CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 4:30 P.M

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 4:30 P.M. Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855

To participate telephonically, call any number below: 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) 669 900 9128 699-219-2599

Webinar Meeting ID: 692 219 855# If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #. AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS Comments from the public will not receive Council action. Comments must deal with matters on the Closed Session agenda and will be limited to three minutes

A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators regarding City Manager contract negotiations Employee: City Manager

B. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957) Title: City Manager Performance Evaluation

ADJOURNMENT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 1

CITY COUNCIL AMENDED REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 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 on the internet at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290

To participate telephonically, call any number below:

888 788 0099 US (Toll-free) 877 853 5247 US (Toll-free) 669 900 9128 669 219 2599

Webinar ID: 209 579 290# If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

Help Line 831-648-3128

MEETING INSTRUCTIONS

The public may also view the meeting on the Peninsula Channel 25.

AMENDED AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Amelio PGCC 4-21-21 Page 2 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS

A. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Update PG 11 Reference: Division 4 Director Karen Paull Recommended Action: Receive presentation. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Monterey One Water's Potential Five Year Rate Increase PG 17 Reference: Director of External Affairs Mike McCullough Recommended Action: Receive presentation. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)

A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney

B. Litigation Status Report: City of Pacific Grove v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration PG 29 Reference: David C. Laredo, City Attorney Recommended Action: Receive report. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. 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.

CONSENT AGENDA

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 3 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

6. RESOLUTIONS Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

A. Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District (HID) PG 41 Reference: Lori Frati, Management Analyst Recommended Action:

1. Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2021-22. 2. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 5, 2021, to hear any protests and determine whether to levy the assessment. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Downtown Business PG 45 Improvement District (BID) Reference: Lori Frati, Management Analyst Recommended Action: 1. Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 21-22 2. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 5, 2021, to hear any protests and determine whether to levy the assessment. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. Resolution in Support of Reuse of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Building PG 49 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution in support of reuse of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration building. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 4 D. Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority PG 53 Reference: Jocelyn Francis, Police Administrative Services Manager Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution authorizing City participation in the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority under rules and regulations promulgated by the State of California. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

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. Core Revenue Status Report for March 2021 PG 57 Reference: Lori Frati, Management Analyst Recommended Action: Receive the Core Revenue Status Report for March 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Promissory Payment Related to Entitlement Water and Large-Scale Construction Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager PG 61 Recommended Action: Receive the report. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. Mayor's Regional Meetings PG 67 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor Recommended Action: Receive report. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

D. Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2021 PG 69 Reference: Joe Amelio, Councilmember Recommended Action: Receive minutes. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 5 A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions PG 77 Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager Recommended Action: Receive report of emergency directives/modifications, discuss circumstances needing emergency response, and ratify actions as needed. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Professional Services Agreement with Cole Pro Media PG 79 Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the report and direct staff to send written notice of termination to Cole Pro Media. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. Minor Correction to the Mission Linen MOU Approved by the City Council on March 17, 2021 PG 91 Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Rescind and reauthorize the Resolution authorizing the filing of an annexation application for the Mission Linen property at 801 Sunset Dr. to allow a minor correction to the MOU with the Pebble Beach Community Services District (CSD). CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a) Class 19, Annexations to City or Special Districts or Areas-Existg Public or Private Structure

D. BNRC and EDC Appointments PG 97 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor Recommended Action: Confirm appointments of Susan Myers to the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and Erik Uppman to the Economic Development Commission. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business

A. Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes: January 19, 2021 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director PG 105 Recommended Action: Receive minutes. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: March 11, 2021 PG 110 Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Receive the minutes. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 6 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter. Public hearings on non-controversial matters or for which testimony is not anticipated may be placed on the Consent Agenda, but shall be removed if any person requests a staff presentation or wishes to be heard on the matter.

A. Ordinance to Amend PGMC Chapter 2.04 Adopt Rules and Procedures to Govern Ex Parte Contacts This item was continued from the City Council's April 7, 2021 meeting. Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager PG 115 Recommended Action: Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Council, to adopt rules and procedures to govern ex parte contacts and disclosure requirements, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Resolution Adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 PG 123 Reference: Lori Frati, Management Analyst Recommended Action: Approve a resolution adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22, including the 2.0% Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and other changes as directed by Council. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget - Pertaining to Library Funds PG 167 Reference: Diana Godwin, Library Manager Recommended Action: Introduce and hold the first reading of an ordinance to amend the Fiscal Year 20/21 Operating Budget and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

D. Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget - Pertaining to the Capital Improvement Plan PG 171 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director Recommended Action: Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending the Fiscal PGCC 4-21-21 Page 7 Recommended Action: Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

E. Consider Adoption of Both Urgency and Non-Urgency Ordinances to Adopt Temporary Outdoor Dining Rules in Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic Health Crisis PG 177 An urgency ordinance requires approval of 5/7ths of the city council and has a time limited effect. Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager Recommended Action: 1. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance to Adopt Temporary Outdoor Dining Rules in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Health Crisis; and 2. Declare the Urgency Ordinance to be an emergency measure to take effect immediately. 3. Approve first reading of a non-Urgency Ordinance to Adopt Temporary Outdoor Dining Rules, set a public hearing for second reading and direct publication of a summary of the measure as approved by the City Attorney. CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, Specific Actions Necessary to Prevent or Mitigate an Emergency

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

A. Check Register Reports - January and February 2021 This item was continued from the City Council's April 7, 2021 meeting. PG 195 Reference: Luke Coletti, Councilmember Recommended Action: Receive reports. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Street Rehabilitation Lower Lighthouse Ave and Funston Avenue PG 287 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the FY20/21 Street Rehabilitation Project on Lower Lighthouse Ave and Funston Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1,177,556 plus a 15% contingency. CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

C. Community Center Gutter, Facia & Downspout Replacement Project PG 291 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Shellco General Contractor Inc. in an amount not to exceed $63,500 plus a 15% contingency for the Community Center Gutter, Facia, and Downspout Replacement project. CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 8 13. NEW BUSINESS

A. Police Records Management System Award PG 293 Reference: Jocelyn Francis, Police Administrative Services Manager Recommended Action: Direct the City Manager to enter into a 5-year agreement with Mark43, Inc. to implement a new Police Records Management system, in an amount not-to-exceed $390,000. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

B. Mobile Crisis Team Update PG 303 Reference: David Santos, Commander Recommended Action: Receive a report on the update of the Monterey County Mobile Crisis Team and the implementation of a Mental Health Liaison. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

C. Resolution to Authorize an Application to Cal Fire's Fire Prevention Planning Grant Program to Assist with Safety Element Update PG 315 Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution authorizing staff to submit a grant application to Cal Fire's Fire Prevention Planning program for funding to assist with the update of the City's 1994 Safety Element. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

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 4-21-21 Page 9

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 10 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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Update CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive presentation.

Attachments PPT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 11 Agenda Item 16 Timeline on Future Decision Points

Public Ownership of Cal-Am Monterey Water System

David Stoldt General Manager MPWMD

January 25, 2021

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 12 Progress to Date

• Measure J Passed by Voters – November 2018

• Financial Feasibility Demonstrated – November 2019

• Board Review of Preliminary Results – August 2020

• Board Certifies EIR & Receives Operations Plans – October 2020

• Preliminary Appraisal Complete – October 2020 2 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 13 Future Decision Points

Feb March April May June July Aug Sep

Submit LAFCO Application LAFCO Review LAFCO Hearing Post-Hearing Admin

Property Tax Transfer Agt

Findings of Public Necessity

Update Appraisal

Make an Offer for System

Hearing for Public Necessity

3 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 14

Water Required to Meet AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast

Water Required for Population Growth1 Carmel- Del Pacific by-the- Sand Rey Monterey Grove Sea City Seaside Oaks County2 TOTAL Population in 2020 28,170 15,265 3,949 385 33,537 1,662 8,916 91,884 Population in 2045 29,639 15,817 3,984 1,198 38,316 2,650 9,916 101,520

Increase 1,469 552 35 813 4,779 988 1,000 9,636 GPCD3 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 Acre-Feet By 2045 98 AF 37 AF 2 AF 54 AF 320 AF 66 AF 67 AF 644 AF *: Likely overstates population growth in Cal-Am service area due to some growth attributable to the Fort Ord build-out.

Water Required for Employment Growth4 Carmel- Del Pacific by-the- Sand Rey Monterey Grove Sea City Seaside Oaks County5 TOTAL Jobs in 2020 40,989 8,016 3,566 2,092 10,476 748 4,300 70,187 Jobs in 2045 45,509 8,445 3,915 2,259 11,543 834 4,721 77,226

Increase 11.0% 5.4% 9.8% 8.0% 10.2% 11.5% 9.8% 10.0% Commercial Consumption In 20196 1,371 AF 248 AF 203 AF 54 AF 282 AF 21 AF 651 AF 2,830 AF Commercial Consumption In 20457 1,522 AF 261 AF 223 AF 58 AF 311 AF 23 AF 715 AF 3,113 AF Increase 151 AF 13 AF 20 AF 4 AF 29 AF 2 AF 64 AF 283 AF

Using this methodology, the total water demand increase in the 25 year period is 927 AF or 37.1 AFY.

1 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. November 11, 2020. “Final Draft 2022 Subregional Growth Forecast.” Attachment 2, page 32 2 Uses Cal-Am service area population reported in SWRCB June 2014 – November 2020 Urban Water Supplier Monthly Reports (Raw Dataset), minus urban areas. Estimate 1,000 added by 2045. 3 SWRCB June 2014 – November 2020 Urban Water Supplier Monthly Reports (Raw Dataset); Average gallons per capita per day for December 2017 – November 2020; www.waterboard.ca.gov 4 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 2018. “2018 Regional Growth Forecast.” Table 7, page 30 5 California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places. November 15, 2019. Sum of Carmel Valley Village CDP and Del Monte Forest CDP. Escalated at same rate as Carmel-by-the-Sea. 6 Cal-Am. 2019. “Customers and Consumption by Political Jurisdiction” 7 Assumes escalation at same rate as job growth 2020 to 2045

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 15

Market Absorption of Water Demand Compared to Water Supply Current Demand at 5-Year Average thru 2019 AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast (Acre-Feet)

16,000 Water Supply with MPWSP Desalination

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000 Water Supply with PWM Expansion

11,000

AMBAG 2022 Regional 10,000 Growth Forecast Rate

9,000 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 16 Agenda No. 2 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Monterey One Water's Potential Five Year Rate Increase CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive presentation.

Attachments M1W PPT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 17 SEWER SYSTEM UPDATE: PROPOSED MONTHLY RATE INCREASE

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 18 MONTEREY ONE WATER

10 Member Entities Formed in 1972 = 250,000 and previously known as 10 Board Community Members the Monterey Regional Water Members Pollution Control Agency + almost 7,000 businesses in the service area

30 MILES of underground pipes & 29 PUMP STATIONS 17 MILLION Gallons, help convey wastewater to the on average, of wastewater 24 HOURS/DAY, M1W Regional processed each day 365 DAYS/YEAR Treatment Plant Operations at the Regional Treatment Plant

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 19 JOINT RESPONSIBILITY

CITY SEWER SYSTEM CHARGES = Collected on behalf of City/District MONTEREY ONE WATER SEWER TREATMENT = Funds Monterey One Water’s sewer system support, wastewater treatment, and safe reintroduction of cleaned wastewater

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 20 YOUR DOLLARS AT WORK

GRAVITY THICKENER PUMP STATION SECONDARY RETROFIT GRINDER REPAIR CLARIFIER REPAIR

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 21 HAPPY 30TH BIRTHDAY

M1W REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 22 WHY IS M1W PROPOSING A RATE INCREASE?

