviewing and updating these policies.
1 Formal Cost Recovery Policy
The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 3
the full cost or partial costs of providing services sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge or fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision.
Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City review current policies and make adjustments based on current and projected goals. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.
2 Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis.
GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases. It is recommended the City continue its current practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every three to five years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, code amendments, and new service areas.
In between comprehensive updates, the City should continue to utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism ensures that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect growth in costs.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 4
2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview of legal rules and regulations as well as general policy considerations regarding fees for service. A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218, State Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged”.
General Principles and Philosophies Regarding User Fees Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities.
While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:
Table 2: Services in Relation to Benefit Received
“Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit • Police
• Park Maintenance
• Fire Suppression
• Recreation / Community
Services
• Fire Prevention
• Building Permits
• Planning and Zoning Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Engineering Development
Review
• Facility Rentals
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 5
group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.
The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large.
• A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees.
In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.
Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.
General Policy Considerations Regarding User Fees
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received.
Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee at all. An example includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents and / or transportation permits.
• Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for charging a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 6
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual.
Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.
The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law.
Parks and Recreation Specific Regulations
Specific rules and regulations within Proposition 26 impact Parks and Recreation related activities directly. These regulations note that Parks and Recreation stands apart from other departments and services, as users are not compelled to participate in recreation programs, or to utilize rental facilities. As such, Parks and Recreation fees can be set based on market rates including both private sector providers as well as other public entities. The regulatory exceptions can be separated into two categories – rental rates and recreation programs. The following points provide further information regarding these items:
1. Rental Rates: One of the exceptions to the tax category under Proposition 26 is a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property1. There is no requirement that these rates must be limited to the cost of service, as they can be dependent upon a variety of features of the facility or park being rented.
2. Recreation Programs: Under Proposition 26, the exception to the tax category is a charge that is “imposed”. Based upon the League of California Cities implementation guide for Proposition 26, as well as other legal opinions, recreation classes, youth sports, adult sports, are not a charge that is “imposed upon residents”. Rather residents have the option to voluntarily participate in those programs and utilize a private entity (non-governmental entity) for those activities.
Therefore, these rates are allowed to be set based upon the market options within the area rather than being restricted to the cost of service being provided.
Utilizing these two principals is key to understanding the results generated through this analysis. As such, when setting fees specific to Parks and Recreation, fees do not need to be set at or under the cost of service, rather, fee amounts can and should be based upon the rates that the market can bear.
1 Proposition 26 Article XIII C(1)(e)(4)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 7
Summary of Legal Restrictions and Policy Considerations Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount.
The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. The City will need to review all fees for service in this analysis and where subsidies are identified increase them to reduce the deficit, and where over-recoveries are identified the fee must be reduced to comply with the law.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 8
3. User Fee Study Methodology
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that the cost is calculated for each fee or line-item individually based upon the level of effort associated with that service / fee. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:
The following subsections discuss the two components of the basis of the full cost.
Time Estimation
Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates. The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis. • Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service.
• Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department / division, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates are not based on time and motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no overallocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.
Time Assumption by
Position
Fully Burdened Hourly
Rate Total Cost
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 9
Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service while meeting the requirements of California law.
The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and complex projects, Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner. • Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.
Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The fully burdened hourly rates calculated through this study include the following components:
• Salaries: FY24 Budgeted salaries were utilized and consolidated at the positional level.
• Benefits: FY24 Budgeted benefits were utilized and consolidated at the positional level.
• Productive Hours: Based upon the bargaining agreements and memorandum of understanding (MOU), working or productive hours were calculated. This means PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 10
taking the 2,080 starting hours and reducing the hours by vacation, sick, holidays, trainings, and administrative leave.
• Departmental / Divisional Overhead: This captures any internal service charges or operating supply costs such as vehicles, supplies, etc. Additionally, this component includes the cost associated with support from Director, Administrative and Analytical staff that do not directly work on fees. • Citywide Overhead: This captures support provided by City Council, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Finance, and IT. The costs are based upon the FY24 indirect cost allocation plan.
Together these components result in the generation of fully burdened hourly rates by position / classification and / or department / division. These rates were multiplied against the time assumptions to calculate the full cost of services noted in this report.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 11
4. Results Overview
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community, and to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.
It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement.
In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time”, where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.
Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable). • Annualized Results: utilizing annual projected estimates of fee-related activities overall annual subsidies and revenue impacts were projected.
The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 12
5. General Administration
Fees included in the General Administrations section of the City’s fee schedule represent services provided or administered by staff in the Finance Department, or that can be applicable to citywide services such as credit card fees. These services include photocopies, notary services, agenda copies, Business License Administration, City Hall Facility Rentals, and fuel sales. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detailed unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Finance and Administrative staff the only modification proposed was to relocate ‘Transient Use Licenses’ from the Planning fee schedule to the General Administration fee schedule, as Finance staff process these licenses.
Detailed Results
The City collect fees for a variety of services such as film applications, business licenses, and city hall rentals. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 3: Total Cost Per Unit Results – General Administration Fee Name Unit Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Special Services Each Actual Costs
Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or
Hard Copy) Per Page $0.25 $0.25 $0
Digital Production (CD, DVD, Flash Drives) of PRA
Information Each Actual Costs
Notary Services2 Per Page $15 $15 $0
Returned Check Processing3
1st Check Each $22 $25 ($3)
2nd and Subsequent Checks Each $22 $35 ($13)
Credit Card Payment Processing Fee
$1.00 - $50.00 Each $2 $2 $0
$50.01 - $100.00 Each $3 $3 $0
$100.01 - $200.00 Each $5 $5 $0
Greater than $200.01 Each 4% 4% $0
Annual Reports
Copies of Annual Budget or Financial Reports Each Actual Costs 2 Government Code 8211
3 CIV § 1719(a)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 13
Fee Name Unit Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Business License Administration Fee
If paid by August 1 (on time payment/standard) Per License $22 $46 ($24) If paid after August 1 (late payment) Per License $49 $46 $3
TRANSIENT USE LICENSES
Initial STR Application Review Each $413 $141 $272
Application Renewal Each $253 $97 $156
Annual License Each $680 $124 $556
Home Sharing License Annual Renewal Each $191 $332 ($141) Initial Home Sharing License Application Review Each $349 $81 $268 Transient License Change or Reprint Fee Each $32 $26 $6 City Hall Rentals
Security Deposit (SECURITY) Per Rental $70 $70 $0
Clean-up Fee Per Rental Actual Costs
Special Audio-Visual Equipment Use Deposit $280 $280 $0 Council Chambers – first four hours of use
First four hours First 4 hours $148 $377 ($229)
Per hour after four hours Per Hour $37 $94 ($57)
Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four
hours
First four hours First 4 hours $58 $75 ($17)
Per hour after four hours Per Hour $15 $19 ($4)
City Manager Conference Room – first four hours
First four hours First 4 hours $116 $151 ($35)
Per hour after four hours Per Hour $30 $38 ($8)
Fuel Sales
Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10%
Tobacco License4
Tobacco Retailer License Each $386 $407 ($21)
Filming Fees
Minor Film Permit per permit $162 $183 ($21)
Mid-Level Film Permit per permit $549 $629 ($80)
Major Film Permit per permit $893 $1,107 ($214)
Land Lease for Filming Per SQFT / Hour $0.15 $0.24 ($0.09) Late Payments
Late Payment Fee Minimum $25 $25 $0
Overall, the City is generally recovering for the general administrative services provided.
Costs associated with Transient Use Licenses have significantly decreased due to the change in application processing, which no longer requires Planning staff time. Fees which are set by State agencies, including notary, returned check, and tobacco licensing should be set in alignment with current amounts.
4 Set by Monterey County Environmental Health Department PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 14
6. City Clerk
The City Clerk is responsible for a wide variety of functions and services that support both other city departments and residents and visitors. Certain services provided are assessed fees, such as public records requests, candidate statement filings, and document certification. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detailed unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with City Clerk staff, it was proposed to remove the ‘Agenda Only’ Miscellaneous fee, as staff no longer provide these services due to online availability of documents. It was also proposed that ‘Marriage Solemnization’ be added as a new fee.
Detailed Results
The City Clerk collect fees for a variety of certification, election, and miscellaneous services. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 4: Total Cost Per Unit Results – City Clerk
Fee Name Unit Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Clerk Certification
Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or Proof of Life per signature $15 $15 $0
Certification of Documents
per
document $15 $15 $0
Public Records5
Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white
(ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and economic statements) per page $0.25 $0.10 $0
Elections
Nomination Papers Filing Fee6 per filing $25 $25 $0
Candidates Statement Filing per filing
Set by
County N/A
Intent to File Initiative7 per filing $200 $200 $0
Late filing fee per late day $10 $10 $0
5 Public Records Act
6 Election Code Section 10228
7 Election Code Section 9202(b)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 15
Fee Name Unit Current Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Miscellaneous
Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) per request Actual
Costs
Actual
Costs N/A
Appeal Fee (Beautification, Traffic Commission, all others not listed elsewhere) per appeal $46 $46 ($0)
Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and Minutes
per
subscription $30 $136 ($106)
Marriage Solemnization per request New $25 N/A
Many of the services provided by the City Clerk have fees set by the State. For services for which the State does not impose a fee – Appeals and Agenda subscriptions, the City is either at cost recovery, or subsidizing services by $106.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 16
7. Cemetery
The El Carmelo Cemetery has been part of the City’s history since the 1800’s, with City staff responsible for maintaining this cherished final resting place. City staff are responsible for all services provided at the cemetery, including site sales, market and plaque placements, and mausoleum inurnment. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detailed unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussing the current fee structure for Cemetery fees, the only revisions staff felt were needed related to the renaming of certain fees to better reflect locations and services.
For example, ‘Unit 1 – Mausoleum’ was renamed to ‘Historic Site Unit 1 – Mausoleum’ to better denote where and what type of site unit one represents. These wording changes will better help the community understand the types of sites and areas available.
Detailed Results
Services provided by the Cemetery fall into three main categories: Site Sales, Endowment, and Labor Charges and Deed Processing. The following subsections provide detailed unit results for the various services that fall within each of these categories. 1 Site Sales
The City collects fees for the sale of burial urn, and inurnment sites. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, land costs, and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 5: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Cemetery (Site Sales) Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Single Burial Site
Adult Each $5,048 $14,267 ($9,219)
Child Each $2,526 $7,139 ($4,613)
Double Garden Crypt-In Ground Each $8,744 $24,714 ($15,970) Urn Garden
Double-In Ground Each $3,772 $10,661 ($6,889)
Single-In Ground Each $2,361 $6,673 ($4,312)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 17
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Urn Sites (Other than Urn Garden)
Single Each $2,557 $7,227 ($4,670)
Double Each $4,194 $11,854 ($7,660)
Triple Each $4,508 $12,741 ($8,233)
Columbarium Niche (1 - 4 urns) Each $8,383 $23,693 ($15,310) Historic Site Unit 1 - Mausoleum
Single Niche Each $3,341 $9,443 ($6,102)
Double Niche Each $6,549 $18,510 ($11,961)
Single Crypt Each $15,783 $44,609 ($28,826)
Modern Site Unit 2 - Mausoleum
Double Niche Each $6,549 $18,510 ($11,961)
Single Crypt Each $15,782 $44,606 ($28,824)
Double Crypt Each $28,957 $81,843 ($52,886)
Memorial Garden Each $344 $972 ($628)
Memorial Wall Plaque Site Each $73 $206 ($133)
Currently, the City is under-recovering for all site sales at the Cemetery. Most of the cost associated with these services is land based, and as such the City should review the results of this analysis and determine appropriate cost recovery levels. 2 Endowment
The City collects fees for endowment care which is meant to offset perpetual costs associated with general maintenance of cemetery grounds, facilities, and infrastructure.
The City is currently looking to conduct a cemetery master plan, which would outline facility and grounds needs and future costs. As such, endowment fees were not reviewed through this analysis, but should be evaluated once the master plan is complete. 3 Labor Charges and Deed Processing
The City collects fees for a variety of services related to the burial, inurnment, and deed processing for the Cemetery. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 6: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Cemetery (Labor Charges and Deed Processing) Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
LABOR CHARGES
Open / Close
Burial Site:
Adult Each $2,094 $2,230 ($136)
Child Each $1,042 $1,108 ($66)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 18
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Double Garden Crypt:
1st Opening Each $1,948 $1,999 ($51)
Subsequent Opening Each $1,801 $1,922 ($121)
Set or Removal In-Ground
Marker:
Set In-Ground Marker Each $590 $625 ($35)
Set In-Ground Marker with Border Each $881 $932 ($51)
Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker with
Border
Each $287 $371 ($84)
Urn:
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker Each $896 $955 ($59)
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border Each $1,114 $1,185 ($71) Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground Urn &
marker with Border
Each $355 $301 $54
Vase:
Set or Remove In-Ground Vase Each $178 $186 ($8)
Set In-Ground Vase with Border Each $395 $416 ($21)
Addition of Boarder After Original Placement
To Marker Each $590 $609 ($19)
To Vase Each $433 $455 ($22)
Historic Site Unit 1 Mausoleum - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for inurnment Each $1,042 $1,108 ($66) Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at inurnment Each $217 $231 ($14) Place / Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche after
inurnment
Each $578 $609 ($31)
Replace Vase Holder (Niche & Columbarium) Each $250 $263 ($13) Remove Urn - Niche Each $287 $301 ($14)
Modern Site Unit 2 Mausoleum - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for inurnment Each $825 $878 ($53) Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at inurnment Each $256 $269 ($13) Place / Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche after
inurnment
Each $468 $493 ($25)
Replace Vase Holder (Niche & New Columbarium) Each $178 $186 ($8) Remove Urn - Niche Each $297 $339 ($42)
Columbarium - Inurnment
Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn Each $1,189 $1,262 ($73) Place / Remove Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche at
Inurnment
Each $146 $154 ($8)
Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche after
Inurnment
Each $651 $686 ($35)
Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche Each $323 $301 $22
Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn Each $679 $724 ($45) Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium niche Each $178 $186 ($8) Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium niche Each $178 $186 ($8) Mausoleum Crypt - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment Each $969 $1,032 ($63) Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial Each $1,553 $1,647 ($94) Historic Site Unit 1 Mausoleum - Burial
Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt at Burial Each $217 $231 ($14) Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt other than at
Burial
Each $468 $493 ($25)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 19
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Modern Site Unit 2 Mausoleum - Burial
Open Underground Mausoleum Crypt for Burial Each $1,844 $1,954 ($110) Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Crypt at Burial Each $146 $308 ($162) Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt after Burial Each $630 $670 ($40) Memorial Garden
Open Memorial Garden Site (place urn) Each $515 $548 ($33) Place Plaque on Memorial Garden Site/Memorial Wall Each $178 $186 ($8) Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Site Each $395 $416 ($21) Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden Site/Memorial
Wall
Each $468 $493 ($25)
Disinter
Casket, Double Garden Crypt:
Lower Level Each $1,559 $1,493 $66
Upper Level Each $1,406 $1,493 ($87)
In-Ground Casket:
Child Each $969 $1,032 ($63)
Adult Each $1,406 $1,493 ($87)
Miscellaneous
Remove Niche/Crypt Slug Each $323 $493 ($170)
Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate (Unit 1) Each $178 $186 ($8) Place Cameos Per Hour $178 $154 $24
Marker Rubbing Per Hour $126 $154 ($28)
Pallbearers – weekdays only Per 4 Staff $308 $660 ($352) Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime rate) Per Hour $615 $766 ($151) Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Per Hour $94 $165 ($71)
Overtime Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Per Hour $103 $192 ($89)
DEED PROCESSING
Deed Fee Each $255 $255 $0
Replacement Deed Fee Each $38 $38 ($0)
Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee Each $255 $255 $0 CA Disposition of Human Remain Permit Each $12 $21 ($9) Most of the labor and deed processing services provided by Cemetery staff show an under-recovery. Items that show an over-recovery are due to changes process and or the use of different staff to provide the services.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 20
8. Planning
The Planning Division of Community Development is responsible for reviewing and approving land use and development priorities issued by the City Council in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and Specific Plans. The Division is responsible for two primary functions: Advance Planning and Current Planning. Planning functions including providing direction on the City’s growth and future development through updates to the General Plan, Local Costal Program, and Zoning Codes. Current Planning functions help ensure that City-adopted plans and regulations are enforced through historic preservation, land use, and architectural reviews. Fees examined in this study relate to plan review and include fees such as subdivisions, environmental review, use permits, architectural reviews, historic reviews, and variances. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detail per unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Planning staff, the following modification to the current fee schedule were proposed:
• Eliminated Fees: The following fees were proposed to be eliminated as the City no longer offers these services or they are covered through other existing applications:
- Certificate of Use and Occupancy
- Inquiry Fee
- Miscellaneous Project Review/Document Preparation
- Environmental Review Exemption
- Negative Declaration Addendum
- Square footage ranges for the Commercial or Industrial Coastal Development Permits
- Grading (all ranges)
- Copies, hard and soft (scanned)
- Initial STR Application Review
- Transient Use Licenses - Application Renewal
- Transient Use Licenses - Annual License
- Home Sharing License Annual Renewal
- Initial Home Sharing License Application Review
- Transient License Change or Reprint Fee
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 21
• Moved Fees: The Transient Use License fees should be moved to the Finance section of the fee schedule, as Planning staff are no longer the lead for these services. The Stormwater fees should be moved to the Public Works section of the fee schedule, as those staff take the lead in processing, reviewing, inspecting, and issuing those permits.
• New Fees: During discussions with Planning staff, it was determined that a new fee should be added to the fee schedule for Parcel Legality Determinations (PLD). • Modified Verbiage: Several fee names in the current fee structure were modified to better reflect the services being provided. For example:
- General Plan Update Fee becomes General Plan Update
- Lot Line Adjustment becomes Lot Line Adjustment (Inland Zone – Outside the Coastal Zone)
- Variances and Amendments becomes Variances
- Administrative Variances and Amendments becomes Administrative Variances
The adjustments and additions proposed will provide applicants with a better reflection of the services being provided by the Planning Division.
Detailed Results
The Planning Division collects fees for items such as Zoning Map Amendments, Tentative Tract Maps, Environmental Impact Reports, Sign Permits, Noticing, and Appeals among others. The total cost calculated for each Planning service includes direct staff costs, cross-departmental support, and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 7: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendment Deposit $5,783 $9,563 ($3,780)
General Plan Land Use Map Amendment Deposit $3,701 ($3,701) General Plan Update % of Permit Fee 5% 5% 0%
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Deposit $2,888 $9,563 ($6,675) Zoning Map Amendment Deposit $2,888 $5,623 ($2,735)
Zoning Ordinance Interpretations Each $1,403 $1,598 ($195) Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists Each $1,403 $1,598 ($195) PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 22
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
SUBDIVISIONS
Tentative Tract Map
Base Base $2,617 $3,258 ($641)
Per Lot Per Lot $317 $323 ($6)
Final Tract Map
Base + Recording Fee Base $2,617 $3,258 ($641)
Per Lot Per Lot $405 $323 $82
Lot Line Adjustment (Inland Zone - Outside
the Coastal Zone) Each $2,159 $2,536 ($377)
Parcel Legality Determination (PLD) Each New $1,052 N/A Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) Each $2,287 $2,827 ($540) Tentative Parcel Map Each $2,287 $2,827 ($540)
Lot Mergers Each $2,175 $2,536 ($361)
Certificate of Compliance Each $2,175 $2,115 $60
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Deposit 50% of EIR cost $10,000 N/A Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative
Declaration Deposit $7,027 $7,500 ($473)
Mitigation Monitoring Deposit $5,180 $5,500 ($320)
USE PERMITS
Use Permit and Amendments
Single Family Each $2,089 $2,644 ($555)
Multi-Family, Commercial, Institutional,
all other uses Each $3,407 $3,701 ($294)
Administrative Use Permits Each $1,369 $1,382 ($13)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Architectural Permit
Single Family $3,481 $3,701 ($220)
Multi-Family
Four units or less Base $4,259 $4,350 ($91)
Five units or more Base $4,804 $4,781 $23
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others
10,000 sq. ft. or less Base $3,600 $3,701 ($101)
10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. Base $5,343 $5,384 ($41)
50,000-100,000 sq. ft. Base $10,791 $10,784 $7
Over 100,000 sq. ft. Base $13,737 $13,435 $302
Administrative Architectural Permit Each $1,675 $1,802 ($127) Administrative Design Change Each $1,675 $1,802 ($127)
COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS
Counter Review & Determination
No new square footage (Plus hourly fee if
more than ½ hour required) Per Permit $241 $421 ($180)
New square footage (Plus hourly fee if
more than 3 hours required) Per Permit $978 $1,047 ($69) Zoning Confirmation for Business License
Permit Per Permit $168 $210 ($42)
Massage Permit Application Per Application $168 $446 ($278)
SIGN PERMITS
Downtown Sign Permit Per Sign $624 $1,133 ($509)
Administrative Sign Permit Per Sign $978 $950 $28
Sign Permit Per Sign $2,556 $1,133 $1,423
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 23
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
HISTORIC REVIEW
Historic Demolition Permit Each $5,474 $5,860 ($386)
Off-site relocation permit Each $5,474 $5,860 ($386)
Historic Resources Inventory
Determinations (Additions/Deletions) Each $2,093 $1,997 $96 On-site relocation permit Each $2,737 $3,077 ($340)
Historic Preservation Permit Each $1,979 $1,997 ($18)
Initial Historic Screening Each $515 $507 $8
VARIANCES
Variances Each $2,907 $3,701 ($794)
Administrative Variances Each $1,625 $2,031 ($406)
APPEALS
Appeals of enforcement and zoning
ordinance interpretations Per Appeal $2,782 $2,667 $115 Appeals/hearings of planning permits Per Appeal $1,192 $3,161 ($1,969) Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing
or Decision Per Appeal $571 $784 ($213)
Appeal fees for Coastal Development
Permits Per Appeal $0 $3,161 ($3,161)
NOTICING
Mailing Each Actual Cost Actual Cost N/A
Publishing Each $379
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
Waiver of De Minims Development plan
permit Each $2,453 $2,957 ($504)
Single Family Residence Each $2,453 $4,058 ($1,605)
Multi-family Residential
Base Each $2,978 $5,136 ($2,158)
Per Unit Per Unit $1,012 $1,100 ($88)
Commercial or Industrial Each Varies $6,624 N/A
Lot Line Adjustment (Coastal Zone) Each $2,453 $5,352 ($2,899) Subdivision Per Lot $2,452 $3,744 ($1,292)
Emergency Permit Each $1,840 $1,683 $157
Amendment % of Permit Fee 50% 50% $0
Temporary Event Each $3,066 $5,243 ($2,177)
Extension Each 50% $227
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Abandonment or purchase of City property Each $3,686 $3,744 ($58) Abandoned Property Registration Fee Each $234 $306 ($72) Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual
Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost N/A
VACANT PROPERTIES
Inspection per property (min. or actual
cost) Each $176 $204 ($28)
Registration per property Each $176 $204 ($28)
MISCELLANEOUS
County Filing Fees Each As determined by County
Density bonus Each $2,265 $2,873 ($608)
General File Research Each $64 $210 ($146)
Hourly Fee Per Hour $130 $210 ($80)
Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit Each $438 $938 ($500)
Sidewalk Vendor Permit Each $49 $307 ($258)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 24
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Permit Extension (Fee may be waived if
permit is subject to Water Waiting List) Each
25% of permit base
fee $227 N/A
Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary
Project Review Each $269 $307 ($38)
Records Management and Retention (per
file) Each $58 $194 ($136)
Rental Property Registration Each $238 $398 ($160)
Revocable License for Encroachments
(plus hourly fee after 2 hours) Each $870 $1,035 ($165) Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if
more than 4 hours required) Each $491 $842 ($351)
Tree Permit with Development Each $296 $404 ($108)
Tree Permit with Development Violation Each $251 $404 ($153) ABC License Review Fee Each $183 $202 ($19)
ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND BREEDING PERMITS
Animal Keeping Permit Each $182 $362 ($180)
Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal Each $44 $103 ($59) Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats Each $155 $1,221 ($1,066) Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs Each $155 $1,221 ($1,066) Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) Each $77 $284 ($207) Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) Each $77 $284 ($207)
HOUSING FEES
Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff
Demand Each $127 $307 ($180)
Reconveyance Fee Each $193 $404 ($211)
County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey
County Recorder) Each Actual Cost Actual Cost N/A
Housing Rehab Loan Fees (CalHOME Loan
Funded Projects)
Loan Processing Each $2,078 $3,349 ($1,271)
Underwriting Each $639 $631 $8
Property Tax Verification Each $64 $307 ($243)
Loan Document Preparation – SFD Each $375 $1,149 ($774) Loan Document Preparation –
Manufactured Housing Each $446 $2,201 ($1,755)
Inspection To Determine Scope of Work
(Actual Cost) Each $276 $412 ($136)
Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) Each $276 $3,560 ($3,284) Development of Work Write-up &
Specifications (Actual Cost) Each $2,638 $4,401 ($1,763) Project Bidding (Actual Cost) Each $1,285 $4,304 ($3,019) Progress Inspection/Payment
Authorization (Actual Cost) Each $138 $518 ($380)
Affordable Housing Monitoring - Annual Fee Per Household Affordable Units Each $127 $194 ($67)
Registered Units Each $127 $194 ($67)
Overall, the Planning Division is under-recovering for nearly all the services they provide.
The greatest subsidy provided by the City relates to the ‘Zoning Ordinance Amendment’ at $6,675, however, as this is a deposit-based fee, the City does have the ability to recover its costs through project-based billings. Conversely, the $2,899 subsidy associated with PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 25
the ‘Lot Line Adjustment (Coastal Zone)’ can only be reduced or eliminated through the increase of the permit fee.
The Division does have a handful of permits which show current fees higher than the full cost of providing service, most significantly seen by the ‘Sign Permit’ fee which currently over recovers by $1,423. This imbalance is due to changes in application processing, as well as changes in the staff primarily assigned to complete these tasks.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 26
9. Building
The Building Division of Community Development is responsible for ensuring all new construction, modifications, and additions to existing buildings comply with state and local laws and regulations. The fees examined within this study relate to structural mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan review and inspection services. The following sections discuss modifications made to the Building fee structure and detail per unit analysis results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
The Building fee schedule consists of both flat fees and valuation-based fees, both of which were studied. The project team worked with the Building Division to streamline the current fee schedule by modifying structures and adding new flat fees. The following points highlight the proposed changes:
• New Fees: The following fees were added to better reflect the services provided by the Division, and to provide an easier way for staff to administer permits:
- Single Family Residential Reroof
- Multi-Family / Commercial Reroof
- Kitchen / Bathroom Remodel (non-structural no exterior changes) • Modified Verbiage: One fee name in the current fee structure was modified to better reflect the services being provided: ‘Single Permit: Building or M / E / P’ was changed to ‘Single Permit: M / E / P’.
Implementing these changes to the Building fee structure will help to clarify the fee schedule, increase consistency of fee applications, and reduced the complexity in relation to both internal staff and developers determining the full fees associated with their building projects.
Detailed Results – Flat Fees
The Building Division currently assesses a variety of permits for over the counter or simplified permits, such as reroofs, solar voltaic systems, electric vehicle charging stations, excavations, etc. The following table details the current fees associated with Flat Fees Permits, the full cost associated with Building to provide these services, and the difference.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 27
Table 8: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Building Flat Fees Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING PERMITS
Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $153 $237 ($84) Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $153 $237 ($84) Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $153 $237 ($84) Solar voltaic system Each $331 $670 ($339)
Single Family Residential Reroof Each New $670
Multi-Family / Commercial Reroof
First Building First Building New $602
Each Additional Building Each Additional New $130
Kitchen / Bathroom Remodel (non-structural no
exterior changes) Each New $1,367
PLAN CHECK
Single Family Residential Plan Check % of Building Permit 75% 75% 0% Commercial Plan Check % of Building Permit 90% 95% -5%
Non-Structural Plan Review (not included in larger
project) Per Hour $148 $174 ($26)
Structural Plan Review (not included in a larger
project) Per Hour $181 $174 $7
Plan review extension Per 90 days $750 $285 $465
On-site storm water management plan review and
inspection Each $410 $558 ($148)
Additional fee if LID requirements or additional time
required, per hour Per Hour $130 $138 ($8)
Building Permits Extension Per 90 days $1,197 $922 $275
OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS
Inspections outside of normal business hours Per Hour $356 $193 $163 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of
CBC § 108.8 Per Hour $239 $138 $101
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Per Inspection $149 $207 ($58) Traffic control plan review Each $188 $239 ($51)
Change of Street Address Each $188 $304 ($116)
Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee, 2 hour
minimum) Per Hour $377 $753 ($376)
Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit fee % of Permit Fee 20% 20% 0% Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential Each $277 $667 ($390) Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial Each $471 $1,226 ($755) Temporary Occupancy Each $377 $1,017 ($640)
ASBS Stormwater Inspection Deposit $3,711 $3,751 ($40)
Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP
Inspection Each $215 $289 ($74)
Additional plan review due to
changes/additions/revisions to approved plans Per 30 min $115 $87 $28 Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way Permit. Each $527 $711 ($184) Grading Inspection Per Hour $115 $192 ($77)
Grading Plan Checking Per Hour $115 $192 ($77)
Residential Zoning Records Report (RZRR) & Sewer
Lateral Report (combined) Each $363 $860 ($497)
Sewer Lateral Report Review Each $154 $518 ($364)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 28
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Parklets
New Parklet Each New $905
Parklet Renewal Each New $300
Excavation and Inspection Services
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated Per Hour $136 $192 ($56)
Encroachment permit: street opening/excavation Each $261 $650 ($389) Encroachment permit: driveway Each $270 $650 ($380)
Encroachment permit: sidewalk Each $178 $650 ($472)
Encroachment: temporary Each $270 $650 ($380)
Encroachment permit: permanent underground Each $270 $650 ($380) Encroachment permit: permanent above ground Each $270 $650 ($380) Encroachment permit processing fee Hourly $136 $192 ($56) Annual encroachment permit Each $9,713 $10,476 ($763)
The City is currently subsidizing nearly all its flat fee related services, with the largest deficit ($763) relating to ‘Annual Encroachment Permits’. Fees showing an over-recovery range from a low of $7 for ‘Structural Plan Review – Hourly’ to a high of $465 for ‘Plan Review Extension’.
Detailed Results – Valuation-Based Fees
The Building The City of Pacific Grove currently uses a valuation table to establish Construction Inspection fees. There are two types of permits offered: Combination and Single. Combination permits include structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing inspections, while single permits relate to mechanical, electrical, or plumbing inspections.
All valuation-based fees are determined based on a sliding scale where the higher the project valuation, the greater the permit fee.
1 Combination Permit Fees
Combination Permits currently have a scale that ranges from $1 to greater than $1 million dollars. Given current project valuations in the City, the sliding scale was expanded to $10 million to provide a stronger nexus between services provided to higher valued projects.
The following table outlines the valuation category, current fee, total cost, and difference.
Table 9: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Combination Permit Fees Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Fee Total Cost Difference Project Valuation $1 to $500 $142.00 $190.69 ($48.69)
Project Valuation $501 to $2,000
First $500 $142.00 $190.69 ($48.69)
Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $12.00 $15.54 ($3.54) Project Valuation $2,001 to $25,000
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 29
Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Fee Total Cost Difference First $2,000 $300.00 $423.78 ($123.78)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $49.00 $57.53 ($8.53) Project Valuation $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,000 $1,361.00 $1,747.04 ($386.04)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $35.00 $39.32 ($4.32) Project Valuation $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,000 $2,188.00 $2,730.08 ($542.08)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $21.00 $29.39 ($8.39) Project Valuation $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,000 $3,355.00 $4,199.35 ($844.35)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $17.00 $23.66 ($6.66) Project Valuation $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,000 $10,824.00 $13,664.86 ($2,840.86)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.00 $20.60 ($4.60) Project Valuation $1,000,001 to $5,000,000
First $1,000,000 $19,254.00 $23,963.87 ($4,709.87)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.00 $1.56 $7.44 Project Valuation $5,000,001 to $10,000,000
First $5,000,000 $24,254.00 $30,190.51 ($5,936.51)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.00 $1.00 $8.00 Project Valuation $10,000,001+
First $10,000,000 $28,254.00 $35,191.51 ($6,937.51)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.00 $0.50 $8.50 The City is under-recovering for its combination building services based on valuation.
These subsidies range from a low of $48.69 for projects valued up to $500, to a high of $6,937.51 for projects valued at $10 million.
2 Single Permit Fees
Single Permits currently have a scale that ranges from $1 to greater than $1 million dollars. However, as these permits relate to single or standalone projects related to mechanical, electrical, or plumbing work, the sliding scale was reduced to reflect reasonable project values. The following table outlines the valuation category, current fee, total cost, and difference.