CAPITAL PERSONNEL FINANCIAL REINVESTMENT OBLIGATIONS STRENGTH

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 23 PROPOSED MONTHLY RATE INCREASE 5-YEAR SCHEDULE

RESIDENTIAL (PER UNIT)

PROPOSED MONTHLY AS OF JULY 1ST EACH YEAR CURRENT MONTHLY 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $24.55 $36.05 $43.15 $47.30 $50.95 $54.45

For a complete schedule of rates, including monthly business rates, visit: www.montereyonewater.org/notice

Bi-Monthly Billing: M1W bills its customers every other month. The actual amount on your bill reflects two months of

M1W service charges and two months of sewer collection charges billed on behalf of your specific city or district.PGCC 4-21-21 Page 24 M1W RATE HISTORY

$45 21-22 $40 $38.15 21-22 Difference: $35 $13.60 $30 (55%) $24.55 $25 04-05 $20 $16.63 $15 92-93 $10 $5 $9.30 $9.30 $0

89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22

Rate with 5% Increases* Adopted Rate * Aligns with the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index of 4.9% over the last 31 years PGCC 4-21-21 Page 25 WASTEWATER RATE COMPARISON

Wastewater Single Family Home Rates (21-22 for M1W members, 20-21 all others) Las Palmas (Cal Am) $125.67 West Bay Sanitary District $102.00 Redwood City (Part of SVCW) $85.44 Hollister $80.38 Carmel Wastewater District $70.99 Pacific Grove + M1W $67.46 Morgan Hill $62.97 Napa Sanitary District $61.55 Central Contra Costa Sanitary $52.42 Seaside + M1W $51.78 Santa Cruz $50.50 Gilroy $46.64 Watsonville $42.84 Salinas + M1W $41.50

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 26 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION YOUR VOICE IN OUR BUSINESS PRACTICES

MORE INFO & VOTING OPTIONS www.montereyonewater.org/notice

PUBLIC HEARING Virtual Board of Directors’ Budget Workshop Monday, June 7, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. Online Access: www.montereyonewater.org/zoom -or- Phone Access: (669) 900-9128 Webinar ID: 819 2857 1021 • Password: 060721

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 27

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 28 Agenda No. 3 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Litigation Status Report: City of Pacific Grove v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive report.

Attachments Status Report Complaint

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 29

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 606 FOREST AVENUE PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 TELEPHONE (831) 648-3187 [email protected]

April 15, 2021

To: Mayor Peake, City Council & City Manager Harvey

From: David C. Laredo, City Attorney

Re: Litigation Status Report: City of Pacific Grove v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Case # [not yet assigned]

This memo provides a non-confidential status update regarding the City’s lawsuit against California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA); this action was filed in support of the City’s attempt to collect Measure L sales tax revenue as approved by voters at the November 3, 2020 general election.

Council authorized the Complaint for Declaratory Relief (attached) during the February 24, 2021 closed session on the motion of Council Member Tomlinson and second by Council Member Amelio; Council approved the motion by a 4 to 3 vote (ayes: Tomlinson, Amelio, Poduri and Smith; nays Peake, McAdams and Coletti).

Michael G. Colantuono (Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley) is lead counsel for this litigation. The action was filed on April 15, 2021 in Sacramento County Superior Court.

By this Complaint, the City seeks a judicial declaration that Measure L, Resolution No. 20-027, Resolution No. 20-040, and Ordinance 21-002, and each of them, are legally valid and enforceable and that CDTFA has a statutory duty to contract with the City to administer Measure L to generate tax revenues by which voters intend to fund City government services.

U:\GENERAL (NEW)\City of Pacific Grove\LITIGATION\City v. CDTFA\Litigation Status Report (April 2021).docx

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 30

1 DAVID C. LAREDO, State Bar No. 66532 City Attorney Exempt from Filing Fees 2 HEIDI A. QUINN, State Bar No. 180880 Government Code § 6103 Assistant City Attorney 3 DE LAY & LAREDO, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 606 Forest Avenue 4 Pacific Grove, California 93950 Telephone: (831) 646-1502 5 Facsimile: (831) 646-0377

6 MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551 [email protected] 7 JOHN L. JONES II, State Bar No. 225411 [email protected] 8 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC 420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140 9 Grass Valley, California 95945-5091 Telephone: (530) 432-7357 10 Facsimile: (530) 432-7356

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 12 5 0 9 1 - 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 5 9 4 5 14 C A

FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 15

16 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, a charter city, CASE NO.

GRASS VALLEY, Unlimited Jurisdiction 17

420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Plaintiff, 18 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 19 v.

20 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, a department of the 21 State of California, NICOLAS MADUROS, Director of the California Department of Tax and 22 Fee Administration, in his official capacity only, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 23

24 Defendants.

1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 31

1 Plaintiff City of Pacific Grove (“Plaintiff” or “City”) by this Complaint (“Complaint”)

2 hereby alleges:

3 INTRODUCTION

4 1. On November 3, 2020, Pacific Grove voters approved Measure L to increase the

5 City’s transactions and use (“sales”) tax by 0.5 percent and thereby match neighboring cities’ sales

6 tax rates which, when totaled with state and regional taxes, equal 9.25 percent. Measure L passed

7 with a 20-point margin (60 percent to 40 percent). Defendants California Department of Tax and Fee

8 Administration and its Director, Nicolas Maduros (collectively “CDTFA”) believes it is without

9 authority to contract with the City to administer the City’s sales tax, as Revenue and Taxation Code

10 section 7270, subdivision (a) requires. CDTFA claims it cannot administer the tax because of a (since

11 corrected) scrivener’s error in Resolution No. 20-027, which placed the matter before the voters.

12 Although the resolution’s intent to propose a transactions and use (“sales”) tax to be administered by 5 0 9 1 - 13 CDTFA, as statute allows, was unmistakable, the resolution inadvertently referenced Pacific Grove 9 5 9 4 5 14 Municipal Code (“PGMC”) Chapter 6.08 (the City’s Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax) C A

15 instead of PGMC Chapter 6.07 (the City’s Transactions and Use Tax.) True and correct copies of

16 PGMC Chapters 6.07 and 6.08 are, respectively, attached hereto as Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 and are GRASS VALLEY, 17 incorporated herein by this reference. Although it need not have done so, the City Council promptly 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 adopted Resolution No. 20-040 and Ordinance No. 21-002 to correct the error. This did not resolve

19 the dispute. Claiming ambiguity where none exists, the CDTFA now insists that the City resubmit

20 the measure to the voters or seek judicial clarification of Measure L’s intent.

21 2. The City brings this declaratory relief action to seek that judicial clarification.

22 Specifically, it seeks a declaration of the legal effect of Measure L in light of the City Council’s

23 supporting resolution and ordinance. To date, the CDTFA has failed to collect and remit the City’s

24 increased sales tax, which will cost the City $700,000 to $840,000 each fiscal year until CDTFA

25 relents and begins collecting the City’s voter-approved tax — a substantial loss made especially

26 acute by the ongoing pandemic and its attendant impacts on revenues and service demands.

2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 32

1 PARTIES

2 3. Plaintiff is a charter city organized and operating in the County of Monterey, State of

3 California, under the city’s charter and article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution.

4 4. Defendant CDTFA is a department of the State of California. CDTFA is a “state

5 agency,” as defined by Government Code section 11000 and a “person” as defined by Government

6 Code section 8547.2, subdivision (c). It is responsible for the assessment and collection of sales and

7 use taxes under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Rev. & Tax.

8 Code, §§ 7200 et seq.) (“Bradley-Burns Tax”) and under the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Rev. &

9 Tax. Code, §§ 7251 et seq.) (“TUT”) for the benefit of the State, as well as the cities, counties, and

10 special districts throughout California, including the City. These duties were previously the

11 responsibility of the State Board of Equalization (“BOE”) but the Legislature created the CDTFA to

12 assume these dues in 2017. (Gov. Code, § 15570.22.) 5 0 9 1 - 13 5. Defendant Nicolas Maduros is the current Director of the CDTFA and is named here 9 5 9 4 5 14 in his official capacity only. C A

15 6. The City is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

16 or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues them by such GRASS VALLEY, 17 fictitious names. The City will seek leave to amend this Complaint to state the true names and 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 capacities of the fictitiously named parties and to insert appropriate allegations concerning them

19 when their true names have been ascertained.

20 7. The City is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant is, and at

21 all times mentioned herein was, an agent, servant, representative, employee, or assign of the other

22 defendants herein, whether named or unnamed, and in doing the things hereinafter mentioned, acted

23 within the scope of such authority as agent, servant, representative, employee, or assign with the

24 knowledge, permission, consent, and authorization of each other defendant herein. Actions taken, or

25 omissions made, by each defendant are actions or omissions of the other defendants for purposes of

26 this Complaint.

3 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 33

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under Code of Civil Procedure section

3 1060 et seq. because the City desires a declaration of its rights and duties regarding its transactions

4 and use tax. Jurisdiction is also proper because the CDTFA was at all times relevant to this action a

5 state agency operating within Sacramento County. (Code Civ. Proc., § 401.)

6 9. Venue is proper in this Court under Code of Civil Procedure sections 395.5 and 401.

7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8 10. This is a dispute between the City and the CDTFA regarding the CDTFA’s refusal to

9 collect tax proceeds authorized by Measure L, a November 3, 2020 ballot measure. Measure L was

10 intended to increase the City’s transactions and use (“sales”) tax (“TUT”) by 0.5% from 1.0% to

11 1.5%, for a total tax of 9.25% when counted together with the Bradley-Burns Tax and the TUTs of

12 other agencies. CDTFA has prepared a chart setting forth the individual components of the total sales 5 0 9 1 - 13 tax rate. A true and correct copy of the chart is attached as Exhibit 3. 9 5 9 4 5 14 11. On May 20, 2020, the Pacific Grove City Council (“City Council”) directed Pacific C A

15 Grove’s City Manager to prepare the documents necessary to place a revenue measure on the

16 November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot and to present them at the City Council’s July meeting. GRASS VALLEY, 17 12. On or about July 1, 2020, the Pacific Grove City Council (“City Council”) adopted 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 Resolution No. 20-027, which called a general municipal election to consider adoption of

19 “Measure L.” A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 20-027 is attached as Exhibit 4 and is

20 incorporated herein by this reference. Measure L would amend the PGMC to increase the City’s

21 TUT (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 7251.1, 7252, 7261.)

22 13. Measure L placed the following question before the voters:

23 Shall the Pacific Grove Municipal Code be amended to increase the City of Pacific

24 Grove’s current 1% sales tax to 1.5% as a general tax beginning January 1, 2021 to

25 generate a long-term yield estimated at $1,000,000 annually, to fund capital needs;

26 maintain public safety and emergency preparation; enhance the City’s infrastructure

27 of parks, trails, beaches and trees; invest in community facilities and spaces; and

4 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 34

1 provide general local City services, with all revenues requiring an annual independent

2 audit?

3 14. Resolution No. 20-027 section 6 provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he voter approval

4 requirement to enact the tax approved by this Measure is a majority of voters casting ballots for the

5 November 3, 2020 election.” PGMC section 6.07.040, subdivision (a) contains an identical

6 requirement:

7 To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part

8 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code [i.e., the TUT Law] and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 9 [“Cities Transactions and Use Taxes”] which authorizes the city to adopt this tax 10 ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the qualified voters of the city

11 voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called

12 for that purpose. 5 0 9 1 - 13 15. Notably, PGMC Chapter 6.08 contains no such language, as the City does not have 9 5 9 4 5 14

C A the power to increase its Bradley-Burns tax, which is capped at 1 percent. (Rev. & Tax. Code,

15 § 7202, subd. (h)(1); Exhibit 3.)

16 16. Before the November 3, 2020 election, the Pacific Grove City Attorney prepared an GRASS VALLEY, 17 impartial analysis of Measure L. The City provided this impartial analysis, along with other required 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 documents to the Monterey County Elections Department for inclusion in the voter information

19 pamphlet for that election. True and correct copies of the impartial analysis, excerpts of the ballot

20 pamphlet, and the proposed ballot language are attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein

21 by this reference.

22 17. City voters approved Measure L as Proposition 218 (California Constitution, article

23 XIII C, § 2, subd. (b)) requires by ratifying it at the November 3, 2020 election. Measure L had

24 substantial support, with 5,363 (59.84%) voting for it and 3,603 (40.16%) voting against. On

25 December 2, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-035, certifying the results of the

26 November 3, 2020 election. A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 20-035 is attached hereto as

27 Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein by this reference.

5 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 35

1 18. On November 10, 2020, Judy Wong, a CDTFA official, emailed the City to offer her

2 congratulations on the passage of Measure L and to discuss the date the new tax would become

3 operative. In the weeks that followed, the City’s staff and CDTFA-officials discussed Measure L and

4 its implementation. In those discussions, the CDTFA asserted Measure L was ambiguous due to the

5 language of Resolution No. 20-027.