Table 10: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Single (M/ E / P) Permit Fees Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Fee Total Cost Difference Project Valuation $1 to $500 $126.00 $190.69 ($64.69)
Project Valuation $501 to $2,000
First $500 $123.00 $190.69 ($67.69)
Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $6.00 $10.95 ($4.95) Project Valuation $2,001 to $25,000
First $2,000 $233.00 $354.91 ($121.91)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $35.00 $38.58 ($3.58) Project Valuation $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,000 $988.00 $1,242.29 ($254.29)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $22.00 $29.67 ($7.67) Project Valuation $50,001 to $100,000
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 30
Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Fee Total Cost Difference First $50,000 $1,582.00 $1,983.96 ($401.96)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.00 $19.94 ($3.94) Project Valuation $100,001 +
First $100,000 $2,397.00 $2,980.75 ($583.75)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $11.00 $15.18 ($4.18) The City is under-recovering for all its Single Permit services, ranging from $64.69 for projects valued up to $500 to $583.75 for projects valued over $100,000.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 31
10. Fire
The City of Pacific Grove has contracted with the City of Monterey for nearly two decades to provide Fire services. Included in these services are Occupancy Inspections and Fire Life Safety plan review and inspections. Applicants wishing to obtain Fire related permits or reviews are instructed to visit the City of Monterey for these services. The City of Monterey bills the City of Pacific Grove monthly for both suppression and prevention services.
City of Pacific Grove staff, while not directly performing suppression or prevention services, provides contract oversight, and is the final authority on Pacific Grove related codes and issues. In FY17/18 the City’s administrative overhead rate based on its cost allocation plan was calculated at 7%. Based on the City’s FY23/24 cost plan the administrative overhead rate was calculated at 8%.
The City of Pacific Grove mirrors the City of Monterey’s fee structure for prevention services. This ensures that Pacific Grove’s fee structure accurately reflects and captures the various services provided by the City of Monterey. When Monterey’s fee structure or schedule changes, Pacific Grove also updates its schedules.
If the City is interested in recovering their administrative costs associated with contract management, an administrative surcharge of 8% should be applied to the fees adopted by the City of Monterey. This surcharge would go directly to the City of Pacific Grove and help offset administrative and oversight services.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 32
11. Library
The Pacific Grove Library strives to provide a welcoming environment and balanced collection while preserving the past and planning for the future. Services are provided to the community through print and online collections and programs for all ages. Most of the services and programs provided by the Library are free. However, the City does charge for photocopies, library card replacement, and lost or damaged materials. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detail per unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
The Library’s current fee structure is already streamlined, and therefore no modifications were made.
Detailed Results
As noted above, most services provided by the Library are free of charge. Fees assessed by the Department are used to offset replacement costs, or account for photocopy materials. The total cost calculated for each fee-related service includes direct staff costs, Departmental, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 11: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Library
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Other Fees and Rentals
Photocopies
Black and White Per Page $0.15 $0.15 $0.00
Color Per Page $0.25 $0.25 $0.00
Computer Printout Per Page $0.15 $0.15 $0.00
Card Replacement
Replace Borrower's Card Each $3 $4 ($1)
Lost / Damaged Material Replacement / Repair
Re-Cataloging / processing for lost book or recording Each $3 $4 ($1) Lost or damaged items Each Actual Cost
Material costs associated with photocopies reflect standard charges. Both the ‘Card Replacement’ and ‘Re-Cataloging / Processing’ fees shows a minimal subsidy of $1. As services provided by the Library expand, the City should consider updating its fee schedule to include any additional services for which it would like to recover fees.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 33
12. Point Pinos Lighthouse
The Point Pinos Lighthouse is a Pacific Grove landmark, providing picturesque views of the Pacific Ocean and the City of Pacific Grove. Having been in operation since 1855, the lighthouse is the oldest operating lighthouse on the west coast. The lighthouse is open to visitors year-round for visits Monday, Thursday, and Friday between 1pm and 3pm, and weekends between 11am and 3pm.
Currently entrance into the lighthouse is free, with a suggested donation of $7 for adults, $3 for children, and free entry for children under seven (7). These donations help pay for conservation efforts at the lighthouse including ongoing maintenance.
Currently the only fee charged by the lighthouse is for private tours. The current fee is $135 for a two-hour tour, however, through this study, the full cost of this tour was calculated at $150, resulting in a $15 subsidy.
Lighthouse staff would like to begin charging for one-time and special events. While a fee for these services should be added to the fee schedule, as these events could vary in staff efforts and costs, the fee should be based on the event, and established prior to the event occurrence.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 34
13. Local Water Project
In response to a shortage of potable water due to limitations on existing water supplies, the City of Pacific Grove constructed and operates a Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP), which recycles a portion of Pacific Grove’s municipal wastewater. The SRWTP produces approximately 125 acrefeet (AFY) of non-potable water which is primarily used for landscape irrigation at the Pacific Grove Golf Links and El Carmelo Cemetery.
The City’s current budget for the Local Water Project is approximately $1.64 million. While the SRWTP can produce an average of 125 AFY, it has average annual sales of 96 AFY.
The FY24 cost per AFY is $13,092, which equates to $0.040 per gallon. The City currently charges a fee of $0.029 per gallon for Recycle Water. Therefore, the City is underrecovering for recycled water by $0.011 per gallon.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 35
14. Police
The Police Department is responsible for the day-to-day oversight of law enforcement services in the City of Pacific Grove. The Department is comprised of two main divisions:
Patrol Operations and Administrative Services. Patrol Operations staff provide various services including school resources, training, traffic, investigations, patrol, and a citizen’s academy. The Administrative Services division handles police records, animal control, parking enforcement, purchasing, and property and evidence.
The fees included in this analysis are in relation to animal regulation, alarm registration, clearance letters, and parking permits provided by the Department. The following subsections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detail per unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Police staff, the following modification to the current fee schedule were proposed:
• Removed Fees: To more accurately describe the services offered, the following fees were removed:
- ‘Concealed Weapon Permit - Annual Renewal’
- ‘Concealed Weapon Permit – Issuance’
- ‘Oversize Vehicle Registration’
• Moved Fees: The Animal Regulation – Breeding Permits, as well as the Massage Permit, were moved to the Planning fee schedule, as those staff have primary responsibility for reviewing and issuing those permits.
The modifications proposed more accurately represent the services being provided by the Police Department.
Detailed Results
The Police Department charges fees for service including items such as animal impound cards, firearm storage, and police responses. The total cost calculated for each Police service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 36
Table 12: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Police
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES - PGMC § 10.04.010
Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog Annual $23 $52 ($29) Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog Annual $52 $52 ($0) Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days)
Per
Offense $27 $27 $0
Dog License, Replacement Tag Each $10 $12 ($2)
ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES - PGMC § 10.04.100
Impound Fee - Altered
Initial Impound - Licensed & Altered Each $0 $185 ($185) Initial Impound - Unlicensed & Altered Each $0 $259 ($259) 2nd & Subsequent - Altered Each $89 $185 ($96)
Impound Fee - Unaltered
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed & Unaltered Each $89 $185 ($96) Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed & Unaltered Each $89 $259 ($170) Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered Each $179 $185 ($6) Boarding Fee
PG Kennel Per Day $43 $255 ($212)
Transported to SPCA Each $184 $184 $0
ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE
Alarm Registration Annual $38 $38 $0
Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit Expiration Date) Annual $5 $5 $0 False Alarm
First Response - Unpermitted Alarm Each $150 $335 ($185) First Response Each $0 $184 ($184)
Second Response Each $64 $184 ($120)
Third Response Each $179 $184 ($5)
Fourth Response Each $297 $184 $113
Fifth and Subsequent Response Each $416 $184 $232
Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation Each $358 $389 ($31) Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days)
Per
Offense $28 $28 $0
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS
Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) Each $10 $38 ($28) Booking Fee Each $31 $36 ($5)
Clearance Letter
No Record on File Each $37 $38 ($1)
Record on File Each $28 $50 ($22)
Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) Each $12 $69 ($57) Information Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) Each $5 $38 ($33) Evidence Video Reproduction Each $45 $312 ($267)
Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan administration) Each $30 $76 ($46) Removal of Traffic Boot Each $141 $196 ($55)
Repossession Receipt Each $16 $15 $1
Sign-off of tickets by other agencies Each $18 $38 ($20) Vehicle Release Fee Each $238 $419 ($181)
PARKING PERMITS & FEES
Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly Monthly $44 $265 ($221) Parking Meter Rate per Hour Per Hour $2 $2 $0
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 37
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Public Parking Lot Permit
Processing, Delinquency Penalty
Per
Offense $28 $73 ($45)
Annual Annual $405 $2,435 ($2,030)
12-Month, TRANSFERABLE Annual $515 $2,435 ($1,920)
Monthly Monthly $44 $225 ($181)
Residential Parking Permit Processing, per permit, Annual Annual $11 $33 ($22) Temporary Overnight Parking
Initial Residential Registration Each $26 $26 $0
72 Hour Resident Permit Each $4 $5 ($1)
Weekly - Exemption Weekly $100 $97 $3
Annual - Exemption Annual $416 $197 $219
Timed Space - Daily Per Day $5 $5 $0
POLICE RESPONSE - DUI, Peace Disturbance, Social Hosting, & Special Events Police Commander Hourly Rate Per Hour $220 $219 $1
Police Sergeant Hourly Rate Per Hour $211 $246 ($35)
Police Officer Hourly Rate Per Hour $186 $216 ($30)
Police Services, Animal Control & Parking Enforcement Community Service Officer Per Hour $156 $143 $13
Patrol Vehicle Hourly Rate Per Hour $64 $131 ($67)
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS
Amplified Sound Permit Each $89 $133 ($44)
Drone Permit
Daily Per Day $23 $43 ($20)
Annual Annual $87 $110 ($23)
Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee Each $446 $465 ($19) Garage Sale Permit Processing Each $10 $20 ($10)
Refuse Container or Storage Container
Initial Each $59 $79 ($20)
Renewal/Extension Each $30 $31 ($1)
Transportation of Large Structure
Deposit – variable fee based on size/type of structure Deposit $224 $149 $75 Per Structure
Per
Structure $639 $802 ($163)
Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee Each $10 $55 ($45) Film Permit Application Fee Each $162 $160 $2
A majority of Police fees under-recover, ranging from a low of $1 ‘Clearance Letter – No Record on File’ to a high of $2,030 for ‘Parking Lot Permit – Annual’. The largest overrecovery is in relation to ‘Temporary Overnight Parking Permit – Annual Exemption’ at $219. Over-recoveries are primarily due to streamlined processes since the previous fee study was conducted.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 38
15. Public Works
The Public Works Department oversees maintenance and operations of City owned facilities and infrastructure, as well as the design, planning, construction, or repair of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects. The Department is also responsible for maintaining all city owned vehicles, municipal roads, culverts and basins, street lighting and street signs. Most of the services provided by Public Works staff are general functions relating to City services, as Building staff handle all Engineering related reviews and inspections.
However, the Department does charge out for services relating to Banner Installation, memorial trees, news racks, and trees. The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detailed unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Public Works staff, it was determined that some minor modifications to the current structure would be beneficial. The following points highlight the proposed modifications:
• Removed Fees: The ‘Tree Removal with Development’ permit was removed, as these services are covered under other permits, and therefore redundant. • Added Fees: To better reflect fees associated with violations for trimming or removing trees prior to approval the following penalties were added:
- Trimming Prior to Approval
- Removal Prior to Approval
• Moved Fees: Stormwater fees have been moved from the Planning section of the fee schedule to the Public Works section, as Public Works staff take the lead in processing, reviewing, inspecting, and issuing these permits.
The above modifications ensure that Public Work’s section of the fee schedule best reflects the services that are being provided and enable the department to collect fees more accurately for those services.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 39
Detailed Results
The Public Works Division collects fees for items such as news racks and tree removals.
The total cost calculated for each Public Works service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service.
Table 13: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Public Works
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Requested Special Traffic Review per hour Varies $189
Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown Street Lights) per pole $47 $76 ($29) Memorial Benches and Trees
Memorial Bench per bench $449 $632 ($183)
Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) every 5 years $589 $759 ($170) Memorial Tree per tree $1,046 $1,111 ($65)
Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application per application $97 $340 ($243) News Racks
News rack Annual Application Fee per application $61 $94 ($33) News rack Program Fee Half Rack Each $40 $76 ($36)
News rack Program Fee Full Rack Each $84 $114 ($30)
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations PG&E Rate
TREE FEES
Application Fee Flat $105 $377 ($272)
Removal or Trimming
Single Tree Flat $71 $92 ($21)
Each Additional Tree Each Tree $33 $42 ($9)
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee Deposit $901 $994 ($93)
Tree Appeal Each $236 $683 ($447)
TREE PERMIT VIOLATION
Trimming Prior to Approval Penalty New $750
Removal Prior to Approval Penalty New $1,500
STORMWATER
Tier 3 and 4 – 15,000 square feet of impervious surface or greater (incl. 2 reviews) Each $1,840 $1,923 ($83)
Tier 2 – 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious surface (incl. 2 reviews) Each $1,226 $1,250 ($24)
Tier 1 – 2,500-5,000 square feet impervious surface Each $771 $866 ($95) Each subsequent Tier 2 review Per Review $540 $577 ($37) Inspection Fee Per Inspection $144 $192 ($48)
Annual Inspection and re-inspection Per Inspection $215 $289 ($74) Each subsequent Tier 1 review Per Review $340 $385 ($45) All services being provided by Public Works currently show an under-recovery. The differences currently range from a low of $9 for each additional tree removal or trimming, and a high of $447 for a ‘Tree Appeal’. As many of the services provided by Public Works PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 40
have some sort of community benefit or impact, the City should review the fees to determine an appropriate cost recovery level.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 41
16. Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department provides a wide range of services through programs, contract instructors, and collaborations with outside agencies. These services include Pre-school, Sports, Programs, Swimming, Facility Rentals, and Special Events.
The following sections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications and detailed unit results.
Fee Schedule Modifications
The Parks and Recreation Department has a wide variety of services it provides on a seasonal and annual basis. In discussing current services, the following were proposed for elimination:
• Eliminated Fees: The following fees were removed from the Department’s fee schedule as these services are no longer provided or offered:
- All Youth Center Program Fees, including Membership per Semester, Membership for the School Year, Daily Admission, and Dance Admission - Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (during full-day offering noon - 4:30) mostly Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Holidays
- Swimming Family Card
- Minimal Impact Events Application
- Transfer Fee (transfers between classes and/or sessions) • New Fees: The Department is looking to add fees for Pre-School Camps as this is a new service.
• Expanded Fees: The Department has expanded their sports fees, which currently are $99 for residents / non-profit, and $108 for non-resident / commercial. Based on discussions with staff, fees will be expanded to differentiate between Tots, Youth, and Adults, and account for clinics, camps, leagues, and classes.
The above modifications will help illustrate the various services provided by the Parks and Recreation Department.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 42
Detailed Results
Services provided by the Parks and Recreation Department fall into four main categories:
Pre-School and Youth Programs, Swimming, Facility and Field Rentals, and Special Events and Miscellaneous. The following subsections provide detailed unit results for the various fees, programs, and services that fall within each of these categories. 1 Pre-School and Youth Programs
The total cost for Pre-School, Pre-School Camps, Sports, Camps, and Youth Center Programs includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and the associated difference.
Table 14: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Parks & Recreation (Pre-School and Youth Programs) Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES)
2 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $197 $221 ($24)
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $217 $221 ($4)
3 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $311 $331 ($20)
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $344 $331 $13
5 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $506 $552 ($46)
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $562 $552 $10
PRE-SCHOOL CAMPS (WEEKLY FEES)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Week $98 $320 ($222)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Week $108 $320 ($212)
SPORTS
Tots (3-5 years)
Clinic per participant $147 N/A
Camp per participant $151 N/A
Class per participant $100 N/A
Youth (5-18 years)
Tournament or Clinic - Resident per participant $99 $301 ($202) Tournament or Clinic - Non-Residential per participant $109 $301 ($192) Camp per participant $277 ($277)
League - Resident per participant $99 $477 ($378)
League - Non-Residential $109 $477 ($368)
Adult (18+ years)
Tournament or Clinic:
Non-Contact - Resident per participant $274
Non-Contact – Non-Residential per participant $274
Contact - Resident per participant $274
Contact - Non-Residential per participant $274
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 43
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
League:
Non-Contact Sport - Resident per participant $358
Non-Contact Sport - Non-Residential per participant $358 Contact Sport - Resident per participant $358
Contact Sport - Non-Residential per participant $358
PROGRAMS
Full Day Youth Camp (5-day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $197 $459 ($262)
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $217 $459 ($242)
Full Day Youth Camp (4-day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $157 $367 ($210)
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $175 $367 ($192)
Full Day Youth Camp (3-day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $116 $275 ($159)
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $130 $275 ($145)
Daily Drop-In (per Day)
Resident/ Non- Profit per day $45 $92 ($47)
Non- Resident / Commercial per day $49 $92 ($43)
All the services provided by the City relating to pre-school, pre-school camps, sports, camps, and youth programs show an under-recovery for resident / non-profit fees, and all but two non-resident / commercial fees. The City should review their cost recovery philosophies for pre-school, camps, sports, and youth programs, and determine appropriate fee levels.
It should be noted that fees for parks and recreation services can exceed the total cost of service but should be in alignment with market rates. 2 Swimming
The total cost for Swimming Programs (during the Summer Season) includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), and Departmental and Citywide overhead.
The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and the associated difference.
Table 15: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Parks & Recreation (Swimming) Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Tot Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child
Resident/ Non- Profit per child $82 $232 ($150)
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $82 $232 ($150)
Youth Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child
Resident/ Non- Profit per child $82 $497 ($415)
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $82 $497 ($415)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 44
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per 20-minute lesson Resident/ Non- Profit per child $38 $423 ($385)
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $43 $423 ($380)
Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per child (2 students required) lesson Group Swim Lessons Resident/ Non- Profit per 30-minute session $21 $212 ($191) Non- Resident / Commercial per 30-minute session $23 $212 ($189) Private use of swimming pool
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $112 $116 ($4)
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $189 $116 $73
All the services provided by the City relating to swimming programs show an underrecovery for resident / non-profit fees, and all but one non-resident / commercial fees.
The City should review their cost recovery philosophies for swimming programs and determine appropriate fee levels.
It should be noted that fees for parks and recreation services can exceed the total cost of service but should be in alignment with market rates. 3 Facility and Field Rentals
Fees charged for facility and filed rentals account for exclusive use and are not applied to all picnic or park areas. The total cost for facility and field rentals includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), and Departmental and Citywide overhead.
The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and the associated difference.
Table 16: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Parks & Recreation (Facility and Field Rentals) Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
FACILITY RENTAL
Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Caledonia, George Washington, Arnett Park, and similar Picnic Facilities 1 – 50 persons
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $41 $96 ($55)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $69 $96 ($27)
51 + persons
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $99 $167 ($68)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $71 $167 ($96)
Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis and Pickleball Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $22 $58 ($36)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $41 $58 ($17)
Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr. minimum rental)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $116 $250 ($134)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $206 $250 ($44)
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 45
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Community Center, Lebeck Room – Security Deposit
Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $557 $557 $0
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $557 $557 $0
Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per hr. (Minimum of 2 hours) Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $40 $48 ($8)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $68 $48 $20
Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $449 $140 $309
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $785 $140 $645
Chautauqua Hall Facility – Security Deposit
Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $557 $557 $0
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $577 $577 $0
Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental)8
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $116 $75 $41
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $206 $75 $131
Youth Center Meeting Room
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $40 $35 $5
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $68 $35 $33
Little House at Jewell Park
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $19 $53 ($34)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $35 $53 ($18)
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use) Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $182 $626 ($444)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $318 $626 ($308)
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use) Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $382 $1,100 ($718)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $382 $1,100 ($718)
Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Berwick Park, Jewell Park, Pt. Pinos Lighthouse and Elmarie Dyke Gazebo reservation fee9
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $187 $578 ($391)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $349 $578 ($229)
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 – 100 Persons Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $190 $304 ($114)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $190 $304 ($114)
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 Persons Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $382 $400 ($18)
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $382 $400 ($18)
MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY
Daily Use
Resident/ Non- Profit per day $224 $443 ($219)
Non- Resident / Commercial per day $391 $443 ($52)
Field Use, Per Hour
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $33 $93 ($60)
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $56 $93 ($37)
Lights per hr.
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $28 $29 ($1)
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $28 $29 ($1)
8 Pending staff availability.
9 Plus fully burdened staff rates.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 46
Fee Name Unit
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Staff, Per hour
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour Fully burdened Rate
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour Fully burdened Rate Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II, Class III, Class IV) Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $187 $187 $0
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $187 $187 $0
Most of the rental fees charged by the City show an under-recovery for both resident / non-profit and non-resident / commercial, with some fees showing minimal overrecoveries.
It should be noted that fees for parks and recreation services can exceed the total cost of service but should be in alignment with market rates. 4 Miscellaneous Fees and Special Events
The total cost for miscellaneous services and special events includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and the associated difference.
Table 17: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Parks & Recreation (Miscellaneous and Special Events) Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Refund Processing (if within written time frame)
Resident/ Non- Profit % of Refund 25% 25%
Non- Resident / Commercial % of Refund 25% 25%
SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Application fee – Events with 1 – 999 participants
Resident/ Non- Profit per application $230 $827 ($597)
Non- Resident / Commercial per application $230 $827 ($597) Application fee – Events with more than 1,000 participants Resident/ Non- Profit per application $839 $1,985 ($1,146) Non- Resident / Commercial per application $839 $1,985 ($1,146) The City is currently under-recovering for all transfers and special event applications. The subsidy relating to transfers between classes or sessions is $19, while the special event application ranges between $597 and $1,146. The City should review the types of special event applications it receives and determine if current cost recovery levels are appropriate.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 47
17. Cost Recovery Considerations
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determining annual update factors, and developing cost recovery policies and procedures.
Fee Adjustments
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the results of the study and adjust fees in accordance with Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees.
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service.
• Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period of time.
The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straight forward, the following subsections, provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees. 1 Full Cost Recovery
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.
Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 48
these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which are unable to be increased.
The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.
2 Phased Increases
Depending on current cost recovery levels some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review, or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching their cost recovery goals.
As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often, and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.
Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants, but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases.
Continuing with the example laid out above, the City could increase the fee by $150 for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase, and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window for which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.
Annual Adjustments
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 49
Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms.
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority, but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually.
• CPI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.
The City of Pacific Grove currently utilizes a CPI to increase fees annually, but should review its options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of the Department and the City. If choosing a CPI factor, the City should outline which CPI should be used, including specific region, and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, again, the City should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist.
Policies and Procedures
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the cost associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.
Updating current cost recovery policies and procedures will serve to ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward.
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines these cost recovery ranges by major service area.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 50
Table 18: Typical Cost Recovery Ranges by Department
Department / Program Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Administration 20% - 40%
City Clerk 20% - 40%
Cemetery 80% - 100%
Planning 50% - 80%
Building 80% - 100%
Public Works 80% - 100%
Parks and Recreation 20% - 40%
Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local governments’ operations across the United States and within California and reflects typical cost recovery ranges observed by local adopting authorities.
The City should review the current cost recovery levels outlined in this analysis and review current policies regarding cost recovery to ensure alignment with current philosophies and goals.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 51
Appendix – Comparative Survey
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Pacific Grove, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified eight jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey: Capitola, Carmel, Carpinteria, Marina, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Sausalito, and Seaside. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances), and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative information.
While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to consider the local “market rates” for services. This type of analysis allows for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, what this analysis does not provide is adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdiction’s costs to their fees (i.e., policy decisions to subsidize, cost recovery goals, etc.).
The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City. 1 Economic Factors
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee.
The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 52
Table 19: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Population
Jurisdiction Population10
Carmel 3,196
Sausalito 7,199
Capitola 9,846
Carpinteria 13,122
Pacific Grove 14,791
Marina 22,507
Monterey 29,874
Seaside 32,085
Santa Cruz 61,950
Table 20: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Citywide Total Budget11 Jurisdiction FY23-24 Budget
Capitola $19,780,450
Carpinteria $28,621,850
Carmel $29,332,582
Pacific Grove $32,104,273
Sausalito $35,650,621
Marina $40,453,140
Seaside $79,170,631
Monterey $97,872,467
Santa Cruz $139,590,175
Table 21: Ranking of Jurisdictions by FTE
Jurisdiction FY23-24 FTE
Capitola 41.00
Carpinteria 70.00
Capitola 72.00
Sausalito 96.23
Carmel 98.00
Pacific Grove 108.50
Marina 177.00
Seaside 453.75
Monterey 927.73
The City of Pacific Grove ranks in the middle to low end of surveyed jurisdictions in terms of population and budget, and on the higher end for FTE. 10 2022 US Census data was used to determine each jurisdictions population. 11 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 53
2 Recency Factor
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling Pacific Grove’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service.
The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule.
Table 22: Last Fee Schedule Updated
Jurisdiction Response
Marina 2020
Santa Cruz 2023
Sausalito 2024
Seaside 2024
Capitola 2024
Carmel 2024
Monterey 2024
Carpinteria 2024
Table 23: Last Fee Study Conducted
Jurisdiction Response
Carpinteria 2016
Santa Cruz 201712
Marina 2018
Sausalito 2018
Seaside 2022
Capitola N/A
Carmel N/A
Monterey N/A
All but the City of Marina have updated their fees within the last couple of years, while only the City of Seaside has conducted a fee study within the last five years. 12 The City of Santa Cruz is currently out-to-bid for a fee study.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 54
3 Additional Factors
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services as various policy decision may subsidize services.
• Fee Variance Factors: The same “fee” with the same name may include different steps or sub-activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels, salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc.
In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than a tool for establishing an acceptable price point for services. 4 Comparative Survey Results
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compared to other jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City. 1 Tree Application
Pacific Grove charges a $105 fee for a Tree Application. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $377. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 55
Pacific Grove’s current fee is the lowest fee charged, Seaside’s fee of $126 is the most comparable. The full cost calculated is slight above the jurisdictional average of $293 and is most comparable to Santa Cruz at $326. At $435, Marina charges the highest fee. 2 Tentative Tract Map
Pacific Grove charges a $2,617 fee for a Tentative Tract Map. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $3,258. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Of the surveyed jurisdictions with flat fees for Tentative Tract Maps, Pacific Grove’s current fee is the second lowest, following Capitola at $2,000. The full cost calculated is significantly below the jurisdictional average of $6,568 and closely aligns with Carmel at $4,000. Carpinteria and Sausalito administer this fee as a deposit, set at $11,000 and $10,925 respectively.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Pacific Grove
- Current Fee
Pacific Grove
- Full Cost
Capitola Carmel Marina Monterey Santa Cruz Sausalito Seaside Tree Application
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 56
3 Use Permit – Single Family
Pacific Grove charges a $2,089 fee for a Single-Family Use Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $2,644. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and full cost calculated are just below the jurisdictional average of $3,161, and closely aligns with Monterey at $2,393. At $5,350, Marina charges the highest fee. Carpinteria administers this fee as a deposit, set at $4,900. 4 Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit
Pacific Grove charges a $168 fee for a Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit.
Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $210. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 57
Pacific Grove’s current fee and full cost calculated are both above the jurisdictional average of $133 and are most comparable to Capitola ($189). At $180, Carpinteria charges the highest fee.
5 Administrative Sign Permit
Pacific Grove charges a $978 fee for an Administrative Sign Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $950. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Of the surveyed jurisdictions with flat fees for Administrative Sign Permits, Pacific Grove’s current fee is the highest. Both the current fee and full cost calculated are significantly above the jurisdictional average of $380 and are most comparable to Carpinteria at $640.
6 Appeals of Enforcement and Zoning Ordinance Interpretations Pacific Grove charges a $2,782 fee for an Appeals of Enforcement and Zoning Ordinance Interpretations. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $2,667.
The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 58
Pacific Grove’s current fee and full cost calculated are significantly higher than the jurisdictional average of $1,235. The current fee is most comparable to Marina at $2,075.
Carpinteria does note that their fee of $1,260 is set a 66% subsidy. 7 Coastal Development Permit – Single Family Residence
Pacific Grove charges a $2,453 fee for Single-Family specific Coastal Development Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $4,058. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Of the surveyed jurisdictions with flat fees for Single-Family Coastal Development Permits, Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are the highest. Both the current fee and full cost calculated are significantly above the jurisdictional average of $2,420 PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 59
and are most comparable to Santa Cruz at $2,174. Carpinteria administers this fee as a deposit, set at $1,200.
8 Single-Family Home - New: 3,100 sq. ft. / $407,205 Valuation Pacific Grove charges a $15,011 fee for New 3,100 square foot Single-Family home, valued at $407,205. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $11,469. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are the highest and are significantly above the jurisdictional average of $7,772. At $11,296 Seaside has the most comparable fee. 9 Retail Shell Building Type M: 5,000 sq. ft. / $600,000 Pacific Grove charges a $23,606 fee for a 5,000 square foot Type M Retail Shell Building valued at $600,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $15,725. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 60
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are the highest and are significantly above the jurisdictional average of $10,761. At $15,989, Seaside has the most comparable fee. 10 Tenant Improvement, Type B: 1,500 sq. ft. / $89,312 Valuation Pacific Grove charges a $5,726 fee for a 1,500 square foot Type B Tenant Improvement valued at $89,312. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $3,885. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full cost are both above the jurisdictional average of $3,576 and are most comparable to Monterey’s charges ($3,566). At $9,344, Seaside charges the most for this plan check and permit. 11 Restaurant - New - Type A-2: 2,000 sq t. / $180,000 valuation Pacific Grove charges a $8,959 fee for a new 2,000 square foot Type A-2 Restaurant valued at $180,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $6,092. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are the highest and are both above the jurisdictional average of $4,631. At $8,580, Seaside has the most comparable fee.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 61
12 Warehouse - New, S1 Type: 50,000 sq. ft. / $4,107,380 Pacific Grove charges a $89,719 fee for a new 50,000 square foot Type S1 Warehouse valued at $180,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $28,801. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee is significantly above the jurisdictional average of $48,602, while its full cost is much lower. The current fee is in alignment with fees charged by Sausalito ($59,522) and Monterey ($61,945).
13 Urn Garden – Single In-Ground
Pacific Grove charges a $2,361 fee for a Single In-Ground urn placement in their Urn Garden. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $6,673. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 62
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are the highest and are significantly above the jurisdictional average of $1,228. At $1,757, the City of Monterey has the most comparable fee.
14 Set In-Ground Marker
Pacific Grove charges a $590 fee for a Set In-Ground Marker. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $625. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full cost are the highest and are above the jurisdictional average of $351. At $400, the Castroville Cemetery District has the most comparable fee.
15 Single Burial Site - Adult
Pacific Grove charges a $5,048 fee for a Single Burial Site for an Adult. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $14,267. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full cost are both above the jurisdictional average of $1,228, and the current fee is the third highest of the surveyed jurisdictions.
At $5,328, the Castroville Cemetery District has the most comparable fee.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 63
16 Open/Close Burial Site - Adult
Pacific Grove charges a $2,094 fee for an Open/Close Burial Site for an Adult. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $2,230. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are both above the jurisdictional average of $888. At $1,100, the Castroville Cemetery District has the most comparable fee. 17 Disinter – Lower Level
Pacific Grove charges a $1,559 fee for disinterment of lower-level graves. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $1,493. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and calculated full are both above the jurisdictional average of $1,983. At $800, the Castroville Cemetery District has the most comparable fee.
Neither the Atascadero nor Paso Robles cemetery districts offer disinterment services.
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 64
18 Niche - Columbarium
Pacific Grove charges a $2,094 fee for an Open/Close Burial Site for an Adult. This study did not evaluate endowment care costs, so a full cost of this service is not available. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $2,248. At $1,400, the Atascadero Cemetery District has the most comparable fee. 19 Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog
Pacific Grove charges a $23 fee for an Annual Dog License for an Altered Dog. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $52. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s full cost calculated is the highest, while the current fee is in alignment with the jurisdictional average of $23. At $25, Carpinteria most closely aligns with the current fee charged.
20 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed & Altered
Currently, Pacific Grove does not charge a fee for an initial impound of an unlicensed or altered animal. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $259. $0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Pacific Grove -
Current Fee
Pacific Grove -
Full Cost
Capitola Carmel Carpinteria Marina Monterey Santa Cruz Seaside Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 65
The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Of the jurisdiction who charge a comparable fee, all administer a fee for an initial impound, ranging from a high of $110 (Capitola and Santa Cruz) to a low of $40 (Marina).
Pacific Grove’s full cost calculated is the highest and is significantly higher than the jurisdictional average of $97.
21 Alarm Registration
Pacific Grove charges a $38 fee for an Alarm Registration. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to also be $38. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Pacific Grove’s current fee and full cost calculated are lower than the average of $57, but higher than Carmel, Marina, and Monterey. Seaside has the highest fee at $126. 22 Vehicle Release Fee
Pacific Grove charges a $238 fee for a Vehicle Release Fee. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $419. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
Pacific Grove -
Current Fee
Pacific Grove - Full
Cost
Capitola Carmel Marina Monterey Santa Cruz Seaside
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed & Altered
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Pacific Grove -
Current Fee
Pacific Grove -
Full Cost
Capitola Carmel Carpinteria Marina Monterey Santa Cruz Sausalito Seaside Alarm Registration
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 66
Pacific Grove’s calculated full cost is the highest and is above the jurisdiction average of $222. The current fee is in alignment with the average and is most comparable to Santa Cruz at $250.