6 19. Resolution No. 20-027 erroneously referenced PGMC Chapter 6.08, the City’s

7 Bradley-Burns Tax, capped at 1 percent by preemptive statute, rather than PGMC Chapter 6.07— its

8 TUT, which the City is authorized to increase under its TUT Law.

9 20. Measure L was intended to do what the City could do, not what it could not, and

10 asked voters to increase the TUT and not the Bradley-Burns Tax. The Bradley-Burns Tax is capped

11 at 1 percent by preemptive statute. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 7202, 7203; City of South San Francisco v.

12 Board of Equalization (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 707, 727 fn. 17.) Thus, the City has no power to 5 0 9 1 - 13 increase the rate in PGMC section 6.08.020 above 1 percent as Measure L’s text demands. The City 9 5 9 4 5 14 does, however, have the authority to increase its TUT. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 7261.) C A

15 21. The terms Transactions Tax, Transactions and Use Tax, and sales tax are therefore

16 equivalent and interchangeable. The City’s Bradley-Burns Tax is separate and distinct from its TUT. GRASS VALLEY, 17 22. PGMC Chapter 6.07 is the only provision of the PGMC that empowers the City to 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 increase a “sales” tax. The impartial analysis prepared by the City Attorney includes the same

19 erroneous reference to PGMC Chapter 6.08, demonstrating that — once present — the scrivener’s

20 error persisted throughout the legislative process. However, a review of the relevant statutory

21 provisions establishes that this is clearly a typographical error. The City must be understood to have

22 done what it could do, not what it could not.

23 23. Nevertheless, CDTFA stated that it would not administer the tax as approved by the

24 voters due to the perceived ambiguity caused by Resolution 20-027. CDTFA informed the City that

25 its sole remedy would be to conduct another election. Yet courts alone can authoritatively construe

26 law and the canons of construction require courts to seek to achieve the legislative purpose and to

27 avoid constructions that make laws nullities.

6 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 36

1 24. To resolve the issue, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-040 in December

2 2020. This resolution repealed and replaced Resolution No. 20-027, explicitly stating that the

3 reference to PGMC Chapter 6.08 “was in error” and that its purpose was to correct the invalid

4 provisions in Resolution No. 20-027. A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 20-040 is attached as

5 Exhibit 7 and is incorporated herein by this reference. No party other than CDTFA has questioned or

6 challenged that ordinance since.

7 25. The City Council thereafter enacted Ordinance No. 21-002 to amend the PGMC to

8 implement the November 3, 2020 tax increase approved by Measure L. A true and correct copy of

9 Ordinance No. 21-002 is attached as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

10 26. As with Resolution No. 20-040 which preceded it, Ordinance No. 21-002 found “The

11 effect of the Measure L was to enable an increase to the City Transactions and Use Tax by amending

12 PGMC Chapter 6.07.” (Exhibit 8, at p. 1) The ordinance clarified that “[n]o change shall be made to 5 0 9 1 - 13 PGMC Chapter 6.08, Uniform Sales and Use Tax.” (Ibid.) No person spoke during either of the two 9 5 9 4 5 14 public hearings on Ordinance No. 21-002 or during the City Council meetings at which Resolution C A

15 Nos. 20-027 and 20-040 were adopted.

16 27. The parties continued their discussions, but could not reach agreement. On January GRASS VALLEY, 17 28, 2021 CDTFA emailed the City stating, unequivocally, that the CDTFA would “not enter into a 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 contract to administer Pacific Grove’s transactions and use tax at the increased rate as the procedures

19 required to increase its tax rate were not met.”

20 28. CDTFA steadfastly refuses to administer the City’s tax because of a since-corrected

21 scrivener’s error. Indeed, had Resolution No. 20-040 been adopted pre-election, CDTFA would not

22 claim it lacked the authority to administer the tax.

23 29. CDTFA’s view would fail even had the City taken no corrective action. Courts

24 construe local ordinances under the canons of statutory construction. (County of Madera v. Superior

25 Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 665, 668.) Courts “first look to the plain or ordinary meaning of the

26 language used to determine the Legislature’s [here, the City Council’s] intent, unless the language is

27 uncertain. Every word and clause is given effect so that no part or provision is useless, deprived of

28 meaning, or contradictory. If more than one interpretation is reasonable, the language is interpreted

7 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 37

1 consistent with the purpose of the statute and the statutory framework as a whole, using rules of

2 construction or legislative history in determining legislative intent.” (Green v. Workers’ Comp.

3 Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1435, footnotes omitted.)

4 30. “All presumptions favor the validity of a statute. The court may not declare it invalid

5 unless it is clearly so.” (Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1102, citations omitted.)

6 The same is true for municipal ordinances. (City of Industry v. Willey (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 658, 663

7 [“ ‘Every intendment is to be indulged in favor of [the ordinance’s] validity … [T]he court must, in

8 deference to the legislative act, adopt the construction which will give effect to the obvious

9 legislative purpose.’ ”], citation omitted.)

10 31. When construing a statute, “plain text will prevail except for scrivener’s errors,

11 absurd results, and results at odds with the unmistakable or clear intent of the Legislature.”

12 (J. A . Jones Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1575, italics in 5 0 9 1 - 13 original.) For example, in People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765 our Supreme Court was called 9 5 9 4 5 14 upon to interpret the language of an initiative. There, the Court held that “and” really meant “or” and C A

15 declared that where the purpose or intent of a statute seems clear, drafting errors or uncertainties

16 “may properly be rectified by judicial construction.” (Id. at p. 775, citation omitted.) GRASS VALLEY, 17 32. CDTFA’s interpretation also violates at least two other canons: the presumption 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 against ineffectiveness and the absurdity doctrine. The presumption against ineffectiveness directs

19 that, to the extent possible, a law should be construed to have effect rather than fail. As our Supreme

20 Court explained, “[w]hether enacted directly by the People or by the Legislature, a statute should not

21 be construed so as to render its provisions ineffective or contrary to a stated legislative objective.”

22 (People v. Pieters (1991) 52 Cal.3d 894, 901.) Here, the CDTFA advocates an interpretation that

23 does both. It is contrary to the stated legislative objective — to increase the City’s TUT by one-half

24 cent — and it renders each of Measure L, Resolution No. 20-040, and Ordinance No. 21-002 a

25 nullity because the City has no authority to modify the Bradley-Burns Tax.

26 33. The absurdity doctrine requires a court to disregard or judicially correct errors that

27 lead to absurd outcomes. “‘[W]here the language of a statutory provision is susceptible of two

28 constructions, one of which, in application, will render it reasonable, fair and harmonious with its

8 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 38

1 manifest purpose, and another which would be productive of absurd consequences, the former

2 construction will be adopted.’ “ (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 537; Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair

3 Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1392.) Again, the City’s Bradley-Burns Tax is

4 capped at 1 percent by preemptive statute, but statute allows it to increase its TUT. Further, nothing

5 in Measure L prevents the City Council from effecting a voter-approved TUT increase by separate

6 resolution.

8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (DECLARATORY RELIEF)

10 (Against All DEFENDANTS)

11 34. The City realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above in

12 paragraphs 1 through 33. 5 0 9 1 - 13 35. An actual controversy has arisen, and now exists, between the City and CDTFA 9 5 9 4 5 14 concerning the legal effect of Measure L, Resolution No. 20-027, Resolution No. 20-040, and C A

15 Ordinance 21-002, and each of them, as well as the rights, claims, and obligations related thereto as

16 alleged here. GRASS VALLEY, 17 36. The City seeks a judicial declaration that Measure L, Resolution No. 20-027, 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18 Resolution No. 20-040, and Ordinance 21-002, and each of them, are legally valid and enforceable

19 and that CDTFA therefore bears a statutory duty to contract with the City to administer Measure L to

20 generate the tax revenues the voters intended to fund their local government.

21 37. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances to allow

22 the City to ascertain its rights as to the imposition, collection, and remittance of its sales tax, as well

23 as CDTFA’s obligations to comply with Measure L, Resolution No. 20-027, Resolution No. 20-040,

24 Ordinance 21-002, and all other applicable laws.

25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26 WHEREFORE, the City respectfully prays for judgment as follows:

27 1. For a declaration that Measure L, Resolution No. 20-027, Resolution No. 20-040, and

28 Ordinance 21-002, and each of them, are legally valid and enforceable and that CDTFA has a

9 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 39 1 statutory obligation to contract with the City to administer Measure L to collect a one-half-cent TUT

2 for the benefit of the City’s General Fund.

3 2. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

6 DATED: April 14, 2021 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC 7

9 MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO JOHN L. JONES II 10 Plaintiff City of Pacific Grove

12 5 0 9 1 - 13 9 5 9 4 5 14 C A

16 GRASS VALLEY, 17 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 18

10 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PGCC 4-21-21 254616.5 Page 40 Agenda No. 6 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lori Frati, Management Analyst MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District (HID) CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2021-22. 2. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 5, 2021, to hear any protests and determine whether to levy the assessment.

DISCUSSION In 2007, the City established the Hospitality Improvement District (HID), appointed an advisory board, and established an assessment for the District. On November 18, 2018, City Council passed Resolution No. 18-047, amending the Hospitality Improvement District assessment be set at $2.00 per room night for full-service lodging establishments and $1.00 per room night for all others. This resolution became effective January 1, 2019. Pacific Grove has no full-service hotels or bed and breakfast establishments that collect the $2.00 per room night fee. (Resolution 12-014 defines full service accommodations as “…generally mid-price, upscale or luxury hotels with a restaurant, lounge facilities and meeting space as well as minimum service levels, often including bell service and room service. These hotels report food and beverage revenue”). HID assessment revenues are exclusively used for the support and benefit of the hospitality economy of Pacific Grove.

Pursuant to State law and City Council Resolution 07-044, which formed the HID, an Annual Report is required that reports on District revenues and expenditures, proposes a budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22, and requests the levy of an assessment for FY 2021-22. The annual report prepared by the HID will be included in the May 5, 2021, agenda report. No changes to HID boundaries are recommended for FY 2021-22.

At the public hearing on May 5, 2021, the Council will have the opportunity to hear and evaluate any protests received and determine whether to levy the assessment. The Council will also have the opportunity to appoint an advisory board.

OPTIONS

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 41 1. Decline to adopt the Resolution. 2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. The City acts as the administrative pass-through to the HID. Assessment revenues may only be used for HID purposes.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Help Local Businesses Thrive: Develop a strategic plan to serve existing businesses while attracting new commerce and revitalize commercial corridors.

Attachments HID Resolution Intent to Levy Assessment FY 21-22

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 42 RESOLUTION NO. 21-xxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE STATING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PACIFIC GROVE HOSPITALITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

FINDINGS

1. In 2007 the City of Pacific Grove established the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District (HID); and

2. The HID has been approved for continuation each year since it was first established, and has proved to be of benefit to the Community in terms of promoting tourism and the hospitality economy; and

3. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce has requested continuation of the HID for the 2021-22 fiscal year; and

4. 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, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. It is the intention of the City to levy and collect assessments for the Fiscal Year 2021-22 within the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District (HID), as described in Section 6.54 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. The proposed assessment, equal to $2.00 per room night for full-service establishments and $1.00 per room night for other establishments, will be collected by the City from lodging establishment owners when Transient Occupancy Taxes are paid.

3. On May 5, 2021, the City Council will receive an annual report prepared by the HID’s Advisory Board, which contains detail of expenditures in 2020-21 and a description of the anticipated costs and activities to be provided in Fiscal Year 2021-22. Copies of the report will be on file with the City Clerk and available at the offices of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce.

4. There is no change to the boundaries of the district as established and set forth in Section 6.54.030 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 43 5. The Council hereby sets the public hearing to consider the levy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 assessment for the HID for May 5, 2021 at 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the item may be called, at the Pacific Grove City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California to be conducted under public hearing Zoom Meeting protocol.

6. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider any and all protests against the Fiscal Year 2021-22 levy of assessments for the HID. The rules and procedures used in receiving and considering protests will comply with those set forth in Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525 and 36534. Following the hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution approving the levy.

7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give a summary notice of the public hearing by causing this resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation not less than seven days before the public hearing.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 21st day of April 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor

ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 44 Agenda No. 6 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lori Frati, Management Analyst MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 21-22 2. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 5, 2021, to hear any protests and determine whether to levy the assessment.

DISCUSSION In 2000, the City established the Downtown Pacific Grove Business Improvement District (BID), appointed an advisory board, and levied assessments for the District. The assessments may be used only for the promotion, marketing and advertising of professional and retail businesses located in the district, and for general maintenance to benefit those businesses. All businesses located in the BID are assessed an amount equal to 35% of their business license tax. The assessment is collected together with the business license tax payment, each year in July. Since 2000, the BID and assessments have been reauthorized annually, without exception.

Pursuant to State law and the City Council Resolution forming the BID, an Annual Report is required that reports on District revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal year, proposes a budget, and requests the levy of an assessment for the next year. The annual report will be included in the May 5, 2021 agenda report. No changes to BID boundaries are recommended for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

OPTIONS 1. Decline to adopt the Resolution. 2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: PGCC 4-21-21 Page 45 The assessed funds may only be used for BID purposes. These revenues may not be used for any other City purpose.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Help Local Businesses Thrive: Develop a strategic plan to serve existing businesses while attracting new commerce and revitalize commercial corridors.

Attachments BID Resolution to Levy Assessment FY 21-22

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 46 RESOLUTION NO. 21-xxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE STATING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PACIFIC GROVE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

FINDINGS

1. In 2000 the City of Pacific Grove established the Downtown Pacific Grove Business Improvement District (BID); and

2. The BID has been approved for continuation each year since it was first established, and has proved to be of benefit to the City in terms of promoting the downtown professional and retail business economy; and

3. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce has requested continuation of the Downtown BID for the 2021-22 fiscal year; and

4. 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, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The City intends to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year 2021-22 within the Downtown Pacific Grove Improvement District (BID), as described in Section 6.50.010 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. The proposed assessment would be collected by the City from the business owners when the business license tax is paid in 2021-22. Excepting catalog sales establishments, each and every business in the district will pay an assessment equal to 35% of its business license tax for fiscal year 2020-21.

3. On May 5, 2021, the City Council will receive an annual report prepared by the BID’s Advisory Board, which contains details of expenditures in 2020-21 and a description of the anticipated costs and activities to be provided in Fiscal Year 2021-22. These activities include, but are not limited to, promotion, marketing and advertising of businesses in the district, support for special events, and general maintenance to benefit businesses within the BID.

4. Copies of the report will be on file with the City Clerk and are also available at the offices of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 47 5. There is no change to the boundaries of the district as established and set forth in Section 6.5.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

6. The Council sets the public hearing to consider the levy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 assessment for the BID for May 5, 2021 at 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the item may be called, at the Pacific Grove City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California to be conducted under public hearing Zoom Meeting protocols.

7. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider all protests against the Fiscal Year 2021-22 levy of assessments for the BID. The rules and procedures used to receive and consider protests will comply with Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525 and 36534. Following the hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution approving the levy.

8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give a summary notice of the public hearing by causing this resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation not less than seven days before the public hearing.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 21st day of April 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor

ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 48 Agenda No. 6 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Reuse of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Building CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution in support of reuse of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration building.

DISCUSSION At the April 7, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council acted on an agenda report authored by Mayor Peake and directed staff to bring forward a resolution in support of reuse of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration building.

A resolution is attached for City Council review and adoption.

OPTIONS Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact in the adoption of this resolution.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments Draft Reso

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 49 RESOLUTION NO. 21-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE SUPPORTING REUSE OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

FINDINGS

1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) building on Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Grove, California will be for sale this summer by the federal government.

2. The building, with sea murals by Guggenheim-honored artist Ray Troll, overlooking Monterey Bay and the Great Tide Pool, could be transformed into an environmentally appropriate public workspace and art gallery, enabling the convergence of cutting-edge marine scientific and technological innovation with ocean-inspired art and virtual reality.

3. Creative reuse of the Pacific Grove NOAA property gives Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula a new opportunity to highlight ocean science, conservation, and art, while enhancing the area’s attraction to visitors as a world-renowned center for public education focused on the Asilomar and Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.

4. A Center for Ocean, Art, Science and Technology (COAST) would provide space to convene scientific workshops seeking ocean solutions to some of the greatest challenges facing society, including Climate, Energy, and Food Security; gallery space to exhibit the ocean-inspired artwork of the region’s world-renowned artistic community; educational and outreach opportunities to immerse students and visitors in virtual ocean experiences unlike anything offered elsewhere in the world.

5. Key proponents of COAST are Steve Hauk, who envisioned COAST and is a Pacific Grove art dealer and writer, Dr. Charles Greene, Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, and Darcie Fohrman who creates museum exhibitions nationally and locally.

6. Project Supporters include Dr. Steve Palumbi, former Director of Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station; Dr. Drew Harvell, Cornell Professor of Marine Biology and author of the award-winning books Sea of Glass and Ocean Outbreak; Dr. Kenneth Parker, climate change oceanographer and fine art photographer; Dr. Jennifer Carson, astrophysicist and former science museum manager; Dixie Layne, local historian, writer and board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Moe Ammar, President of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce; Donna Gates, board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Frank Miscione, artist and civil engineer; Rick Steres, architect, researcher and board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Lisa Ledin, radio announcer for NPR’s KAZU.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

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

2. The Council authorizes adoption of this resolution to support reuse of the NOAA building and encourages next steps for COAST as follows:

a. Investigate the possibility to acquire this property. b. Create a detailed plan for to develop COAST. c. Estimate capital as well as ongoing operational and maintenance costs. d. Develop community support. e. Explore local and national fundraising opportunities.

3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this _____ day of ______, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor

ATTEST: DATED: ______

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 51

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 52 Agenda No. 6 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jocelyn Francis, Police Administrative Services Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing City participation in the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority under rules and regulations promulgated by the State of California.

DISCUSSION In 1990, California Vehicle Code Section 22710 authorized establishment of a county service authority for abandoned vehicle abatement and imposition of a one-dollar ($1.00) vehicle registration fee to offset costs associated with an abandoned vehicle abatement program.

On September 4, 1991, City Council approved Resolution 6199 authorizing establishment of the Monterey County Vehicle Abatement Service Authority, thereby making funds available to the City for abatement activities through imposition of a one dollar ($1.00) per vehicle annual registration fee for all vehicles registered in Monterey County.

In 1992, with Monterey County Board Approval, and approval of the majority of incorporated Monterey County cities, the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority was formed.

On October 5, 2011, City Council approved a resolution authorizing a 10-year extension.

Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) 9.40 recognizes abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles are a public nuisance and, along with California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22660 and 22669, provides an avenue for abatement. Often times wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles are stored on city streets or city parking lots, left behind by vehicle owners who no longer want the vehicles or those without alternative storage options creating blight and causing health and safety hazards.

For the City of Pacific Grove, those collected fees have been utilized to purchase new or replacement equipment for Community Service and Parking Officers, as well as supplies, training and other resources related to the continued operations of the vehicle abatement program.

The City received notice the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Fee program will sunset on April 30, 2022. Resolutions must be recieved by the State no later than August 1, 2021. In order to continue the program

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 53 and receive available benefits, approval must be granted by two-thirds vote by the County Board of Supervisors, with subsequent resolutions and confirmation by a majority of the cities comprising a majority of the incorporated population of Monterey County.

OPTIONS 1. Do nothing and allow the program to lapse.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City receives approximately $12,000 each year through the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority collected fees. This revenue is placed into Fund 45 and utilized for equipment, supplies and training for the vehicle abatement program.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments Resolution

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 54 RESOLUTION NO. 21-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN AND EXTENSION OF THE MONTEREY COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT SERVICE AUTHORITY

FINDINGS

1. In 1990, California Vehicle Code Section 22710 was approved to authorize the establishment of a county service authority for the abandoned vehicle abatement and the imposition of a one-dollar ($1.00) vehicle registration fee, if the board of supervisors and a majority of the incorporated cities within the county have adopted resolutions providing for the establishment of the authority and the imposition of the fee.

2. On September 4, 1991, City Council approved a resolution authorizing the establishment of the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority, thereby making funds available to the City for abatement activities through the imposition of a one dollar ($1.00) per vehicle annual registration fee for all vehicles registered in Monterey County.

3. On October 5, 2011, City Council approved a resolution authorizing a 10-year extension.

4. The City of Pacific Grove Municipal Code 9.40 recognizes that abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles are a public nuisance and provides an avenue for abatement. The code has helped to rid blight and keep city streets clear of abandoned, disabled, inoperable, dangerous or damaged vehicles.

5. California Vehicle Code section 9250.7(g) authorizes the vehicle abatement registration fee to be imposed by a service authority only for a period of 10 years from the date that the collection of the fee commenced, provided the fee is extended in 10-year increments by adopting extension resolutions.

6. The City of Pacific Grove is due to pass a resolution to continue participation in the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority.

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

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

2. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby declares that it approves the extension for the additional period of ten years for collection by the California Department of Motor Vehicles for distribution to the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority, as authorized by California Vehicle Code 22710.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 55

3. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby declares that it approves the extension for an additional period of ten years the participation in and extension of the Monterey County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority.

4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this _____ day of ______, ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 56 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: Lori Frati, Management Analyst MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Core Revenue Status Report for March 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive the Core Revenue Status Report for March 2021.

DISCUSSION The City of Pacific Grove’s (City) General Fund revenues are primarily derived from Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, and Sales and Use Tax revenues. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 20/21 Adopted Budget, it was estimated the City would receive $14.8 million or 70% of the General Fund revenues from these three tax sources. The initial FY20/21 projections were based on significant revenue reductions (approximately $3.7 when compared to FY19/20 adopted budget) due to COVID-19.

At mid-year, the budget was amended to adjust these three revenue sources to $15.3 million based on projected growth in the property tax and sales tax categories, net of reductions in transient occupancy tax. While sales tax and transient occupancy tax are still anticipated to be less than the prior fiscal year, property tax revenues are projected to continue to increase above the prior year amounts.

Additional information on the budgeted amounts and revenues to date for the current fiscal year are included in Attachment 1.

OPTIONS N/A - this is informational only

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue, provide high quality muni services.

Attachments Core Revenue Report - March

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 57 Attachment 1 Core Revenue Report March 2021

The following tables include the FY20/21 budget and year to date revenues. The receipts represent funds received to date.

PROPERTY TAX Property Tax is the first largest source of the General Fund revenue. The City typically receives property tax payments in December, April, and June. Unlike other tax revenues, property taxes have not been impacted by COVID-19. The City received its first property tax payment for FY20/21 in December 2020. Two additional payments are anticipated to be received in April and June 2021. The following table presents FY20/21 budget, and revenues received to date.

Property Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Adopted Budget FY20/21 7,935,294 4,629,757 58.3%

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is the General Fund’s second largest source of revenue which the City receives on a monthly basis. Unlike property taxes, TOT has been significantly impacted by COVID-19. The following table presents FY20/21 budget and revenues received to date.

Transient Occupancy Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Adopted Budget FY20/21 3,539,000 1,925,727 54.4%

The City receives transient occupancy tax in the month following the stay. The following table shows a monthly breakdown of TOT revenues when compared to the same month last year. The reduction in TOT in December and January may have resulted from temporary COVID-19 restrictions.

Lodging Period 2019/20 2020/21 Net Difference July 796,465 289,435 (507,030) August 846,088 340,019 (506,069) September 609,865 327,958 (281,907) October 588,882 347,103 (241,779) November 482,668 216,516 (266,152) December 366,647 90,066 (276,581) January 372,094 109,118 (262,976) February 413,607 205,512 (208,095) March 2021 TOT payments are anticipated to be received in late April 2021.

SALES AND USE TAX Sale and Use tax is the third largest source of the City’s General Fund revenues. The City receives a 1% Bradley Burns Tax and a 1% Measure U Transactions and Use Tax.

In FY19/20, the City received sales tax monthly; however, two payments were advances, which were based on estimated sales, prior period tax receipts, adjustments, and current distributions. This was followed by a true-up within each quarter. Due to this methodology, the advance monthly tax contributions were not truly representative of actual performance.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 58 In FY20/21, the State changed its tax collection methodology. The State now calculates a factor for each agency based on how the agency’s sales tax performed last year to the statewide total, and then applies that factor to the total statewide prepayments they received for that month. If statewide prepayments are tracking higher than the agency’s local sales, this could inflate the two advances. Additionally, the higher advances could also represent audit cases or late payments that they also processed during that month. This new methodology contributes to higher advance payments, with a lower true-up amount.

The impact of COVID-19 on the Sale and Use tax revenues has been less significant when compared to TOT. The following table presents FY20/21 budget and revenues received to date.

Sales and Use Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Adopted Budget FY20/21 3,735,000 2,290,565 61.3%

The following table shows a monthly breakdown of sales tax revenues when compared to the same month last year.