23 Sign-Off of Tickets by Other Agencies
Pacific Grove charges an $18 fee for a Sign-Off of Tickets by Other Agencies. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $38. The following graph compares Pacific Grove's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
Of the surveyed jurisdictions which charge a comparable fee, Pacific Grove’s current fee is the second lowest as Capitola does not charge for citation signoffs. The calculated full cost is above the jurisdictional average of $25 and is most comparable to Santa Cruz ($46)
5 Summary
Based upon the comparative survey, Pacific Grove generally has fees that are higher than the surveyed jurisdictions, particularly in relation to Building specific fees. Of the surveyed jurisdictions Pacific Grove’s fees are most comparable with Seaside, Capitola, and Sausalito. It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the fees adopted $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Pacific Grove -
Current Fee
Pacific Grove -
Full Cost
Capitola Carmel Monterey Santa Cruz Sausalito Seaside
Vehicle Release Fee
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Pacific Grove - Current Fee Pacific Grove - Full Cost Capitola Santa Cruz Sausalito Sign-Off of Tickets by Other Agencies
PGCC 9-4-24
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group 67
by the council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making tool.
PGCC 9-4-24
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page No.
Fees, Charges, and Cost Recovery 400-4 June 15, 2011 1 of 2 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the policy is to guide the City Council’s establishment of fees for service, fines, and other charges for service, in order to help ensure consistency in fee setting rationale. The policy is intended to provide broad guidance for service areas, without providing detailed guidance for all fee categories
It is the City Council’s intent that the policy may be amended over time to address additional services and evolving economic circumstances.
II. POLICY OF THE CITY
The City establishes fees according to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 6.02. Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it is the intent of the City Council to recover a portion or all costs reasonably borne for providing government services to the extent such cost recovery reflects the appropriate balance of general revenue support and fees paid by the individual(s) benefiting from the service.
For enterprise services, in which the City is offering products or services for which the customer has broad market choices, the City may choose to set rates based on current market conditions.
This includes facility rentals, cemetery sales, recreational programs, land use, or similar enterprises. This market-based approach provides the City with the ability to optimize revenue beyond recovering the cost of providing the service. These market-based rates accurately reflect the value received by the customer.
In setting fees, City staff shall prepare fees for City Council consideration, based on cost recovery levels in the subsequent table. The listed percentage or methodology represents the combined cost recovery level for the department. Individual fees within each department may be established at a lower rate to encourage a desired performance; however the overall departmental fees should be within the listed ranges.
All staff assigned to hourly-based services, such as special events, inspections, or related tasks will be charged at the fully burdened hourly rate.
Attachment II - City Policy No. 400-4 (Cost Recovery)
1 PGCC 9-4-24
Pacific Grove City Council Policy No. 400-4 Page 2 of 2 Service Cost Recovery Method
Administration, City Clerk, Libraries At least 30% of costs Consideration may need to be given to the recovery percentage, such as limitations on certain fees imposed by the State, election code; or similar entities.
Community Development 80-100% of costs
Public Works 80-100% of costs
Public Safety 30-50% of costs
Hyperbaric Chamber 80-100% of costs
City Facility Rental
Private parties Market
Non-profit organizations Market
Ongoing, frequent, or unique rental
(e.g., weekly classes, or street closure)
Discount from Market
City–sponsored events No charge
Special Events
For-profit sponsor Market; however at least 100% costs
Non-profit sponsor 100% of costs
Events designated “traditional” by City Council No charge Recreation Market; however at least 30% of costs
Cemetery Market; however at least 80% of costs
Golf Determined through concessionaire
Adopted June 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 10-044)
Adopted June 15, 2011 (Resolution No. 11-052)
Adopted September 19, 2018 (Resolution No. 18-033)
2 PGCC 9-4-24
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
GENERAL ADMIN
Special Services Each Actual Costs
Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or
Hard Copy) Per Page $0.25 $ 0 $ 0.25
Digital Production (CD, DVD, Flash Drives) of
PRA Information Each Actual Costs
Notary Services Per Page $15 $ 15 $ 15
Returned Check Processing
1st Check Each $22 $ 25 $ 25
2nd and Subsequent Checks Each $22 $ 35 $ 35
Credit Card Payment Processing Fee
$1.00 - $50.00 Each $2 $ 2 $ 2
$50.01 - $100.00 Each $3 $ 3 $ 3
$100.01 - $200.00 Each $5 $ 5 $ 5
Greater than $200.01 Each 4% $ 0 4%
Annual Reports
Copies of Annual Budget or Financial Reports Each Actual Costs Business License Administration Fee
If paid by August 1 (on time
payment/standard) Per License $22 $ 46 $ 37
If paid after August 1 (late payment) Per License $49 $ 46 $ 46
TRANSIENT USE LICENSES
Initial STR Application Review Each $413 $ 141 $ 141
Application Renewal Each $253 $ 97 $ 97
Annual License Each $680 $ 124 $ 124
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
1 PGCC 9-4-24
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
GENERAL ADMIN
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Home Sharing License Annual Renewal Each $191 $ 332 $ 265 Initial Home Sharing License Application
Review Each $349 $ 81 $ 81
Transient License Change or Reprint Fee Each $32 $ 26 $ 26 City Hall Rentals
Security Deposit (SECURITY) Per Rental $70 $ 70 $ 70
Clean-up Fee Per Rental Actual Costs
Special Audio Visual Equipment Use Deposit 280 $ 280 $ 280 Council Chambers – first four hours of use
First four hours First 4 hours $148 $ 377 $ 148
Per hour after four hours Per Hour 37 $ 94 $ 37
Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four
hours
First four hours First 4 hours $58 $ 75 $ 58
Per hour after four hours Per Hour 15 $ 19 $ 15
City Manager Conference Room – first four
hours
First four hours First 4 hours $116 $ 151 $ 116
Per hour after four hours Per Hour 30 $ 38 $ 30
Fuel Sales
Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10%
Water Entitlement Rights
Application Processing Fee Each $484 -$ $ 484
Per Acre Foot Per Year Per AFY $262,250 -$ $ 262,250
Per one tenth (.10) Acre Foot Per Year Per .10 AFY $26,225 -$ $ 26,225 2 PGCC 9-4-24
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
GENERAL ADMIN
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Tobacco License
Tobacco Retailer License Each $386 $ 407 $ 407
Filming Fees
Minor Film Permit per permit $162 $ 183 $ 183
Mid-Level Film Permit per permit $549 $ 629 $ 629
Major Film Permit per permit $893 $ 1,107 $ 1,107
Land Lease for Filming Per Sq. Ft. Per Hour $0.15 $ 0 $ 0.24 Late Payments
Late Payment Fee Minimum $25 $ 25 $ 25
3 PGCC 9-4-24
CITY CLERK
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CITY CLERK FEES
Clerk Certification
Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or
Proof of Life per signature $15 $ 15 $ 15
Certification of Documents per document $15 $ 15 $ 15
Public Records
Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white
(ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and
economic statements) per page $0.25 $ 0 $ 0.10
Elections
Nomination Papers Filing Fee per filing $25 $ 25 $ 25
Candidates Statement Filing per filing Set by County
Intent to File Initiative per filing $200 $ 200 $ 200
Late filing fee per late day $10 $ 10 $ 10
Miscellaneous
Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) per request Actual Costs Appeal Fee (Beautification, Traffic
Commission, all others not listed elsewhere) per appeal $46 $ 46 $ 46 Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and
Minutes per subscription $30 $ 136 $ 136
Marriage Solemnization per request New $ 25 $ 25
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
4 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Single Burial Site
Adult Each $5,048 $ 14,267 $5,553
Child Each $2,526 $ 7,139 $2,779
Double Garden Crypt-In Ground Each $8,744 $ 24,714 $9,618 Urn Garden
Double-In Ground Each $3,772 $ 10,661 $4,149
Single-In Ground Each $2,361 $ 6,673 $2,597
Urn Sites (Other than Urn Garden)
Single Each $2,557 $ 7,227 $2,813
Double Each $4,194 $ 11,854 $4,613
Triple Each $4,508 $ 12,741 $4,959
Columbarium Niche (1 - 4 urns) Each $8,383 $ 23,693 $9,221 Historic Site Unit 1 - Mausoleum
Single Niche Each $3,341 $ 9,443 $3,675
Double Niche Each $6,549 $ 18,510 $7,204
Single Crypt Each $15,783 $ 44,609 $17,361
Modern Site Unit 2 - Mausoleum
Double Niche Each $6,549 $ 18,510 $7,204
Single Crypt Each $15,782 $ 44,606 $17,360
Double Crypt Each $28,957 $ 81,843 $31,853
Memorial Garden Each $344 $ 972 $378
Memorial Wall Plaque Site Each $73 $ 206 $80
ENDOWMENT CARE
Burial Site
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
5 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Adult Each $1,195 -$ $1,195
Child Each $614 -$ $614
Double Garden Crypt Each $1,195 -$ $1,195
Urn Garden
Double Each $735 -$ $735
Single Each $657 -$ $657
Urn Sites (Other than Urn Garden)
Single Each $657 -$ $657
Double Each $735 -$ $735
Triple Each $1,195 -$ $1,195
Niche
Columbarium (1-4 Urns) Each $802 -$ $802
Mausoleum
Single Each $735 -$ $735
Double Each $802 -$ $802
Memorial Garden Vault Each $134 -$ $134
Crypt Each $802 -$ $802
LABOR CHARGES
Grounds Maintenance (One Time Fee)
Memorial Garden Sites Each $307 -$ $307
Child Sites Each $614 -$ $614
All Other Sites Each $1,226 -$ $1,226
Open / Close
Burial Site:
6 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Adult Each $2,094 $ 2,230 $2,230
Child Each $1,042 $ 1,108 $1,108
Double Garden Crypt:
1st Opening Each $1,948 $ 1,999 $1,200
Subsequent Opening Each $1,801 $ 1,922 $1,920
Set or Removal In-Ground
Marker:
Set In-Ground Marker Each $590 $ 625 $625
Set In-Ground Marker with Border Each $881 $ 932 $932
Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker
with Border Each $287 $ 371 $371
Urn:
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker Each $896 $ 955 $955
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border Each $1,114 $ 1,185 $1,185 Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground
Urn & marker with Border Each $355 $ 301 $301
Vase:
Set or Remove In-Ground Vase Each $178 $ 186 $186
Set In-Ground Vase with Border Each $395 $ 416 $416
Addition of Boarder After Original Placement
To Marker Each $590 $ 609 $609
To Vase Each $433 $ 455 $455
Historic Site Unit 1 Mausoleum- Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for inurnment Each $1,042 $ 1,108 $1,108 7 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at
inurnment Each $217 $ 231 $231
Place / Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum
Niche after inurnment Each $578 $ 609 $609
Replace Vase Holder (Niche & Columbarium)
Each + cost of Vase
Package $250 $ 263 $263
Remove Urn - Niche Each $287 $ 301 $301
Modern Site Unit 2 Mausoleum - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for inurnment Each $825 $ 878 $878 Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at
inurnment Each $256 $ 269 $269
Place / Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum
Niche after inurnment Each $468 $ 493 $493
Replace Vase Holder (Niche & New
Columbarium)
Each + cost of Vase
Package $178 $ 186 $186
Remove Urn - Niche Each $297 $ 339 $339
Columbarium - Inurnment
Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn Each $1,189 $ 1,262 $1,262 Place / Remove Plaque or Vase on
Columbarium niche at Inurnment Each $146 $ 154 $154
Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche
after Inurnment Each $651 $ 686 $686
Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche Each $323 $ 301 $301
Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn Each $679 $ 724 $724 8 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium
niche Each $178 $ 186 $186
Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium
niche Each $178 $ 186 $186
Mausoleum Crypt - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment Each $969 $ 1,032 $1,032 Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial Each $1,553 $ 1,647 $1,647 Historic Site Unit 1 Mausoleum - Burial
Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt at
Burial Each $217 $ 231 $231
Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt
other than at Burial Each $468 $ 493 $493
Modern Site Unit 2 Mausoleum- Burial
Open Underground Mausoleum Crypt for Burial Each $1,844 $ 1,954 $1,954 Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Crypt at
Burial Each $146 $ 308 $308
Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Crypt
after Burial Each $630 $ 670 $670
Memorial Garden
Open Memorial Garden Site (place urn) Each $515 $ 548 $548 Place Plaque on Memorial Garden
Site/Memorial Wall Each $178 $ 186 $186
Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Site Each $395 $ 416 $416 9 PGCC 9-4-24
CEMETERY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
CEMETERY SITE SALES
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden
Site/Memorial Wall Each $468 $ 493 $493
Disinter
Casket, Double Garden Crypt:
Lower Level Each $1,559 $ 1,493 $1,493
Upper Level Each $1,406 $ 1,493 $1,493
In-Ground Casket:
Child Each $969 $ 1,032 $1,032
Adult Each $1,406 $ 1,493 $1,493
Miscellaneous
Remove Niche/Crypt Slug Each $323 $ 493 $395
Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate
(Unit 1) Each Plus Plate Cost $178 $ 186 $186
Place Cameos Per Hour $178 $ 154 $154
Marker Rubbing Per Hour $126 $ 154 $154
Pallbearers – weekdays only 4 Staff $308 $ 660 $660
Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime
rate) Per Staff Hour $615 $ 766 $766
Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Per Staff Hour $94 $ 165 $165 Overtime Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Per Staff Hour $103 $ 192 $192
DEED PROCESSING
Deed Fee Each $255 $ 255 $255
Replacement Deed Fee Each $38 $ 38 $38
Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee Each $255 $ 255 $255 CA Disposition of Human Remain Permit Each $12 $ 21 $21 10 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendment Deposit $5,783 $ 9,563 $10,000
General Plan Land Use Map Amendment Deposit $ 3,701 $10,000 General Plan Update Fee % of Permit Fee 5% $ 0 5%
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Deposit $2,888 $ 9,563 $10,000 Zoning Map Amendment Deposit $2,888 $ 5,623 $10,000
Zoning Ordinance Interpretations Each $1,403 $ 1,598 $1,598 Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists Each $1,403 $ 1,598 $1,598
SUBDIVISIONS
Tentative Tract Map
Base Base $2,617 $ 3,258 $3,258
Per Lot Per Lot $317 $ 323 $323
Final Tract Map
Base + Recording Fee Base $2,617 $ 3,258 $3,258
Per Lot Per Lot $405 $ 323 $323
Lot Line Adjustment (Inland Zone - Outside the
Coastal Zone) Each $2,159 $ 2,536 $2,536
Parcel Legality Determination (PLD) Each New $ 1,052 $1,052 Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) Each $2,287 $ 2,827 $2,827 Tentative Parcel Map Each $2,287 $ 2,827 $2,827
Lot Mergers Each $2,175 $ 2,536 $2,536
Certificate of Compliance Each $2,175 $ 2,115 $2,115
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
11 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Deposit
50% of EIR
cost $ 10,000 $10,000
Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration Deposit $7,027 $ 7,500 $7,500 Mitigation Monitoring Deposit $5,180 $ 5,500 $5,500
Environmental Enhancement Fund (Fund 5) per sq. ft. $2 $ 2 $2
USE PERMITS
Use Permit and Amendments
Single Family Each $2,089 $ 2,644 $2,644
Multi-Family, Commercial, Institutional, all other
uses Each $0 $ 3,701 $3,701
Administrative Use Permits $1,369 $ 1,382 $1,382
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Architectural Permit
Single Family $3,481 $ 3,701 $3,701
Multi-Family
Four units or less Base $4,259 $ 4,350 $4,350
Five units or more Base $4,804 $ 4,781 $4,781
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others
10,000 sq. ft. or less Base $3,600 $ 3,701 $3,701
10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. Base $5,343 $ 5,384 $5,384
50,000-100,000 sq. ft. Base $10,791 $ 10,784 $10,784
12 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Over 100,000 sq. ft. Base $13,737 $ 13,435 $13,435
Administrative Architectural Permit Each $1,675 $ 1,802 $1,802 Administrative Design Change Each $1,675 $ 1,802 $1,802
COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS
Counter Review & Determination
No new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more
than ½ hour required) Per Permit $241 $ 421 $421
New square footage (Plus hourly fee if more
than 3 hours required) Per Permit $978 $ 1,047 $1,047
Zoning Confirmation for Business License
Permit Per Permit $168 $ 210 $210
Massage Permit Application Per Application $168 $ 446 $446
SIGN PERMITS
Downtown Sign Permit Per Sign $624 $ 1,133 $1,133
Administrative Sign Permit Per Sign $978 $ 950 $950
Sign Permit Per Sign $2,556 $ 1,133 $1,133
HISTORIC REVIEW
Historic Demolition Permit Each $5,474 $ 5,860 $5,860
Off-site relocation permit Each $5,474 $ 5,860 $5,860
Historic Resources Inventory Determinations
(Additions/Deletions) Each $2,093 $ 1,997 $1,997
On-site relocation permit Each $2,737 $ 3,077 $3,077
Historic Preservation Permit Each $1,979 $ 1,997 $1,997 Initial Historic Screening Each $515 $ 507 $507
13 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
VARIANCES
Variances Each $2,907 $ 3,701 $3,701
Administrative Variances Each $1,625 $ 2,031 $2,031
APPEALS
Appeals of enforcement and zoning ordinance
interpretations Per Appeal $2,782 $ 2,667 $2,667
Appeals/hearings of planning permits Per Appeal $1,192 $ 3,161 $3,161 Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing or
Decision Per Appeal $571 $ 784 $784
Appeal fees for Coastal Development Permits Per Appeal $0 $ 3,161 $0
OVERLAY FEES
Area of Special and Biological Significance Each
5% of permit
fees
Butterfly Buffer Each
5% of permit
fees
NOTICING
Mailing Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost
Publishing Each $379 Actual Cost
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
Waiver of De Minims Development plan permit Each $2,453 $ 2,957 $2,957 Single Family Residence Each $2,453 $ 4,058 $4,058
Multi-family Residential
14 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Base Each $2,978 $ 5,136 $5,136
Per Unit Per Unit $1,012 $ 1,100 $1,100
Commercial or Industrial Each Varies $ 6,624 $6,624
Lot Line Adjustment (Coastal Zone) Each $2,453 $ 5,352 $5,352 Subdivision Per Lot $2,452 $ 3,744 $3,744
Emergency Permit Each $1,840 $ 1,683 $1,683
Amendment % of Permit Fee 50% $ 1 50%
Temporary Event Each $3,066 $ 5,243 $5,243
Extension % of Permit Fee 50% $ 228 $228
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Abandonment or purchase of City property Each $3,686 $ 3,744 $3,744 Abandoned Property Registration Fee Each $234 $ 306 $306 Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual
Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost
VACANT PROPERTIES
Inspection per property (min. or actual cost) Each $176 $ 204 $204 Registration per property Each $176 $ 204 $204
MISCELLANEOUS
County Filing Fees Each
As determined
by County
Density bonus Each $2,265 $ 2,873 $2,873
General File Research Each $64 $ 210 $210
15 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Hourly Fee Per Hour $130 $ 210 $210
Multiple Permits for Single Family residential
applications only Per Permit
Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit Each $438 $ 938 $938
Sidewalk Vendor Permit Each $49 $ 307 $307
Permit Extension (Fee may be waived if permit
is subject to Water Waiting List) Each
25% of permit
base fee $ 227 $227
Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary Project
Review Each $269 $ 307 $307
Records Management and Retention (per file) Each $58 $ 194 $194 Rental Property Registration Each $238 $ 398 $398
Revocable License for Encroachments (plus
hourly fee after 2 hours) Each $870 $ 1,035 $1,035
Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if more
than 4 hours required) Each $491 $ 842 $842
Tree Permit with Development Each $296 $ 404 $404
Tree Permit with Development Violation Each $251 $ 404 $404 ABC License Review Fee Each $183 $ 202 $202
ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND
BREEDING PERMITS - §10.16.040
Animal Keeping Permit Each $182 $ 362 $362
Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal Each $44 $ 103 $103 Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats Each $155 $ 1,221 $1,221 16 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs Each $155 $ 1,221 $1,221 Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) Each $77 $ 284 $284 Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) Each $77 $ 284 $284
HOUSING FEES
Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff Demand -
Per Statement Each $127 $ 307 $307
Reconveyance Fee Each $193 $ 404 $404
County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey
County Recorder) Each Actual Cost Actual Cost
Housing Rehab Loan Fees (CalHOME Loan
Funded Projects) $0
Loan Processing Each $2,078 $ 3,349 $3,349
Underwriting Each $639 $ 631 $631
Property Tax Verification Each $64 $ 307 $307
Loan Document Preparation – SFD Each $375 $ 1,149 $1,149 Loan Document Preparation – Manufactured
Housing Each $446 $ 2,201 $2,201
Inspection To Determine Scope of Work (Actual
Cost) Each $276 $ 412 $412
Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) Each $276 $ 3,560 $3,560 Development of Work Write-up & Specifications
(Actual Cost) Each $2,638 $ 4,401 $4,401
Project Bidding (Actual Cost) Each $1,285 $ 4,304 $4,304 17 PGCC 9-4-24
PLANNING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PLANNING
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per Unit Results
Progress Inspection/Payment Authorization
(Actual Cost) Each $138 $ 518 $518
Affordable Housing Monitoring - Annual Fee
Per Household $0
Affordable Units Each $127 $ 194 $194
Registered Units Each $127 $ 194 $194
18 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING PERMITS
Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $ 153 $ 237 $ 237 Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $ 153 $ 237 $ 237 Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) Each $ 153 $ 237 $ 237 Solar voltaic system Each $ 331 $ 670 $ 670
Single Family Residential Reroof Each New $ 670 $ 670
Multi-Family / Commercial Reroof
First Building First Building New $ 602 $ 602
Each Additional Building Each Additional New $ 130 $ 130 Kitchen / Bathroom Remodel (non-structural no
exterior changes) Each New $ 1,367 $ 1,367
PLAN CHECK
Single Family Residential Plan Check % of Building Permit Fee $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.75 Commercial Plan Check % of Building Permit Fee $ 0.90 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 Non-Structural Plan Review (hourly not
included in larger project) Per Hour $ 148 $ 174 $ 174
Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in a
larger project) Per Hour $ 181 $ 174 $ 174
Plan review extension Per 90 days $ 750 $ 285 $ 285
On-site storm water management plan review
and inspection Each $ 410 $ 558 $ 558
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
19 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Additional fee if LID requirements or additional
time required, per hour Per Hour $ 130 $ 138 $ 138
Building Permits Extension Per 90 days $ 1,197 $ 922 $ 922
OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS
Inspections outside of normal business hours
(4 hour minimum) Per Hour $ 356 $ 193 $ 193
Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions
of CBC § 108.8 Per Hour $ 239 $ 138 $ 138
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated Per Inspection $ 149 $ 207 $ 207
Traffic control plan review Each $ 188 $ 239 $ 239
Change of Street Address Each $ 188 $ 304 $ 304
Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee,
2 hour minimum) Per Hour $ 377 $ 753 $ 753
Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit
fee % of Permit Fee $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20
Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential Each $ 277 $ 667 $ 667 Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial Each $ 471 $ 1,226 $ 1,226 Temporary Occupancy Each $ 377 $ 1,017 $ 1,017
ASBS Stormwater Inspection Fee min. deposit
(Fee calculation of 26 rainy season
inspections) Deposit $ 3,711 $ 3,751 $ 3,751
20 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP
Inspection Each $ 215 $ 289 $ 289
Additional plan review due to
changes/additions/revisions to approved plans
per hour (1/2 hour min.) Per 30 min $ 115 $ 87 $ 87
Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way
Permit. Each $ 527 $ 711 $ 711
Grading Inspection (hourly fee, 1-hour
minimum) Per Hour $ 115 $ 192 $ 192
Grading Plan Checking (hourly fee, ½-hour
minimum) Per Hour $ 115 $ 192 $ 192
Residential Zoning Records Report (RZRR) &
Sewer Lateral Report (combined) Each $ 363 $ 860 $ 860
Sewer Lateral Report Review Each $ 154 $ 518 $ 518
Parklets
New Parklet Each New $ 905 $ 905
Parklet Renewal Each New $ 300 $ 300
Excavation and Inspection Services
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (per hour with a ½-hour minimum) Per Hour $ 136 $ 192 $ 192 Encroachment permit: street
opening/excavation Each $ 261 $ 650 $ 650
Encroachment permit: driveway Each $ 270 $ 650 $ 650
Encroachment permit: sidewalk Each $ 178 $ 650 $ 650
21 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Encroachment: temporary (e.g., building
construction requiring scaffolding in Right- ofWay Each $ 270 $ 650 $ 650 Encroachment permit: permanent
underground (e.g. utility line) Each $ 270 $ 650 $ 650
Encroachment permit: permanent above
ground (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.) Each $ 270 $ 650 $ 650 Encroachment permit hourly processing fee, if
more than 2 hours review or inspection
required. Hourly $ 136 $ 192 $ 192
Annual encroachment permit (Encompasses
up to 40 utility openings per year) Each $ 9,713 $ 10,476 $ 10,476 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: (Based on
Project Valuation)
Combination Permit Fees: (Building or
Building + M + E + P)
$0 - $500 Base $ 142 $ 191 $ 191
$501 - $2,000 Base $ 142 $ 191 $ 191
$501 - $2,000
Each. Addl. $100 or
fraction thereof $ 12 $ 16 $ 16
$2,001 - $25,000 Base $ 300 $ 424 $ 424
$2,001 - $25,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 49 $ 58 $ 58
$25,001 - $50,000 Base $ 1,361 $ 1,747 $ 1,747
22 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
$25,001 - $50,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 35 $ 39 $ 39
$50,001 - $100,000 Base $ 2,188 $ 2,730 $ 2,730
$50,001 - $100,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 21 $ 29 $ 29
$100,001 - $500,000 Base $ 3,355 $ 4,199 $ 4,199
$100,001 - $500,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 17 $ 24 $ 24
$500,001 - $1,000,000 Base $ 10,824 $ 13,665 $ 13,665
$500,001 - $1,000,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 16 $ 21 $ 21
$1,000,001 - $5,000,000 Base $ 19,254 $ 23,964 $ 23,964 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 9.00 $ 1.56 $ 1.56
$5,000,001 - $10,000,000 Base $ 24,254 $ 30,191 $ 30,191 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 9.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00
$10,000,001+ Base $ 28,254 $ 35,192 $ 35,192
$10,000,001+
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 9.00 $ 0.50 $ 0.50
Single Permit: (M / E / P)
$0 - $500 Base $ 126 $ 191 $ 191
$501 - $2,000 Base $ 123 $ 191 $ 191
$501 - $2,000
Each. Addl. $100 or
fraction thereof $ 6 $ 11 $ 11
23 PGCC 9-4-24
BUILDING
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
$2,001 - $25,000 Base $ 233 $ 355 $ 355
$2,001 - $25,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 35 $ 39 $ 39
$25,001 - $50,000 Base $ 988 $ 1,242 $ 1,242
$25,001 - $50,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 22 $ 30 $ 30
$50,001 - $100,000 Base $ 1,582 $ 1,984 $ 1,984
$50,001 - $100,000
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 16 $ 20 $ 20
$100,001+ Base $ 2,397 $ 2,981 $ 2,981
$100,001+
Each Addl. $1,000 or
fraction thereof $ 11 $ 15 $ 15
24 PGCC 9-4-24
FIRE
Fire Services are provided by Monterey County
Agreement. Therefore, there is NO HOURLY RATE
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
25 PGCC 9-4-24
LIBRARY
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
Other Fees and Rentals
Photocopies
Black and White Per Page $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.15
Color Per Page $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.25
Computer Printout Per Page $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.15
Card Replacement
Replace Borrower's Card Each $ 3 $ 4 $ 4
Lost / Damaged Material Replacement / Repair
Re-Cataloging / processing for lost book or
recording Each $ 3 $ 4 $ 4
Lost or damaged items Each Actual Cost -$ Actual Cost
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
26 PGCC 9-4-24
PT PINOS LIGHTHOUSE
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
POINT PINOS LIGHTHOUSE
Private Lighthouse Tour Fee (2 Hour) Per Tour $ 135 $ 150 $150 One-Time Events Each New Varies
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
27 PGCC 9-4-24
LOCAL WATER PROJECT
Annual Water Production (AcreFoot) 125
Costs
Local Water Proje Contract Services $410,000
Local Water Proje Utilities $375,000
Local Water Proje Bldg Repair, Main $5,000
Local Water Proje Equip Repair, Mai $10,000
Local Water Proje Internal Service $11,000
Local Water Proje Fund Transfers $600,000
Local Water Proje Indirect Cost All $19,000
Local Water Proje Interest Pmts $45,467
Local Water Proje Principal Pmts $160,982
Total Costs $1,636,449
Average Water Sales (AcreFoot) 125
FY18 & 19
had sales of
95.81 and
95.71 Liquid Gallons per AcreFoot 325,851
Average Water Sales (Gallons) 40,731,375
Cost Per Gallon Calculation
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
28 PGCC 9-4-24
LOCAL WATER PROJECT
Cost Per Gallon Calculation
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Cost Per AcreFoot) $13,092
Cost Per Gallon $0.040
Current Fee $0.029
Difference -$0.011
29 PGCC 9-4-24
POLICE
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES -
PGMC § 10.04.010
Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog Annual $ 23 $ 52 $ 25 Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog Annual $ 52 $ 52 $ 55 Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days) Per Offense $ 27 $ 27 $ 30 Dog License, Replacement Tag Each $ 10 $ 12 $ 11
ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES -
PGMC § 10.04.100
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed &
Altered Each $ - $ 185 $ 55
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed &
Altered Each $ - $ 259 $ 78
Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Altered Each $ 89 $ 185 $ 90 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed &
Unaltered Each $ 89 $ 185 $ 90
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed &
Unaltered Each $ 89 $ 259 $ 90
Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered Each $ 179 $ 185 $ 180 Boarding Fee, per day PG Kennels Each $ 43 $ 255 $ 50
Boarding Fee, transported to SPCA Each $ 184 $ 184 $ 184
ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE
Alarm Registration Annual $ 38 $ 38 $ 38
Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit
Expiration Date) Annual $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
30 PGCC 9-4-24
POLICE
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
False Alarm - First Response - Unpermitted
Alarm Each $ 150 $ 335 $ 155
False Alarm - First Response Each $ - $ 184 $ -
False Alarm - Second Response Each $ 64 $ 184 $ 65
False Alarm - Third Response Each $ 179 $ 184 $ 180
False Alarm - Fourth Response Each $ 297 -$ $ 184
False Alarm - Fifth and Subsequent Response Each $ 416 $ 184 $ 184 Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation Each $ 358 $ 389 $ 360 Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days) Per Offense $ 28 $ 28 $ 28
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS
Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per
report) Each $ 10 $ 38 $ 11
Booking Fee Each $ 31 $ 36 $ 36
Clearance Letter – No Record on File Each $ 37 $ 38 $ 40 Clearance Letter – Record on File Each $ 28 $ 50 $ 30
Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per
report) Each $ 12 $ 69 $ 21
Information Report, Compilation and Copying
(per report) Each $ 5 $ 38 $ 38
Evidence Video Reproduction Each $ 45 $ 312 $ 156
Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan
administration) Each $ 30 $ 76 $ 35
Removal of Traffic Boot Each $ 141 $ 196 $ 145
Repossession Receipt Each $ 16 $ 15 $ 15
31 PGCC 9-4-24
POLICE
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Sign-off of tickets by other agencies Each $ 18 $ 38 $ 20 Vehicle Release Fee Each $ 238 $ 419 $ 240
PARKING PERMITS & FEES
Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly Monthly $ 44 $ 265 $ 49 Parking Meter Rate per Hour Per Hour $ 2 $ 2 $ 2
Public Parking Lot Permit Processing,
Delinquency Penalty Per Offense $ 28 $ 73 $ 30
Public Parking Lot Permit, Annual Annual $ 405 $ 2,435 $ 415 Public Parking Lot Permit, 12-Month,
TRANSFERABLE Annual $ 515 $ 2,435 $ 525
Public Parking Lot Permit, Monthly Monthly $ 44 $ 225 $ 46 Residential Parking Permit Processing, per
permit, Annual Annual $ 11 $ 33 $ 15
Temporary Overnight Parking Permit Program -
Initial Residential Registration Each $ 26 $ 26 $ 26
Temporary Overnight Parking - 72 Hour
Resident Permit Each $ 4 $ 5 $ 5
Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Weekly -
Exemption Weekly $ 100 $ 97 $ 97
Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Annual -
Exemption Annual $ 416 $ 197 $ 197
Timed Space - Daily Per Day $ 5 $ 5 $ 5
POLICE RESPONSE - DUI, Peace Disturbance,
Social Hosting, & Special
Events
32 PGCC 9-4-24
POLICE
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Police Commander Hourly Rate Per Hour $ 220 $ 219 $ 219 Police Sergeant Hourly Rate Per Hour $ 211 $ 246 $ 211
Police Officer Hourly Rate Per Hour $ 186 $ 216 $ 195
Police Services, Animal Control & Parking
Enforcement Community Service Officer Hourly
Rate Per Hour $ 156 $ 143 $ 143
Patrol Vehicle Hourly Rate Per Hour $ 64 $ 131 $ 70
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS
Amplified Sound Permit Each $ 89 $ 133 $ 95
Drone Permit Fee - Daily Per Day $ 23 $ 43 $ 25
Drone Permit Fee - Annual Annual $ 87 $ 110 $ 95
Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee Each $ 446 $ 465 $ 465 Garage Sale Permit Processing Each $ 10 $ 20 $ 15
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit Each $ 59 $ 79 $ 65 Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit
Renewal/Extension Each $ 30 $ 31 $ 31
Transportation of Large Structure deposit –
variable fee based on size/type of structure -
unused portion to be reimbursed Each $ 224 $ 149 $ 149
Transportation of Large Structure permit – per
structure Per Structure $ 639 $ 802 $ 640
Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee Each $ 10 $ 55 $ 17 Film Permit Application Fee Each $ 162 $ 160 $ 160
33 PGCC 9-4-24
PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PUBLIC WORKS
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Requested Special Traffic Review per hour
Charged at
hourly rate $ 189 $189
Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown
Street Lights) per pole $ 47 $ 76 $76
Memorial Bench per bench $ 449 $ 632 $632
Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) every 5 years $ 589 $ 759 $759 Memorial Tree per tree $ 1,046 $ 1,111 $1,111
Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application per application $ 97 $ 340 $340 News rack Annual Application Fee per application $ 61 $ 94 $94 News rack Program Fee Half Rack Each $ 40 $ 76 $76
News rack Program Fee Full Rack Each $ 84 $ 114 $114
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations
Equal to PG&E
Peak Demand
Rate
TREE FEES
Application Fee Flat $ 105 $ 377 $190
Removal or Trimming
Single Tree Flat $ 71 $ 92 $50
Each Additional Tree Each Tree $ 33 $ 42 $20
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee Deposit $ 901 $ 994 $500
Tree Removal with Development
Single Tree Per Tree $ 311
Each Additional Tree Each Tree New
Tree Appeal Each $ 236 $ 683 $340
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
34 PGCC 9-4-24
PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
PUBLIC WORKS
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
TREE PERMIT VIOLATION
Trimming Prior to Approval Penalty New $ 750 $750
Removal Prior to Approval Penalty New $ 1,500 $1,500
STORMWATER
Tier 3 and 4 – 15,000 square feet of impervious
surface or greater (incl. 2 reviews) Each $ 1,840 $ 1,923 $1,923 Tier 2 – 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious
surface (incl. 2 reviews) Each $ 1,226 $ 1,250 $1,250
Tier 1 – 2,500-5,000 square feet impervious
surface Each $ 771 $ 866 $866
Each subsequent Tier 2 review Per Review $ 540 $ 577 $577 Inspection Fee Per Inspection $ 144 $ 192 $192
Annual Inspection and re-inspection Per Inspection $ 215 $ 289 $289 Each subsequent Tier 1 review Per Review $ 340 $ 385 $385 35 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES)
2 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $ 197 $ 221 $ 200