Tax Return Period 2019/20 2020/21 Net Difference July Advance 373,338 358,945 (14,393) August Advance 439,453 427,105 (12,348) September True-up 376,610 243,269 (133,341) October Advance 297,095 343,188 46,093 November Advance 323,622 333,869 10,247 December True-up 496,186 302,359 (193,827) January Advance 244,631 281,830 37,199 February 2021 payments are anticipated to be received in late April as the State pays the City two months in arrears.

(1) The October Fiscal Year 19/20 amount includes an annual sales tax payment of $50,983. This represents an annual remittance for select businesses that are within the shared taxing jurisdictions of Monterey and Pacific Grove. The Fiscal Year 18/19 payment of $52,971 was received in April. The timing difference associated with these payments contribute to a positive increase in Fiscal Year 19/20; however, the October remittances from the State are just below the prior year.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 59

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 60 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: Ben Harvey, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Promissory Payment Related to Entitlement Water and Large-Scale Construction CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive the report.

DISCUSSION The Pacific Grove Local Water Project (PGLWP) has produced recycled water since January 2018. The PGLWP treats wastewater from surrounding homes and businesses; and produces non-potable water used to primarily irrigate the City's golf course and cemetery. This alternative water source has reduced City demand for potable water from the California American Water Company (Cal-Am), and allows an increment of the water freed from prior irrigation use for sale as "entitlement water" for qualified residential and commercial projects.

As reported to the City Council at the December, 16 2020 meeting, the City has issued a Promissory Note to sell and transfer approximately 3.5725 AF of water entitlements to a large-scale construction project. Revenue from this water entitlement sale is $625,188. This water entitlement enabled construction of a mixed-use development at 520 Lighthouse Avenue; revenue from the sale of this water entitlement is secured through a deed of trust, and guaranteed by the City's ability to withhold final grant of occupancy and permit approval if timely payment should not occur.

Large scale construction projects require sizable investment before developers and investors are able to commence construction. Fees for architectural plans, fees for permits from the City and other government agencies, and pre-construction costs often run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the project's size and scope. The construction period before project completion and occupancy can run for many years for large projects. Requiring up front payment for entitlement water needed by large scale construction projects before construction can begin will frustrate and even prevent those projects from moving forward. Large projects often require construction loans and are financed at higher interst rates, as compared to permanent "take out" financing that can be accessed only upon completion and occupancy of the project.

A promise to pay costs for entitlement water, secured by deed and guaranteed by the City's ability to withhold final occupancy permits, allows developers to stage costs and bring these large projects to fruition. This practice is not unique to Pacific Grove, and is offered in other California municipalities.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 61 At the April 7, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft this agenda report to frame discussion of staff's plan to allow prospective promissory notes to enable large projects to use entitlement water. A draft prospective promissory note is attached for City Council review.

OPTIONS Direct staff to revise the draft prospective promissory note.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in receiving the report. Continuing to allow promissory payment related to entitlement water for large-scale construction allows for development which benefits the City through an increase in property tax base and other potential tax revenue related to the specific project (transient occupancy and/or sales tax).

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Help Local Businesses Thrive: Develop a strategic plan to serve existing businesses while attracting new commerce and revitalize commercial corridors.

Attachments Promissory Note

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 62

CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE

This Conveyance Agreement and Promissory Note, (“NOTE”) dated for reference purposes as of ______("Effective Date"), is made in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below., by which the Parties agree as follows:

The CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

hereby sells, transfers and conveys to

(BUYER)

Water entitlement in the amount totaling XXXX AF which is the subject of this Note under the terms and conditions set forth below.:

This Promissory Note (Note) is executed in conjunction with a Water Subscription Agreement by ______[insert name of person or entity]______(BUYER) with the City of Pacific Grove (City) for an increment of the City’s Water Entitlement totaling ______acre feet at a price of $______per acre foot.

1. BUYER promises to pay CITY the principal sum of $______, representing the amount of $______per Acre Foot.

2. A Final Inspection of each unit shall be dependent on the payment and release of water for that unit. a. Residential Units – One-Tenth (1/10th) of the Residential Water cost shall be paid prior to each Residential Final Inspection. b. Commercial Units – The Commercial Water cost shall be paid prior to the Commercial Final Inspection.

3. BUYER is a California Corporation. BUYER shall maintain corporate existence and good standing in California. BUYER shall maintain in force all licenses, approvals, and agreements, the loss of which could have a material adverse effect as to performance on this Note. BUYER shall provide to CITY a Certificate of Good Standing or Certificate of Existence from the appropriate authority, submitted within ten days upon request by CITY, certifying that BUYER is in good standing as a corporation in the State of California.

4. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS: If any action is commenced which arises out of or related to this Promissory 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

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 63

of or relating to the bankruptcy of Buyer, Lessee agrees to pay all of City’s costs and expenditures, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, which may be incurred in enforcing or protecting City’s rights or interests.

5. NON-WAIVER: No failure or delay by CITY in exercising CITY’s rights under this Note shall be considered a waiver of such rights.

6. NOTICE: 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 (d) by a commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and such notices shall be made to the Parties at the addresses listed below.

7. WAIVER: Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this Note must be in writing and signed by the CITY and the BUYER. 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.

8. DEFAULT: All sums remaining unpaid under this Note become immediately due and payable, at City’s option, upon 10 day’s calendar notice without further demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, on the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) BUYER’s failure to make any payment when due under the terms of this Note; (b) The death of BUYER or death of any present or future guarantor of this Note, or the dissolution of BUYER or any present or future guarantor of this Note BUYER or any such guarantor is a legal entity; (c) The filing of a petition in bankruptcy by, or the initiation of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws against, the BUYER or any present or future guarantor of this Note; (d) BUYER’s or any present or future guarantor’s default under any agreement or instrument executed in connection with this Note; (e) The revocation of any guaranty of this Note by any guarantor.

9. POST DEFAULT INTEREST: Upon default, interest on the unpaid principal balance of this Note is payable at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum until this Note is paid in full, or until the date of Water Entitlement revocation as provided below.

10. PAYMENT OF NOTE COSTS AND EXPENSES BY CITY: If the CITY has required the BUYER or any other holder of this note to pay immediately in full as described above, the Buyer shall have the right to be reimbursed 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 attorney’s fees.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 64

11. REVOCATION OF WATER ENTITLEMENT UPON DEFAULT: Upon any event of default referenced in Paragraph 8 above, the City at City’s option, upon 10 day’s calendar notice without further notice, demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, may revoke in full or in part the increment of Water Entitlement referenced in the Water Subscription Agreement referenced above, in proportion to remaining sums (not to include interest, costs or fees) that are unpaid by the Buyer.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement.

13. GOVERNING LAW. 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.

14. COUNTERPARTS. 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.

15. AUTHORITY. Any individual executing this Note on behalf of the CITY or the BUYER 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.

16. INTEGRATION. This Note including the exhibits and any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire agreement between the CITY and the BUYER 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 BUYER as of the effective date which is the date that the CITY signs the Note.

17. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in the Note are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Note for any cause. If a part of this Note is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Note is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

18. EXECUTION: The BUYER executes this Note as a principal and not as a surety. If there is more than one BUYER, each BUYER shall be jointly and severally liable under this Note.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and BUYER have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 65

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE BUYER

By: By:

Date: Date:

Address: Address:

Attachment: Certificate of Good Standing

U:\GENERAL (NEW)\City of Pacific Grove\Water Entitlement\Promissory Note Template\Water Entitlement Promissory Note - Final.docx

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 66 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: Bill Peake, Mayor MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Mayor's Regional Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive report.

DISCUSSION Monterey County Executive Briefing and District 5 Meetings 4/8 and 4/12 The single best online source for COVID-19 information for Monterey County can be found here.

The County is in the Orange Tier and the COVID-19 infection rate is now bottoming out at a low rate. The number of vaccinations in Monterey County have been as high as 30,000 doses per week depending on supply. Optum COVID-19 testing rates continue to decline.

As of April 14, 2021 everyone ages 16 and up are eligible for vaccination. One can register for vaccination through multiple websites (see link above) and https://myturn.ca.gov/. Approximately half of all Monterey County residents ages 16+ have had one vaccination. Smaller clinics such as Central Avenue Pharmacy are collaborating with community organizations to vaccinate hard to reach residents.

At the request of the hospitality workers union the Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance regarding recall of hospitality workers laid-off due to COVID-19.

County administrators are asking for additional involvement by cities to address homelessness.

OPTIONS N/A

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 67

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 68 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: Joe Amelio, Council Member MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive minutes.

Attachments MST Minutes

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 69 Agenda # 3-3 April 12, 2021 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING MINUTES

March 8, 2021

Present: Jeff Baron City of Carmel-by-the Sea John Gaglioti City of Del Rey Oaks Lorraine Worthy City of Gonzales Yanely Martinez City of Greenfield Mike LeBarre City of King David Burnett City of Marina Dan Albert City of Monterey Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove Tony Barrera City of Salinas Mary Ann Carbone City of Sand City Dave Pacheco City of Seaside Anna Velazquez City Soledad Luis Alejo County of Monterey

Absent: None

Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO Lisa Rheinheimer Assistant General Manager Norman Tuitavuki Chief Operating Officer Kelly Halcon Director of HR and Risk Management Mark Eccles Director of Information Technology Michelle Overmeyer Director of Planning and Innovation Andrea Williams General Accounting and Budget Manager Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary Marzette Henderson Contract Services Manager Lisa Cox Risk and Safety Manager Deanna Smith Civil Rights Officer Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Customer Service Manager Alvin Johnson Transportation Manager Elena Grigorichina Operations Analyst Matthew Deal Grants Analyst Sloan Campi Planning Manager Cristy Sugabo Mobility Manager Kevin Allshouse Mobility Coordinator Claudia Valencia Mobility Specialist Ruben Gomez Mobility Specialist

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 70 Lesley van Dalen Mobility Specialist Jose Barajas Mobility Specialist Sandra Amorim Procurement and Contracts Manager Beronica Carriedo Community Relations Coordinator Sonia Wills Customer Service Supervisor Angelina Ruiz Human Resources Manager Fred Simkins Coach Operator

Counsel: David Laredo General Counsel, De Lay & Laredo Heidi Quinn Assistant Counsel, De Lay & Laredo

Public: Daniel Constantino Jarrett Walker + Associates Jennifer Kuan Jarrett Walker + Associates Debbie Hale Transportation Agency for Monterey County Madilyn Jacobsen Transportation Agency for Monterey County Douglas Thomsen MV Transportation

Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.

1. CALL TO ORDER

1-1. Roll Call.

Chair Albert called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. with roll call taken as the meeting was via ZOOM teleconference. Directors Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, Worthy were present and a quorum was established.

1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.

The pledge of allegiance was led by Chair Albert

1-3. Review Highlights of the agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)

General Manager/CEO Carl Sedoryk reviewed the highlights of the agenda.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Public Comment - None

3. CONSENT AGENDA

These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request that an item be discussed and considered separately.

3-1. Adopt Resolution 2021-21 recognizing Linda Andrada, as Employee of the Month for March 2021. (Norman Tuitavuki)

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 71 3-2. Receive Draft Minutes of the MST Board Operations Performance Committee Meeting on February 8, 2021. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)

3-3. Approve Minutes of the MST Board Meeting on February 8, 2021. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)

3-4. Receive Report on Lost and Found Items Left on MST Property for the Month of November 2020. (Sonia Wills)

3-5. Financial Reports – January 2021. (Lori Lee)

a) Accept report of January 2021 Cash Flow b) Approve January 2021 Disbursements c) Accept Report of January 2021 Treasury Transactions 3-6. Authorize General Manager/CEO to Execute Amendment No. 9 to the Contract with MV Transportation Extending the Reimbursement Term of CARES or CRRSAA Eligible Expenses in an Amount not to Exceed $35,000 per Month. (Marzette Henderson)

3-7. Reject Claim by Claimant Marcelino Cortez. (Lisa Cox)

3-8. Receive Draft Minutes of the MAC Committee on January 27, 2021. (Claudia Valencia)

3-9. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Execute an Agreement with Trapeze to Purchase Hardware and Software for the FuelFocus System to be Installed at the South County Operations and Maintenance Facility in an Amount not to Exceed $160,000. (Sandra Amorim)

3-10. Authorize General Manager/CEO to Enter Into a Contract to Purchase Probe and Vault Equipment to be Installed at the South County Operations and Maintenance Facility in an Amount Not to Exceed $111,500. (Sandra Amorim)

End of Consent Agenda

Public Comment - None

Director Barrera made the motion to approve all items on the consent agenda, which was seconded by Director Gaglioti. A roll call vote was taken with 13 voting in favor: Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy. The motion passed unanimously.

4. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

4-1. Employee of the Month, March 2021 – Linda Andrada, Coach Operator.

4-2. Receive Staff Report on Activities Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic Incident Response and Recovery Planning to Date and Provide Direction, If Needed. (Carl Sedoryk)

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 72 4-3. Transit 101: Comprehensive Operational Analysis. (Michelle Overmeyer)

The MST Board received the Transit 101: Comprehensive Operational Analysis presented by Daniel Costantino from Jarrett Walker + Associates.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5-1. FY 2021 Program of Projects for Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Funding. (Matthew Deal)

a) Conduct Public Hearing for FY 2021 Program of Projects, b) Adopt the FY 2021 Program of Projects; and c) Authorize the Filing of the Appropriate Grant Applications with the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans.

Public Comments - None

Director LeBarre made the motion to approve item 5-1, which was seconded by Director Velazquez. A roll call vote was taken with 13 voting in favor; Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy. The motion passed unanimously.

6. ACTION ITEMS 6-1. Approve FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment. (Lisa Rheinheimer)

Public Comment - None

Director Gaglioti made the motion to approve item 6-1, which was seconded by Director Velazquez. A roll call vote was taken with 13 voting in favor: Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Barrera, Baron, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy. The motion passed unanimously.

6-2. Review Draft FY 22 – 25 Strategic Plan and Draft 2 Year Action Plan and Provide Comment. (Carl Sedoryk) Public Comment - None

The MST Board reviewed the Draft FY 22-25 Strategic Plan and Draft 2 Year Action Plan and provided comments to staff.

7. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS

The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require action by the Board.

7-1. General Manager/CEO Report – January 2021

7-2. Federal Legislative Advocacy Report – February 2021

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 73 7-3. State Legislative Advocacy Update

7-4. Staff Trip Reports – None

7-5. Correspondence – None

8. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS 8-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)

8-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.

a) Reminder of Upcoming Conferences/Virtual Meetings. i. APTA Mobility Conference Virtual Event, March 16-20, 2021 ii. APTA Spring Legislative Conference Virtual Event, May 19, 2021

b) Board Printed Agenda Packets Opt. In. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)

A roll call was taken and below are the results for Board Printed Agenda Packets Opt-in:

DIRECTOR CITY OF JURISDICTION OPT IN OPT OUT

BARON City of Carmel-by-the-Sea YES

GAGLIOTI City of Del Rey Oaks YES WORTHY City of Gonzales YES

MARTINEZ City of Greenfield YES LEBARRE City of King City YES

BURNETT City of Marina YES ALBERT (Chair) City of Monterey YES

AMELIO City of Pacific Grove YES

BARRERA City of Salinas YES CARBONE City of Sand City YES

YES PACHECO City of Seaside VELAZQUEZ (Vice Chair) City of Soledad YES

YES ALEJO County of Monterey

8-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

None

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 74 9. CLOSED SESSION Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to Closed Session. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda. (Please refer to page 1 of the agenda for instructions)

As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act representative.

None

10. ATTACHMENTS 10-1. The Detailed Monthly Performance Statistics and Disbursement Journal for January 2021 can be viewed online within the GM Report at http://mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/

11. ADJOURN

With no further business to discuss, Chair Albert adjourned the meeting at 12:07 p.m. (Pacific)

PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk

PGCC 4-21-21

Page 75

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 76 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: Ben Harvey, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive report of emergency directives/modifications, discuss circumstances needing emergency response, and ratify actions as needed.

DISCUSSION The City Manager during this Local Emergency is authorized to directly mitigate effects of the Local Emergency to protect life or property.

This report apprises the City Council of emergency directives taken under the continuing local emergency proclaimed by Resolution 20-007. This report fulfills the City Council’s review obligation under that Resolution and Government Code 8630. This agenda item also enables ratification of select actions taken since the City Council’s last review.

City expenditures for legal services related to COVID-19 issues (specifically to related to COVID 19-COM (Communications); COVID 19-TRN (Training); COVID 19-LAW (Legal Support); and COVID-19 (Other)) are eligible for State and Federal Emergency Service reimbursement, including but not limited to FEMA or other emergency grant funding.

Actions not subject to Ratification. Since the time of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, April 3, 2020, the City Manager has taken the following new or modified actions pursuant to the Emergency Proclamation: None to report at this time. No action is necessary with respect to the above new or modified measures, as each is responsive to requirements of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order falling within the regular management discretion of the City Manager.

Further, on April 6, 2021, Governor Newsom outlined the state's next step in the COVID-19 pandemic recovery. On June 15, California will fully reopen its economy if two criteria are met: Vaccine supply is sufficient for Californians 16 years and older who wish to be inoculated; and

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 77 Hospitalization rates are stable and low. In conjunction with the Governor's announcement and should the two criteria be met, the City of Pacific will commence in-person City Council, and Boards and Commission meetings as soon as possible, thereafter.

Actions subject to Ratification. Certain mitigation measures that have been enacted by the City Manager in response to the Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, May 8, 2020, and in accord with Council’s Local Emergency under Article 19, subparagraph l, of the Pacific Grove City Charter, and Chapter 3.20 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), are subject to ratification. Any mitigation measures that qualify are subject to ratification as required by Government Code 8630 and City Council Resolution 20-007, and are listed below: 1. None to report at this time. Discussion of Circumstances Needing Emergency Response. The discussion part of this item allows comment on circumstances which may benefit from further or different emergency responses. Matters identified will be referred to the City Manager for appropriate consideration in accord with the Emergency Management System protocols set by PGMC Chapter 3.20. These delegate exclusive emergency management response authority to the City Manager.

CEQA Exemption. Actions taken to prevent or mitigate an emergency are exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15260 of the CEQA Guidelines.

OPTIONS Actions not subject to ratification are reported for information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in receiving the report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 78 Agenda No. 9 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with Cole Pro Media CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive the report and direct staff to send written notice of termination to Cole Pro Media.

DISCUSSION At the October 21, 2020 regular City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to enter into a professional services agreement with Cole Pro Media for transparency engagement advisor services (agreement attached). As part of this direction, the City Council also directed staff to return in six months with an update regarding the services provided.

The City has been in contract with Cole Pro Media now for six months. Through mutual agreement, both the City and Cole Pro Media desire to cease the agreement for professional services. To terminate the relationship, a thirty-day written notice is required.

OPTIONS 1. Take no action. 2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Directing staff to send written 30 day notice of termination to Cole Pro Media will reduce City expenditures to Cole Pro Media for professional services by approximately $14,500.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments Cole Pro Media Agreement

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 79 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Under $35,000)

This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter “City”) and ___Cole Pro Media______, (hereinafter “CONSULTANT”).

In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The City hereby engages CONSULTANT to perform, and CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform, the services described in Exhibit A in conformity with the terms of this Agreement. The services are generally described as follows: __Transparency Engagement Advisors______.

2. PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONSULTANT in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $ _34,800______.

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is from _November 1, 2020______to ___October 31, 2021______unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both CONSULTANT and City and with City signing last, and CONSULTANT may not commence work before City signs this Agreement.

4. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS/EXHIBITS. The following attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference and constitute a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: [scope of services/payment provisions, etc.]

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 5.01. CONSULTANT warrants that CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s agents, employees, and subconsultants performing services under this Agreement are specially trained, experienced, competent, and appropriately licensed to perform the work and deliver the services required under this Agreement and are not employees of the City, or immediate family of an employee of the City.

5.02. CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, and subconsultants shall perform all work in a safe and skillful manner and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. All work performed under this Agreement that is required by law to be performed or supervised by licensed personnel shall be performed in accordance with such licensing requirements.

5.03. CONSULTANT shall furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not use City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.

6. PAYMENT CONDITIONS. 6.01. CONSULTANT shall submit to the Contract Administrator an invoice on a form acceptable to City. If not otherwise specified, the CONSULTANT may submit such invoice monthly or at the completion of each phase of the project, as provided on page 16 of the proposal, but in any event, not later than 30 days after completion of services. The invoice shall set forth the amounts claimed by CONSULTANT for the previous period, together with an itemized basis for the amounts claimed, and such other information pertinent to the 1 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 80 invoice as the City may require. The Contract Administrator or his or her designee shall certify the invoice, either in the requested amount or in such other amount as the City approves in conformity with this Agreement, and shall promptly submit such invoice to the City Auditor-Controller for payment. The City Auditor- Controller shall pay the amount certified within 30 days of receiving the certified invoice.

6.02. CONSULTANT shall be eligible to receive reimbursement for actual travel expenses up to the amount specified in the cost proposal.

7. TERMINATION. 7.01. During the term of this Agreement, the City may terminate the Agreement for any reason by giving written notice of termination to the CONSULTANT at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. Such notice shall set forth the effective date of termination. In the event of such termination, the amount payable under this Agreement shall be reduced in proportion to the services provided prior to the date of termination.

7.02. The City may cancel and terminate this Agreement for good cause effective immediately upon written notice to CONSULTANT. “Good cause” includes the failure of CONSULTANT to perform the required services at the time and in the manner provided under this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement for good cause, the City may be relieved of the payment of any consideration to CONSULTANT, and the City may proceed with the work in any manner which City deems proper. The cost to the City shall be deducted from any sum due the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

8. INDEMNIFICATION (Revised per PARSAC).

8.01 Indemnification for Professional Liability. Where the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or sub-consultants (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.

8.02 Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subconsultants of Consultant.

8.03 Limitation of Indemnification. Notwithstanding any provision of this [Indemnification] to the contrary, design professionals are required to defend and indemnify the City only to the extent permitted by Civil Code Section 2782.8, which limits the liability of a design professional to claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional. The term “design professional,” as defined in Section 2782.8, is limited to licensed architects, licensed landscape architects, registered professional engineers, professional land surveyors, and the business entities that offer such services in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Business and Professions Code. 2 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 81 The provisions of this section do not apply to claims occurring as a result of City’s sole or active negligence. The provisions of this section shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officials, employees and agents.

 Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9. INSURANCE. 9.01. Insurance Coverage Requirements: Without limiting CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify, CONSULTANT shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:

Commercial general liability insurance, no less broad than Insurance Services Office (ISO) CG 00 01, including but not limited to premises and operations, including coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability, Broadform Property Damage, Independent CONSULTANTs, Products and Completed Operations, with a minimum Limits: $1,000,000 per Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate; $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. The required limits may be provided by a combination of General Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. If CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the specified minimum limits, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by CONSULTANT.

 Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Business automobile liability insurance, covering all motor vehicles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired vehicles, used in providing services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.  Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Workers’ Compensation Insurance, if CONSULTANT employs others in the performance of this Agreement, in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with Employer’s Liability limits not less than $1,000,000 each person, $1,000,000 each accident and $1,000,000 each disease.  Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Professional liability insurance, if required for the professional services being provided, (e.g., those persons authorized by a license to engage in a business or profession regulated by the California Business and Professions Code), in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, to cover liability for malpractice or errors or omissions made in the course of rendering professional services. If professional liability insurance is written on a “claims-made” basis rather than an occurrence basis, the retroactive date shall be no later than the commencement of the work. Coverage applicable to the work performed under this agreement shall be continued for three (3) years after completion of the work . Such continuation coverage may be provided by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the work under this agreement.  Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9.02. Other Insurance Requirements. All insurance required by this Agreement shall be with a company acceptable to the City and issued and executed by an admitted insurer authorized to transact Insurance business in the State of California. Unless otherwise specified by this Agreement, all such insurance shall be written on an occurrence basis, or, if the policy is not written on an occurrence basis, such policy with the coverage 3 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 82 required herein shall continue in effect for a period of three years following the date CONSULTANT completes its performance of services under this Agreement.

. CONSULTANT shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, CONSULTANT shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should CONSULTANT fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure such insurance at CONSULTANT’s sole cost and expense.

Commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall provide an endorsement naming the City of Pacific Grove, its officers, agents, and employees as Additional Insureds with respect to liability arising out of the CONSULTANT’S work, including ongoing and completed operations, and shall further provide that such insurance is primary insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and that the insurance of the Additional Insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by the CONSULTANT’S insurance. The required endorsement form for Commercial General Liability Additional Insured is ISO Form CG 20 10 11-85 or CG 20 10 10 01 in tandem with CG 20 37 10 01 (2000). The required endorsement form for Automobile Additional Insured endorsement is ISO Form CA 20 48 02 99.