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $ 217 $ 221 $ 220
3 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $ 311 $ 331 $ 315
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $ 344 $ 331 $ 350
5 Days Per Week
Resident/ Non- Profit per month $ 506 $ 552 $ 510
Non- Resident / Commercial per month $ 562 $ 552 $ 552
PRE-SCHOOL CAMPS (WEEKLY FEES)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Week $ 98 $ 320 $ 102
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Week $ 108 $ 320 $ 112
SPORTS
Tots (3-5 years)
Class / Clinic per participant $ 98 $ 151 $ 102
Class / Clinic - Non-Residential per participant $ 108 $ 100 $ 112 Youth (5-18 years)
Tournament or Clinic - Resident per participant $ 99 $ 301 $ 109 Tournament or Clinic - non-resident per participant $ 109 $ 301 $ 119 Camp per participant $ 277 $ 225
League - resident per participant $ 99 $ 477 $ 109
League -non-resistant per participant $ 109 $ 477 $ 119 Adult (18+ years)
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
36 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Tournament or Clinic - non-contact - resident per participant $ 274 $ 109 Tournament or Clinic - non-contact - nonresident per participant $ 274 $ 119 Tournament or Clinic - contact - resident per participant $ 274 $ 208 Tournament or Clinic - contact - non-resident per participant $ 274 $ 238 League - non-contact sport - resident per participant $ 358 $ 60 League - non-contact sport - non resident per participant $ 358 $ 70 League - contact sport - resident per participant $ 358 $ 90 League - contact sport - non resident per participant $ 358 $ 100
PROGRAMS
Full Day Youth Camp (5 day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $ 197 $ 459 $ 205
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $ 217 $ 459 $ 226
Full Day Youth Camp (4 day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $ 157 $ 367 $ 163
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $ 175 $ 367 $ 182
Full Day Youth Camp (3 day week)
Resident/ Non- Profit per week $ 116 $ 275 $ 121
Non- Resident / Commercial per week $ 130 $ 275 $ 135
Daily Drop-In (per Day)
Resident/ Non- Profit per day $ 45 92$ $ 50
Non- Resident / Commercial per day $ 49 92$ $ 50
SWIMMING (during the Summer Season)
37 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Tot Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child
Resident/ Non- Profit per child $ 82 $ 232 $ 90
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $ 82 $ 232 $ 100
Youth Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per
child
Resident/ Non- Profit per child $ 82 $ 497 $ 90
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $ 82 $ 497 $ 100
Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per
30 minute lesson
Resident/ Non- Profit per child $ 38 $ 423 $ 42
Non- Resident / Commercial per child $ 43 $ 423 $ 47
Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per
child (2 students required) per 30 minute
lesson Group Swim Lessons
Resident/ Non- Profit per 30 minute session $ 21 $ 212 $ 23 Non- Resident / Commercial per 30 minute session $ 23 $ 212 $ 25 Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point Pool, (2
Hours)
Resident/ Non- Profit per day $ 3 37$ $ 3
Non- Resident / Commercial per day $ 3 37$ $ 4
Private use of swimming pool (rental fee per
hour)
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $ 112 $ 116 $ 115
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $ 189 $ 116 $ 115
38 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
OTHER PROGRAMS, CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENTS
Contractual Agreements for Recreational
Programs in Facilities and Parks
Resident/ Non- Profit Contract Contract
Non- Resident / Commercial Contract Contract
Adult Contract Recreation Programs
Resident/ Non- Profit Contract Contract
Non- Resident / Commercial Contract Contract
Youth Special Trips/Excursions (85% of cost)
Resident/ Non- Profit Contract Contract
Non- Resident / Commercial Contract Contract
FACILITY RENTAL
Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Caledonia,
George Washington, Arnett Park, and similar
Picnic Facilities
1 – 50 persons
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $ 41 96$ $ 45
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $ 69 96$ $ 80
51 + persons
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $ 99 $ 167 $ 100
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $ 71 $ 167 $ 150
Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball,
Basketball, Tennis and Pickleball
39 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Day $ 22 58$ $ 25
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Day $ 41 58$ $ 45
Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr.
minimum rental)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 116 $ 250 $ 120
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 206 $ 250 $ 200
Community Center, Lebeck Room – Security
Deposit
Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $ 557 $ 557 $ 557
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $ 557 $ 557 $ 557
Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per
hr. (Minimum of 2 hours)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 40 48$ $ 45
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 68 48$ $ 75
Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 449 $ 140 $ 120
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 785 $ 140 $ 140
Chautauqua Hall Facility – Security Deposit
Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $ 557 $ 557 $ 557
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $ 577 $ 557 $ 557
Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental) See - NOTE A
NOTE A> Pending on staff availability
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 116 75$ $ 75
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 206 75$ $ 215
Little House at Jewell Park
40 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 19 53$ $ 20
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 35 53$ $ 40
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100
Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 182 $ 626 $ 190
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 318 $ 626 $ 330
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100
Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 382 $ 1,100 $ 390
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 382 $ 1,100 $ 390 Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Parks, Pt. Pinos LH and E. Dyke fee NOTE B> Plus fully burdened staff rate NOTE B> Plus fully burdened staff rate
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 187 $ 578 $ 280
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 349 $ 578 $ 560
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 –
100 Persons
Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 190 $ 304 $ 250
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 190 $ 304 $ 300
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 Persons Resident/ Non- Profit Per Hour $ 382 $ 400 $ 200
41 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Non- Resident / Commercial Per Hour $ 382 $ 400 $ 400
MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY
Daily Use
Resident/ Non- Profit per day $ 224 $ 443 $ 230
Non- Resident / Commercial per day $ 391 $ 443 $ 400
Field Use, Per Hour
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $ 33 93$ $ 35
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $ 56 93$ $ 60
Lights per hr.
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour $ 28 29$ $ 30
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour $ 28 29$ $ 30
Staff, Per hour
Resident/ Non- Profit per hour
Fully burdened
Rate
Non- Resident / Commercial per hour
Fully burdened
Rate
Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II,
Class III, Class IV)
Resident/ Non- Profit Deposit $ 187 $ 187 $ 187
Non- Resident / Commercial Deposit $ 187 $ 187 $ 187
MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION FEES &
CHARGES
Refund Processing Fee (if within written time
frame)
42 PGCC 9-4-24
PARKS AND RECREATION
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Staff
Recommended Fee
DEPARTMENT NAME
Cost Per Unit Results
Attachment III - FY 24-25 Recommended Fees
Resident/ Non- Profit 25% of refund 25% of refund
Non- Resident / Commercial 25% of refund 25% of refund
SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Application fee – Events with 1 – 999
participants
Resident/ Non- Profit per application $ 230 $ 827 $ 250 Non- Resident / Commercial per application $ 230 $ 827 $ 250 Application fee – Events with more than 1,000
participants
Resident/ Non- Profit per application $ 839 $ 1,985 $ 850 Non- Resident / Commercial per application $ 839 $ 1,985 $ 850
SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS
All private parties, wedding receptions,
anniversaries, and events with or without
alcohol or admissions fees
Resident/ Non- Profit Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10%
Non- Resident / Commercial Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% 43 PGCC 9-4-24
RESOLUTION NO. 24-xxx
ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
FINDINGS
1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 6.02 provides for the establishment of fees and charges for service, and;
2. The City of Pacific Grove held a public hearing on September 4, 2024 regarding changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and;
3. Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on September 4, 2024 was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections, and;
4. The City Council desires to adopt the updated Master Fee Schedule for FY 2024-25, and;
5. The Action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 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. After receiving a report of the proposed changes in fees, charges, and costs contained in the City of Pacific Grove FY 2024-25 Master Fee Schedule, and having held a public hearing on the changes, the City Council hereby authorizes the changes including any changes as directed by Council.
3. Per Government Code 66017, approved changes that relate to community development services shall be effective 60 days following final action by the City Council on the resolution on November 4, 2024. All other non-community development fees shall be effective on September 16, 2024. In the case of reductions, the reductions can be implemented on November 4, 2024, on a case-by-case basis, by decision of the City Manager.
4. Every City Department is requested to reproduce, display, and distribute copies of their fee schedules as deemed appropriate. The Master Fee Schedule shall also be posted on the City’s website and available at the Library.
PGCC 9-4-24
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 4th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
BRIAN A PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 9-4-24
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: Matt Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 04, 2024
SUBJECT: Direction to the City Manager regarding Outdoor Dining Guidelines for Bulb-Outs CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
City Council to review, comment, and provide direction to the City Manager regarding:
The draft goals and objectives of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines for Bulb-Outs under development;
1. 2. The current precedent of the Pacific Grove outdoor dining streetscapes; and Example features, structures and amenities of model and poor outdoor dining facilities noted in field visits of various communities.
3. DISCUSSION
At the June 19, 2024, City Council Meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to retain a consultant to draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines centered on the bulb-outs, specifically to the southeast corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Forest Avenue. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide for quality outdoor dining amenities and experience that preserves and enhances the character and history of Pacific Grove. These guidelines will eventually be incorporated into Guidelines for all outside dining in the Lighthouse Business District. The southeast corner of Lighthouse and Forest is the location of a sidewalk expansion project that will be constructed in the coming months and will accommodate outdoor dining features and amenities for the restaurants that front this area of sidewalk.
These guidelines will lay a foundation for the larger Lighthouse Business District Outside Dining Guidelines that will follow this initial effort. As such, the preparation of the initial guidelines should be completed with the larger picture in mind of what the City will want to employ in the larger District.
BFS Landscape Architects has been engaged to assist the City with developing the Outdoor Dining Guidelines. The firm's work, led by Oona Johnsen, has begun and a foundation of information on the base guidelines has started to come together. To move this project to the final draft stage for City Council consideration, a City Council discussion, feedback and direction is necessary.
Attached to this report is the base draft sections of the Guidelines that encompass the goals and objectives, "existing conditions", and various examples of model amenities, features, structures, etc.
Before the final draft can be developed for consideration of the City Council, staff and Ms. Johnsen are requesting City Council feedback and direction on these topics.
PGCC 9-4-24
To prepare the attached report and the presentation materials, Ms. Johnsen reached out to the property owners and business owners of the affected properties at the southeast corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue. The feedback is not entirely complete at this time with scheduling difficulties, but good conversations and feedback have occurred to prepare us for this stage in the discussion. Various community outdoor dining guidelines were also reviewed, and site visits were conducted to compile the information to present to the City Council for feedback. The communities surveyed include: Sausalito, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Palo Alto and Santa Clarita.
Following City Council feedback and direction, Ms. Johnsen and staff will take these next steps:
1. Incorporate comments from City Council and develop the Draft Guidelines.
Provide the Draft Guidelines to the Business Improvement District Board and Economic Development Committee for review and comment.
2. 3. Incorporate comments from the BID and EDC and refine the Draft Guidelines.
4. Provide the refined draft Guidelines to the Planning Commission for review and comment.
5. Incorporate comments from the Planning Commission to develop the Final Guidelines.
6. Present Final Guidelines to City Council for final approval.
The work effort will continue at a priority pace while taking the necessary steps to ensure we get the valuable input needed to lay the important foundation for the larger Lighthouse Business District Outdoor Dining Guidelines that will follow this effort.
OPTIONS
Take other action related to this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact as a result of this item.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Partial PG Outdoor Dining Guidelines Document
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 27, 2024
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
OUTDOOR DINING GUIDELINES
(BULB OUT CONDITIONS)
Updated: August 2024
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 2 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 INDEX
PURPOSE & GOALS
A. Project Description
a. Goals
b. Objectives
DEFINITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PRECEDENTS
A. Precedent Outdoor Dining Streetscapes
- Model Examples – Descriptions
- Poor Examples – Descriptions
- Images – Model Examples & Poor Examples
B. Precedent Outdoor Dining Guidelines
LOCATION
A. Considerations for Future Bulb Out Construction
ELIGIBILITY
DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. Layout
B. Materials
C. Function & Maintenance
APPLICATION & APPROVAL PROCESS
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 3 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
PURPOSE & GOALS
A. Project Description
This document is an overview of the policies, procedures, and design guidelines associated with the creation of outdoor dining areas within the public right-of-way, specifically in the form of bulb-outs for the Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening project (LASW) within the Lighthouse Business District in the City of Pacific Grove (PG). Refer to plan in Figure 1. Overall goals and objective for outdoor dining guidelines are below.
Goals
1. To ensure the development of quality outdoor seating areas, the appropriate use of the public realm for outdoor dining while preserving and enhancing the character and history of Pacific Grove.
2. Increase pedestrian safety.
Objectives
1. Activating the streetscape by maintaining visibility to the outdoor dining areas.
2. Provide a continuous and unified design aesthetic along the streetscape that is in character with Lighthouse Avenue.
3. Use materials that don’t obstruct but preserve the views to the architectural character of the building façade, entry, and storefront.
4. Require commercial grade furnishings and materials for the durability and safety of pedestrians.
5. Adhering to all local regulations and code requirements.
6. Installing clear maintenance guidelines so outdoor dining spaces remain clean, safe, and functional.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 4 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figure 1: Site Plan - LASW project
The LASW project includes the removal of three existing parklets: in front of Aliotti’s Victorian Corner, Rudolfo’s Café, and Wild Fish, and redeveloping the intersection with bulb out conditions on the southern side of Lighthouse Ave. The project was activated as Aliotti’s Victorian Corner parklet impeded the intersection and the legislation of the Daylighting Bill, State Assembly Bill (AB) 413. The daylighting bill is the “practice of removing parking spaces near crosswalks and intersections to improve public safety by increasing the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for drivers.” The existing parklets are in violation of this new state law.
Bulb outs were the chosen design solution for this intersection for the two-fold purpose of:
1) Giving the restaurant establishments outdoor dining space that would be missing due to parklet removal; and 2) Increasing pedestrian safety. Bulb-outs slow down traffic, provide increased visibility for pedestrians on sidewalks; decrease crossing distances for pedestrians; and provide more public space on corners which can turn into a variety of opportunities for the community. Refer to Figures 2 – 7.