The general liability policy shall cover inter-insured suits and include a “separation of Insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately. CONSULTANT shall provide to City an endorsement that the issuer waives the right of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

Prior to the execution of this Agreement by the City, CONSULTANT shall file certificates of insurance with the City’s contract administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division, showing that the CONSULTANT has in effect the insurance required by this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance within five calendar days after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file. Acceptance or approval of insurance shall in no way modify or change the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.

CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in force the insurance coverage required under this Agreement and shall send, without demand by City, annual certificates to City’s Contract Administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division. If the certificate is not received by the expiration date, City shall notify CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT shall have five calendar days to send in the certificate, evidencing no lapse in coverage during the interim. Failure by CONSULTANT to maintain such insurance is a default of this Agreement which entitles City, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement immediately.

10. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY. 10.01. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subconsultants shall comply with any and all federal, state, and local laws which provide for the confidentiality of records and other information. CONSULTANT shall not disclose any confidential records or other confidential information received from the City or prepared in connection with the performance of this Agreement, unless City specifically permits CONSULTANT to disclose such records or information. CONSULTANT shall promptly transmit to City any and all requests for disclosure of any such confidential records or information.

4 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 83 CONSULTANT shall not use any confidential information gained by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement except for the sole purpose of carrying out CONSULTANT’s obligations under this Agreement.

10.02. City Records. When this Agreement expires or terminates, CONSULTANT shall return to City any City records which CONSULTANT used or received from City to perform services under this Agreement.

10.03. Maintenance of Records. CONSULTANT shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and City rules and regulations related to services performed under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain such records for a period of at least three years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the three year period, then CONSULTANT shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

10.04. Access to and Audit of Records. The City shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONSULTANT and its subconsultants related to services provided under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of the City or as part of any audit of the City, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

10.05. Royalties and Inventions. City shall have a royalty-free, exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, and use, and authorize others to do so, all original computer programs, writings, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, and other works of similar nature produced in the course of or under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not publish any such material without the prior written approval of City.

11. NON-DISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT, and its subconsultants, shall not unlawfully discriminate against any person because of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40), or sexual orientation, either in CONSULTANT’s employment practices or in the furnishing of services to recipients. CONSULTANT shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of its employees and applicants for employment and all persons receiving and requesting services are free of such discrimination. CONSULTANT and any subconsultant shall, in the performance of this Agreement, fully comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination. The provision of services primarily or exclusively to such target population as may be designated in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be prohibited discrimination.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF STATE OR FEDERAL GRANT. If this Agreement has been or will be funded with monies received by the City pursuant to a contract with the state or federal government in which the City is the grantee, CONSULTANT will comply with all the provisions of said contract, to the extent applicable to CONSULTANT as a sub-grantee under said contract, and said provisions shall be deemed a part of this Agreement, as though fully set forth herein. Upon request, City will deliver a copy of said contract to CONSULTANT, at no cost to CONSULTANT.

13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. In the performance of work, duties, and obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT is at all times acting and performing as an independent CONSULTANT and not as an employee of the City. No offer or obligation of permanent employment with the City or particular City department or agency is intended in any manner, and CONSULTANT shall not become entitled by virtue of this Agreement to receive from City any form of employee benefits including but not limited to sick leave, vacation, retirement benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, insurance or disability benefits. CONSULTANT shall be 5 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 84 solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including federal and state income taxes and social security, arising out of CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement. In connection therewith, CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless from any and all liability which City may incur because of CONSULTANT’s failure to pay such taxes.

14. NOTICES. Notices required under this Agreement shall be delivered personally or by first-class, postage pre-paid mail to the City’s and CONSULTANT’S contract administrators at the addresses listed below:

FOR CITY: FOR CONSULTANT:

Ben Harvey, City Manager Laura Cole, President Name and Title Name and Title

300 Forest Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950 3069 Alamo Drive #122 Vacaville, CA 95687 Address Address

(831) 648- 3174 707-724-8089 Phone Phone

15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 15.01. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents that it presently has no interest and agrees not to acquire any interest during the term of this Agreement which would directly or indirectly conflict in any manner or to any degree with the full and complete performance of the professional services required to be rendered under this Agreement.

15.02. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by an instrument in writing signed by the City and the CONSULTANT.

15.03. Waiver. Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the City and the CONSULTANT. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Agreement.

15.04. CONSULTANT. The term “CONSULTANT” as used in this Agreement includes CONSULTANT’s officers, agents, and employees acting on CONSULTANT’s behalf in the performance of this Agreement.

15.05. Disputes. CONSULTANT shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute. CONSULTANT and the CITY hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers (whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

15.06. Assignment and Subcontracting. The CONSULTANT shall not assign, sell, or otherwise transfer its interest or obligations in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. None of the services

6 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 85 covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Notwithstanding any such subcontract, CONSULTANT shall continue to be liable for the performance of all requirements of this Agreement.

15.07. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and the rights, privileges, duties, and obligations of the City and CONSULTANT under this Agreement, to the extent assignable or delegable, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, and heirs.

15.08. Compliance with Applicable Law. The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement.

15.09. Headings. The headings are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret the terms of this Agreement.

15.10. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in each and all of the provisions of this Agreement.

15.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.

15.12. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and CONSULTANT expressly reserve the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

15.13. Construction of Agreement. The City and CONSULTANT agree that each party has fully participated in the review and revision of this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement.

15.14. Counterparts. This Agreement 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 Agreement.

15.15. Authority. Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City or the CONSULTANT represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

15.16. Integration. This Agreement, including the exhibits any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement between the City and the CONSULTANT with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between the City and the CONSULTANT as of the effective date of this Agreement, which is the date that the City signs the Agreement.

15.17. Interpretation of Conflicting Provisions. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.

15.18 Severability. If any of the provisions contained in the Contract are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Contract for any cause. If a part of this Contract is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Contract is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications. 7 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 86

This space is left blank, intentionally.

8 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 87 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and CONSULTANT have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONSULTANT Ben Harvey Ben Harvey (Feb 2, 2021 10:37 PST) By: Ben Harvey Purchasing Manager Laura Cole Date: Feb 2, 2021 CONSULTANT’s Business Name* Ben Harvey Ben Harvey (Feb 2, 2021 10:37 PST) By: Ben Harvey, City Manager laura cole Program Manager/Dep’t Head By: laura cole (Feb 2, 2021 11:23 PST) Date: (Signature of Chair, President, or Vice-President)*

Laura Cole, President Name and Title Date: Feb 2, 2021

Approved as to Form

By: City Attorney By: Date: Oct 23, 2020 (Signature of Secretary, Asst. Secretary, CFO, or Asst. Treasurer)*

Approved as to Fiscal Provisions1 Name and Title Date: By: Tori Hannah Finance Date: Feb 2, 2021

Approved as to Liability Provisions2

By: Tori Hannah Risk Management Date: Feb 2, 2021

City Agreement Number: ______.

*INSTRUCTIONS: If CONSULTANT is a corporation, including limited liability and non-profit corporations, the full legal name of the corporation shall be set forth above together with the signatures of two specified officers. If CONSULTANT is a partnership, the name of the partnership shall be set forth above together with the signature of a partner who has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the partnership. If CONSULTANT is contracting in an individual capacity, the individual shall set forth the name of the business, if any, and shall personally sign the Agreement.

1 Approval by Finance necessary only if financial questions or issues raised in the City’s approval of agreement. 2 Approval by Risk Management is necessary only if changes are made in paragraph 8 or 9.

9 of 9 Template Revised per PARSAC 7/15/16

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 88

Cole Pro Media Engagement of Services/Scope of Services

Transparency Engagement Advisors

Advisor on-site bi-monthly for two hour communication strategy session and advising. Advisor hold bi-monthly virtual two hour communication strategy session.

Advisor available seven days a week including holidays.

Training, Advising and Work Product to Include:  Focusing on the best ways to handle difficult topics with the community.  Writing high-profile news releases and talking points for City when necessary.  Best practices when dealing with transparency, timelines, key messages, and social media posts.  Best practices for handling critical incidents, media related issues, and crisis communicated issues.  Advisor helps with news releases, social media posts, talking points, and press questions when an incident or situation occurs.  Bi-monthly in-person communication strategy session that focuses on community outreach particularly on social media

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 89  Keeping the City up to date with the best practices and platforms to engage the community on in a transparent way.  Teaching social media team and department the latest trends in social media for transparency.  Teaching social media team what types of content to look for, how to capture great pictures and video, and how to write stories in a way that creates community engagement.  Helping brand larger, long-term campaigns and writing communications plans with an emphasis on transparency.

Cost for City is $2900 a month. $34,800 a year

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 90 Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Minor Correction to the Mission Linen MOU Approved by the City Council on March 17, 2021. CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15319(a) Class 19, Annexations to City or Special Districts or Areas-Existg Public or Private Structure

RECOMMENDATION Rescind and reauthorize the Resolution authorizing the filing of an annexation application for the Mission Linen property at 801 Sunset Dr. to allow a minor correction to the MOU with the Pebble Beach Community Services District (CSD).

DISCUSSION The draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was attached as Exhibit 2 to the Council's Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Annexation contained a very minor error. The original agenda report with the Resolution and MOU are located in the March 17, 2021, Council agenda packet. The original MOU referred to, in Item 5 under Facts, the CSD's retention of 0.02 of the current CSD property tax assessment when it should have stated 0.02 of the total property tax assessment. The corrected draft with redline and strikeout (attached) has been reviewed by the CSD General Manager and legal counsel, both of whom accept the change as proposed.

The minor correction will increase the CSD's annual assessment by approximately $142.84, thus decreasing the City's increased share by the same amount. In the agenda report for the March 17th meeting, staff noted that the City's estimated property tax revenue would increase approximately $2,788.70 annually. As a result of this correction, the City's revenue increase amount would be approximately $2,645.86. This correction will result in a negligible change to the City's tax revenue resulting from the annexation. It is important that the MOU reflect the correct source of the assessment as this agreement is what the County of Monterey will rely on to prepare the Property Tax Transfer Agreement.

No other changes to the Resolution or the MOU are proposed.

OPTIONS N/A

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 91 N/A

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments Corrected MOU

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 92

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE FOR RETAINING EXISTING WASTEWATER SERVICES FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 801 SUNSET DR., PACIFIC GROVE

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is made and entered into this ______, 2021 (Effective Date), by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a municipal corporation of the State of California (City), and the Pebble Beach Community Services District, a California Community Services District (PBCSD), collectively, the Parties, with reference to the following facts.

FACTS

1. The City has initiated proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with California Government Code Section 56000, for a change of organization consisting of the annexation of territory to the City.

2. The subject property is a 2.99-acre territory is located at 801 Sunset Drive, APN 007-101- 036-000 (Property), and is within the County of Monterey and located outside City limits.

3. The Property is within the service jurisdiction of the PBCSD. PBCSD currently provides wastewater, solid waste, and fire protection services to the Property and has access to the Property’s wastewater flows.

4. The Parties have discussed the potential for PBCSD to retain wastewater rights, post- annexation to the City, and this MOU would be beneficial in moving those efforts forward.

5. Currently, PBCSD receives approximately $1,828.00 per year in property tax as reflected in the 0.203914 share of total property taxes assessed and collected by the County. This amount is distributed between all three (3) of the services mentioned herein. Because PBCSD will retain wastewater transmission and treatment responsibilities, it requests that a small portion (0.02) of the total County assessment be retained post-annexation. This equates to approximately $$179.34/yr in tax payment. This will be activated through the Property Tax Transfer agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and the County of Monterey upon annexation.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City and PBCSD agree as follows:

The above facts, including the paragraph preceding the facts, are hereby incorporated into this MOU as if set forth herein in full.

ARTICLE 1— RESPONSIBILITIES

CITY - PBCSD MOU PAGE 1 OF 4 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 93

a. CITY shall forgo access to current and future wastewater flows in recognition of the existing infrastructure that PBCSD has constructed to serve the Property.

b. CITY shall assume the provision of solid waste service, fire protection service, and police service to the Property in accordance with existing ordinances and agreement with the City of Monterey for fire protection services, or its successor. CITY shall be the Authority Having Jurisdiction relative to emergency response, code adoption and enforcement, fire investigation and other legally obligated fire protection services.

c. CITY shall assume provision of police service and solid waste service to the Property in accordance to existing franchise agreements and other contracts with GreenWaste Recovery (or its successor) for solid waste service.

d. California-American Water Company or its successor in interest shall continue to provide water to the Property.

e. Any owner or developer of the Property, in its discretion, may purchase entitlements for reclaimed water or additional potable water, if needed, from the Pebble Beach Company or the City.

f. PBCSD agrees that it will not object to or oppose City’s annexation of the Property into the City’s jurisdictional boundaries and the release of all current services other than wastewater to the City.