Figures 2 & 3: Bulb outs create shorter walking distances at intersections.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 5 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
Figures 4 & 5: Bulb outs create more public realm space at corners that can be utilized for a variety of purposes, i.e. transit stop, planting, seating areas, street trees.
Figures 6 & 7: Bulb outs increase visibility for pedestrians and vehicles alike.
Future text for full manual:
Applicants and designers in the City of Pacific Grove are strongly encouraged to read these guidelines in their entirety when they are first thinking about proposing future outdoor dining in bulb-out areas. Activating exterior spaces within public right of way fall under separate approval and permitting processes. Any applicant attempting to activate these public areas should first contact the Community Development Department.
Understanding the design guidelines will help the applicant achieve a successful outdoor dining proposal for bulb-out areas. It may reduce the time it takes to receive a permit and will likely result in a superior design that is cohesive for the Lighthouse Business District.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 6 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
DEFINITIONS
A. “Outdoor Dining”: Dining spaces located outdoors adjacent to the food establishment for the same eating activities that occur within the establishment, weather permitting.
The outdoor area may be located on sidewalks, plazas, in parking spaces as temporary ‘parklets’, or other open areas. Refer to “Sidewalk Dining”.
B. “Sidewalk Dining” (temporary): Tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, tray stands, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining (collectively hereafter, for convenience, “furniture”) may be placed on the sidewalk but shall not be placed to obstruct the minimum unobstructed pedestrian travel width of the sidewalk defined as a minimum of five feet. All applicable Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirement minimums shall be met.
C. “Parklets” (temporary): Temporary, non-structural platform constructed within the traveled portion of right-of-way that replaces one or more parallel, perpendicular, or diagonal parking space(s) and all associated furnishings. A platform may be built to bring the grade of the sidewalk out into the street. Once the platform is installed, furnishings such as tables, chairs, benches, bike parking, and/or landscaping may be placed on the platform.
D. “Bulb-outs” (permanent): Also known as a curb extension, is a traffic calming measure that extends the sidewalk into the parking lane to create more space for pedestrians and improve visibility. Bulb-outs can be placed at corners or midblock and can also be used to create small public spaces, landscaped areas, or transit waiting zones.
E. “Shared Space” means underutilized areas of public streets or areas of the public rightof-way not specific to parking uses or defined as pedestrian or vehicular travel ways.
F. “Perimeter Fence” is a surface mounted fence structure that defines the outdoor dining area. This fence shall be between 30-36 inches tall.
G. “Guardrail”42-inch-tall guardrails shall be provided on all open sides of unenclosed elevated work locations that are more than 30 inches above the floor, ground, or other working areas of a building as defined in Section 3207 of the General Industry Safety Orders. The fencing design must meet California code: §3201, §3210.
H. “Through Zone” means the unobstructed area of sidewalk where primary pedestrian circulation occurs. The Through Zone shall always remain free and clear of physical obstructions.
I. “Frontage Zone” means the sidewalk area between the Through Zone and the front of the adjacent property/building which may accommodate pedestrian oriented activities or sidewalk dining.
J. “Furnishing Zone” means the area between the Through Zone and the Curb Zone where streetscape amenities such as planter boxes, streetlights and tree wells are typically located.
K. “Curb Zone” means the area located between the Furnishing Zone and the vehicular or bicycle travel lane and defines the boundary between the pedestrian realm and the roadway. The Curb Zone only exists in areas that contain parallel, perpendicular, or diagonal public parking along the curb line.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 7 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 L. “Public Realm” means any publicly owned street, streetscape, pathway, right-of-way, park, publicly accessible open space and any public and civic building and facilities, freely accessible to everyone regardless of their economic or social conditions. Refer to Figure 8 for elements of a public realm.
Figure 8: Diagram of elements of a Public Realm.
(Diagram by National Association of City Transportation Official (NACTO) PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 8 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pacific Grove is home to an iconic historic downtown in Lighthouse Avenue full of unique personality and vitality with a wide variety of restaurants, shops, and other services focused on serving the local community. Lighthouse Avenue includes historic architectural styles and a wide diversity of building forms. However, due to the rise of the pandemic and a push for open air dining, restaurants have reduced the impact and importance of the existing historic buildings in this street. The parklets in focus, as part of the LASW project, are currently heavy structures with dark wood fencing and thick roof structures, creating a barrier between the street and public realm, relating to storefront and sidewalk pedestrian activity.
Refer to Figure 9.
Viewing these parklets from across the street or driving through the street, people are obstructed from seeing building signage, entryways, and storefronts. This creates that disconnect between the person and space and detracts from the architectural character and charm from Lighthouse Avenue.
The speed limit along Lighthouse Avenue in the downtown section is currently 15 MPH.
Figure 9: Existing Conditions
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 9 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The bulb out reconfiguration, as part of LASW project, provides a new curb alignment. It extends the sidewalk into the parking lane. By taking out five parking spaces. This extra space enables the development of new outdoor dining spaces at the face of the buildings for the three restaurants. The sidewalk/pedestrian flow will move around the area towards the street with a 7.5-foot distance between the outdoor dining delineation (fence or partition) to the back of curb. With the intersection narrowed, crosswalk length is shorted and there is increased visibility of the pedestrian, creating a safer condition.
The LASW project aims to provide visible outdoor dining to activate the street. Seeing outdoor dining on the street creates a feeling of excitement and helps draw visitors to the area, thus benefiting all businesses along Lighthouse Avenue. Seeing people on the street also creates a feeling of safety. There are ‘eyes on the street’ and activity helps to slow traffic. Refer to section on Figure 10.
Figure 10: Section along Fountain demonstrating the new outdoor seating area.
Outdoor dining will be treated as a weather-permitting option for restaurants. However, there are some amenities that can be provided to ease unfavorable weather conditions.
The design guidelines in this document will help restaurant establishments understand what design options are available to them for the creation of an outdoor dining space. The design of the elements are intended to be safe, sensitive to the historic character of Pacific Grove, and variable in material, function, form to the needs of the establishment.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 10 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
PRECEDENTS
A. Precedent Outdoor Dining Streetscapes
In July 2024, the City of Pacific Grove’s design consultant explored five towns to observe their outdoor dining configurations: Los Gatos, Campbell, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Monterey. As a result, model examples and poor examples were compiled. Refer to the list of elements and associated photos.
Model Examples - Descriptions
Overhead Shade Structures:
1. Shade structure design doesn’t obstruct the view of the building frontage:
a. The overhead roof element is tall, to ensure views to the front entry and any building signage.
b. The overhead roof element is thin and flat, enabling views to the building. c. Overhead roof element is removable or retractable and used only when needed.
2. Colors are muted or complement the building color pallet, thus reducing distraction from the building itself.
3. Canvas canopies are durable and are taught.
4. Retractable canopies attached to buildings are retracted on nice days.
5. Durable materials/canopy systems are used.
6. Removable Umbrellas to be durable, commercial grade, 150lbs base to accommodate high winds.
a. To be removed from the premises when establishment is closed or retracted when not needed.
7. Canopies kept clean.
Wind Abatement:
1. Side panels that are placed on the shade structure top rail and roll down. Rolling mechanism in line with top rail and inconspicuous.
2. Side panels that are removable that fit between shade structure posts.
3. Side panels are only used when needed, fully removed when establishment is closed. a. Tempered glass must be kept clean.
b. Acrylic panels are approved but must be removed and replaced when start to buckle or fade/get cloudy. Do we want to permit this material? c. Durable and taut outdoor fabric with a muted color.
4. Panels kept clean.
Transparent Perimeter Fencing:
1. Dining activity is seen and admired.
2. The building frontage, character and entry are seen.
3. Planters in segments of the railing soften the hard edge, but also provide segments of transparent fencing which include visibility.
4. Rounded, smooth tops on post or pickets (safety issue).
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 11 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
5. Pickets are narrow and/or spaced wide to not obstruct views.
6. The design of perimeter fence panels is varied adding individual character.
7. Fencing materials are unobtrusive, not competing with the design of the architectural character of the building.
8. The color of fencing remains muted: black, gray, brown, tan.
9. Height of fences are 30” to 36” tall.
10. Must be mounted to the ground and removable.
Clearly Defined Entries:
1. Entry into the restaurant establishment through the perimeter fencing is apparent and comfortably wide.
2. No gates are present as they provide a barrier.
Heating Units:
1. Preferred heaters are mounted to an overhead structure or building, and not seen, creating a clear sightline to the building frontage.
2. Moveable heating units are only used when needed and are stored and unseen when not needed. Make and model are similar. A thin, non-obtrusive design is preferred.
Quantity of heaters are reduced. One standing heating unit per 4 tables maximum.
Lighting:
1. Lighting to be used to produce ambiance in sections of the outdoor dining area where needed.
a. Areas near the restaurant window will be able to utilize the indoor lighting.
2. Preferred lighting is not visible or hanging.
a. Attached to building.
b. Attached to the top of the shade structure roof.
c. Recessed in the shade structure roof.
Sidewalk Treatments:
1. Sidewalks are clear and wide for pedestrians and the outdoor dining area doesn’t impede into the Through Zone.
2. Sidewalk hardscape is consistent and gives visual and material clues that you are on a ‘main’ or ‘important’ street or district, i.e. special/artistic hardscape treatments or a pattern of different materials that delineate the frontage zone, through zone, furnishing zone and curb zone.
3. Street trees are neatly arranged and have a tree well with an accessible tree grate or have healthy understory planting.
4. Site furnishings such as benches, light poles, or trash receptacles, are of a consistent type and are clean and well maintained.
5. The sidewalks are clean and well maintained.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 12 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Intersections & Crosswalk Treatments:
1. Crosswalks at significant or busy intersections have special treatments other than the asphalt with white transverse lines, i.e. rapid flashing beacons (RFB), use of pavers and a special pattern, colored and/or textured concrete treatments, sides of crosswalks include a flush concrete curb or paver strip. These crosswalk treatments provide a safety feature by informing the pedestrian and driver that certain intersections have a hierarchy of use and/or there is a particular emphasis that you are on an important section of the street.
2. Intersections have a flush curb throughout the corner radius. This reduces any trip hazards and allows more space for pedestrians to cross on the ramp portion, as well as more direct alignment to the other side of the street.
3. Crosswalk corner pavement with a special inlay that either depicts the street name or crest/logo of the City.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 13 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Poor Examples - Descriptions
Enclosure:
1. Overhead shade structure should not act as an enclosure which is attached to the building: having barriers/wind screens on 3 sides and a roof structure.
Overhead Shade Structures:
1. Thick, heavy and/or solid heavy roof structure that detract and obscure the building frontage.
2. The roof structure set too low and blocks the view to the front door and/or building signage.
3. Canvas roof shade that buckles and is loose.
4. Residential grade umbrellas. Umbrellas that do not stand straight or leaning. They will not withstand wind gusts.
5. Made of materials not durable for outdoor conditions.
6. Canopies and shade structures that are too wide or long and need structural reinforcement.
7. Made of material not complimentary to the historic streetscape i.e. corrugated plastic and metal, heavy wood, plastics.
8. Colors that are bright and/or detract from the building character.
9. Canopies that are not cleaned.
Wind Abatement:
1. Side panels that are not removable or retractable.
2. Too many side panels are present when there are multiple, adjacent outdoor dining areas.
3. Made of materials not durable for outdoor conditions or flap in the wind.
4. Able to see a rolled panel or the rolling mechanism is too obvious.
5. Colors that are bright and/or detract from the building character.
6. Paneling that is not cleaned.
Opaque Perimeter Fencing:
1. Fence panels that are solid and opaque, obscuring visibility into the outdoor dining space and building frontage.
2. Fence panels higher than 42” tall.
3. Fence panels that are not mounted to the sidewalk.
4. No pointed or rough tops on post or pickets (safety issue).
5. Paneling with material that is not in character of the historic nature of the street.
6. Bright colors that do not compliment the building character.
Poorly Defined Entries:
1. Entries that are less than 34” wide.
2. Entries with gates.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 14 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Moveable Heating Units:
1. Moveable heating units that obscure the building entry and façade.
2. Units left out all day/night either in place, or clustered together.
3. Different make and model of heaters in the same outdoor space.
4. Too many heaters in the outdoor space.
Lighting:
1. Fixture not durable or rated for outdoor conditions.
2. Long hanging fixtures that move in the wind.
3. Exposed cords.
4. Too many light fixtures distract the building frontage character.
5. Lighting treatments that are too bright.
6. Fluorescent or neon light fixtures.
Sidewalk Treatments:
1. Outdoor dining impedes pedestrian flow in the through zone. a. Furnishings or sign elements in the through zone.
b. Large plants that impede movement in the through zone. c. Elements that obscure sightlines.
2. Sidewalks exhibit different paver types, patterns and don’t provide a clear understanding that you are on a significant street or district.
3. Sidewalks include trees/tree wells which are inconsistent in size and placement and contain dirt instead of a groundcover planting.
4. Site furnishings are of different types along the street, trash overflowing, and/or not well maintained.
5. The sidewalks are not clean or well maintained.
Intersections and Crosswalk Treatments:
1. There are no visual clues indicating you are on an important street or district.
2. Include a typical asphalt crosswalk with white transverse lines.
3. Curb ramps are limited to the 3-ft wide portion of the corner.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 15 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Images – Model Examples & Poor Examples
Enclosure:
Poor Examples
A full enclosure is not desired and will not be considered “outdoor dining”. Refer to Figures 11 – 14 for full enclosure examples that would not be permitted.
Figures 11-14
Overhead Shade Structures:
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 16 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Model Examples (Overhead Shade Structures)
Figures 15 – 16: Retractable canopies.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 17 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 17-18: Flat and taut canopies allow views of the building frontage, front door and signage.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 18 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 19-20: Commercial grade umbrellas are durable, have good form, stay straight, and have heavier bases available to withstand wind uplift.
Poor Examples (Overhead Shade Structures)
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 19 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 21 – 22: Fabric canopies that aren’t taught or durable are unsightly. Residential grade umbrellas are not durable and add to the appearance of an unkempt area.
Figures 23 - 24: Heavy metal and wood overhead structures detract from the architecture of the building and don’t fit the character of Pacific grove. Structural engineering would be required to support the roof.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 20 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 25 – 26: Canopies that extend farther than the outdoor dining area and multiple canopies connected to make a deep canopy area prevent visibility to the building frontage and is unsightly component to the streetscape.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 21 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 27 - 28: Corrugated plastic and metal canopies do not fit the character of Pacific Grove.
Wind Abatement:
Model Examples (Wind Abatement)
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 22 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 29 – 31: Wind screens that have an inconspicuous reel are preferred.
Figure 32: Wind screen panels that are removable and made of durable materials are preferred.
Poor Examples (Wind Abatement)
Figures 33 – 34: Wind screens that are made of non-durable materials will look unkempt and get easily damaged.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 23 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 35 - 36: Wind screens that are permanently affixed obstruct the view of the streetscape and building façade. Bright colors don’t fit the character of Pacific Grove.
Figures 37 - 38: Wind screen panels that are not surface mounted will fall in a wind gust. Corugated materials apear unkempt.
Perimeter Fencing:
Model Examples (Perimeter Fencing)
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 24 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figure 39 – 41: Metal pickets provide a clear view to the building façade and entry.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 25 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
Figures 42-43: Different picket and panel configurations give individuality to the restaruant establishment and still allow visibility.
Figures 44 – 45: Perimeter fencing can inegrate planter pots and still maintain visibility into the outdoor dinign area. Adding a bar top to the perimeter fence is a great way to activate the streetscape.
Poor Examples (Perimeter Fencing)
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 26 of 41 | REV. 8/2024
Figures 46-47: Wood fence pickets are closely spaced creating a visual barrier and not in character with Pacific Grove. CMU is not an appropriate material for a streetscape.
Figures 48 – 49: Metal and concrete panels add a barrier to the dining activity and building frontage. Wood panels are are not in character with Pacific Grove and the vegetation is tall where dining activity would not been seen.
Entries:
Model Examples (Entries)
Figure 50: Wide entry points are preferred.
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 27 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Heating Units:
Model Examples (Heating Units)
Figure 51: Heating units integrated into the canopy are preferred as they are not seen from the streetscape.
Poor Examples (Heating Units)
PGCC 9-4-24
DRAFT Updated Aug 26, 2024
P a c i f i c G r o v e O u t d o o r D i n i n g G u i d e l i n e s | P a g e 28 of 41 | REV. 8/2024 Figures 52 – 53: Too many portable heating units are unsightly. Grouping heaters when a restaurant is not operational is not acceptable.
Lighting:
Poor Examples (Lighting)
PGCC 9-4-24