ARTICLE 2— TERM AND TERMINATION

This MOU shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect so long as not terminated. Either Party shall be entitled to terminate this MOU at any time with thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Party.

ARTICLE 3— MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION

a. PBCSD shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of this MOU by PBCSD and/or its agents, employees or PBCSD’s sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. PBCSD shall reimburse the City for all costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses and liabilities incurred with respect to any litigation in which the PBCSD is obligated to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City under this MOU.

b. City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless PBCSD, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of this MOU by City and/or its agents, employees or City’s sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of PBCSD. The City shall reimburse PBCSD for all costs, attorneys’

CITY - PBCSD MOU PAGE 2 OF 4 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 94

fees, expenses and liabilities incurred with respect to any litigation in which the City is obligated to indemnify, defend and hold harmless PBCSD under this MOU.

ARTICLE 4— INSURANCE

Each Party recognizes and accepts the other Party is self-insured. Either Party may purchase commercial insurance to cover its exposure hereunder, in whole or in part.

ARTICLE 5— ASSIGNMENT

Neither Party shall have the right to assign its respective rights and obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other Party.

ARTICLE 6— LAW AND VENUE

This MOU shall be in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be within the County of Monterey, California.

ARTICLE 7— ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

In the event any dispute arising out of this MOU is brought before a court of law, all reasonable fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party, including expert witness fees. These fees and cost shall be taxed as costs in that proceeding and shall not necessitate the filing of a separate action.

ARTICLE 8— NOTICES

Any notices required or given pursuant to this MOU shall be given in writing by personal delivery, or by United States mail, return receipt requested. Notices shall be sent to the addresses as set forth below or to the owner(s) of the Property or to such other address as any party may from time to time specify in writing to the other:

To: Mike Niccum Ben Harvey General Manager City Manager Pebble Beach Community City of Pacific Grove Services (PBCSD) 300 Forest Ave. 3101 Forest Lake Road Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Pebble Beach, CA 93950

ARTICLE 9— ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties hereto concerning the subject matter hereof. This MOU may only be modified by mutual written agreement between the Parties.

ARTICLE 10 — SEVERABILITY

CITY - PBCSD MOU PAGE 3 OF 4 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 95

The invalidity of any provision of this MOU as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction shall in no way affect the validity of any other provision hereof.

ARTICLE 11 — COUNTERPARTS

This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

ARTICLE 12 — AUTHORIZATION

The City warrants that the execution of this MOU has been approved and authorized by the City, and that the person who executes this MOU has been authorized to perform said act. PBCSD warrants that the execution of this MOU has been approved and authorized by PBCSD, and that the person who executes this MOU has been authorized to perform said act.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this MOU as of the dates indicated below.

Pebble Beach Community Services District City of Pacific Grove

Date: ______Date: ______

By ______By ______Mike Niccum, Ben Harvey, General Manager City Manager

CITY - PBCSD MOU PAGE 4 OF 4 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 96 Agenda No. 9 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: BNRC and EDC Appointments CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Confirm appointments of Susan Myers to the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and Erik Uppman to the Economic Development Commission.

DISCUSSION Please see attached redacted applications.

OPTIONS Do not approve.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable. Attachments Myers App Uppman App

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 97 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 98 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 99 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 100 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 101 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 102 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 103 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 104 Agenda No. 10 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes: January 19, 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive minutes.

Attachments BNRC Minutes Jan 2021

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 105 DocuSign Envelope ID: 201843B8-B5A5-4A2C-8E5C-0DAF89BD4454

CALL TO ORDER AT 3:00 PM

1. ROLL CALL

Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Members: Jeanie Anton, Chair; Thom Akeman;

Colleen Goldsmith; Dave Myers; Cathy Wooten; Barry Bedwell. Absent: Rebecca Lee

2. Approval of January Agenda

Motion to approve agenda carried 6-0-1 vote (Rebecca Lee absent)

3. Commission and Staff Announcements

Commissioner comments: Cathy Wooten spoke of the 99% decline in Monarch butterflies counted, for a

total of 1,914 along the California coast; per Xerces Society, reduced numbers from climate change, ag

and pesticide use, insecticides, and disease; US Fish & Wildlife will not list monarchs as endangered at

this time, instead using “warranted but precluded” meaning other species receive higher-priority; Dave

Myers remarked on his time on the commission; Colleen Goldsmith advised on a study by Overbrook

Foundation that pre-pandemic, 561 billion disposable items used each year in U.S. with EPA report that

only 8.5% plastic is recycled; Wall Street Journal reported that some startup companies such as GO Box

and DeliverZero will attempt to reduce plastic waste from take-out food with reusable containers; Thom

Akeman provided a Geo. Washington Park update that there are 100 pine sprouts with individual

volunteers doing watering; also noted that Site 1 requires organized weeding by volunteers.

Staff Announcements: Dan Gho announced that Pt. Pinos Bird Observatory viewing station proposal

brought to PG City Council.

4. Council Liaison Announcements

Nick Smith provided short recap regarding 2020 year- end activities; increased sales tax to 9.25% passed

but technical glitch with state re implementation; city council reversed cannabis licensing and a retail

dispensary; LCP and Shoreline plan approved; and the American Tin Cannery hotel applicant is tasked

with responding to raised concerns.

5. General Public Comment

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 106 DocuSign Envelope ID: 201843B8-B5A5-4A2C-8E5C-0DAF89BD4454

Donimick Sinicropi provided update on the butterfly sanctuary weather station that was installed on

August 25, 2020; there are now over 4 months of weather data to analyze, and a full report will be

completed by end of February, further noted wind gusts of 8 to 12 mph which is over the maximum

of 4 mph for butterflies; trees now planted will be a future wind break for welfare of monarchs;

weather at MBS compared with weather at Monterey Airport is so different as to be useless in analysis

of sanctuary weather conditions; Patrick Ryan who is president of the Rotary announced a Rotary Inter-

national project for planting pollinator gardens; this will be a project PG schools can participate in; Lisa

Ciani inquired whether departure of PG Environmental Programs Manager will be announced to general

public; remarked on the tree removal for the American Tin Cannery project; would like to see Item 7E

from last commission meeting brought before BNRC in future meeting; Mary Dainton regarding the

timing of her report.

6. Approval of Minutes

Motion to approve minutes of November 17, 2020 carried 7-0-1 vote with 3 corrections: adding word

“George” item 3; adding comment by Colleen Ingram to item 5b; and deletion of “7” for item 7B4

7. Regular Agenda

A. Monarch Sanctuary Report

Environmental Programs Manager Caleb Schneider provided overview of Monarch butterfly

seasonal schedule and recap of the completed prescribed actions for the MBS: plantings, wind break,

removal of dead potted trees, weather station installation and improved irrigation system. Also noted

in report is listing of items to be completed after the 2021 overwintering season concludes as well as

continuous actions. While PG seeks guidance from various organizations re the maintenance of MBS,

Caleb announced a new organization, the Monterey Regional Monarch Alliance (MRMA), which PG is

a charter member. (see Agenda No 7A report)

Public Comment: Mary Dainton stated that majority of MBS trees doing well, sagging ropes still

a problem and 10 memorial trees in sanctuary have plaques.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 107 DocuSign Envelope ID: 201843B8-B5A5-4A2C-8E5C-0DAF89BD4454

Commissioner Comment: Cathy Wooten inquired about hand reared groups of butterflies

released into nature; Caleb Schneider did not recommend and also commented about planting of milk-

weed within 5 miles of coast; intends to follow up on city action to the planting of milkweed in the city;

Dave Myers inquired whether we can grow the population or nurture the butterflies; Caleb responded

While that may be a future possibility, securing eggs means taking them out of the wild and captivity

Could mean more viruses and disease; Jeanie Anton thanked Caleb for his report; Thom Akeman

congratulated Caleb on his new title of Environmental Programs Manager.

B. Chase Park

Jeanie Anton presented background information on Chase Park and thanked the Praske family

for their efforts to beautify the area. Dan Gho seconded his gratitude and thanks to the Praske family.

2 photos were shown of possible pelican statues for the park.

Public Comment: Lisa Ciani thanked the Praske family and would like to encourage planting of

native plants that are better for the environment and birds; does not like tiny pelican statues and would

prefer an interpretative panel that is well designed.

Commission Comment: Barry Bedwell expressed gratitude to Praske family and thinks it would be

disrespectful to refuse the statue; Dave Myers likes the idea of a sculpture; Colleen Goldsmith supports

the sculpture, but believes the pelican statues are too small to be visually impactful; Thom Akeman does

not support the particular sculpture selected; Cathy Wooten inquired whether additional funds would

help to select a more appropriate sculpture; Jeanie Anton stated the next step is to select a particular

art piece and then the BNRC can vote to approve. BNRC could recognize the Praske family with a

commemorative plaque.

Dan Gho expressed concern about the size and concurred with going forward on a piece of

Sculpture.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 108 DocuSign Envelope ID: 201843B8-B5A5-4A2C-8E5C-0DAF89BD4454

8. Next Meeting is March 16, 2021

9. Meeting Adjourned 4:15 pm

______

Colleen Goldsmith, Secretary

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 109 Agenda No. 10 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: March 11, 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Receive the minutes.

Attachments 3-11-21 Planning Commission Minutes

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 110

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, March 11, 2021, 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Present: Aeschliman, Bluhm, Boyle, Byrne, Chakwin, Sawyer, Lilley. Absent: None

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

A motion to approve the agenda was made by Boyle, seconded by Sawyer, and unanimously approved on a 7-0-0 vote.

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)

A. Boyle provided an update on the Housing Initiative and information on the upcoming Housing Element kick-off workshop hosted by Monterey Bay Econ. Partners. B. Lilley provided a reminder on meeting decorum and the roles and responsibilities of the Commission. C. Director Aziz provided additional follow-up on Housing activities and an update on the American Tin Cannery (ATC) project.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS – Councilperson Coletti provided an update on City Council activities.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

A. Jill Kleiss shared her concerns about the City’s requirements regarding hotel/motel parking standards and asked the Commission to consider amending the Code. B. An unnamed caller had questions about the trees marked at the American Tin Cannery property.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION

A. Approval of the Planning Commission's February 11, 2021, Draft Meeting Minutes Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Approve the draft minutes of the Planning Commission's February 11, 2021, meeting as submitted. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 111 1/4

On a motion by Byrne and a second by Sawyer, the Consent Agenda was unanimously approved on a 7-0-0 vote.

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Architectural and Use Permits (AP/UP 20-0501) for 311 Walnut St. (APN 006-335-011) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Medium Density Residential Coastal Zone: No Historic Resources Inventory: Yes CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural and Use Permits subject to findings, conditions of approval, and Classes 1 and 31 CEQA exemptions for minor additions and historic resources restoration/rehabilitation, respectively. Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner - After receiving a brief staff report and a presentation by the project proponent, the Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. - A. Ciani provided comments on the proposed project - The Commission deliberated on the item. On a motion by Byrne, seconded by Chakwin, the item was unanimously approved on a 7-0-0 vote.

B. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 21-0043) for the installation of a drinking fountain/water bottle filling station at Lover's Point Park (APN 006-155-099). Zoning District/General Plan Designation: Open Space (O) Coastal Zone: Yes Historic Resources Inventory: No CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land Recommended Action: Approve CDP 01-0043 as submitted, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 4(f) CEQA exemption. Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner - After receiving a brief staff report and a presentation by Caleb Schneider, Public Works, the Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. - A. Ciani provided comments on the proposed project - I. Lorentzen Daumer provided comments on the proposed project - The Commission asked additional questions of Public Works staff

On a motion by Byrne, seconded by Chakwin, the item was unanimously (7-0-0) continued to the April 8, 2021, Planning Commission meeting to allow Public Works to provide additional clarity on the site plan about the fountain’s exact location and engineering for the pad and ADA accessibility.

C. Appeal of the Historic Resources Committee's 1-27-21 Denial of Architectural Permit (AP 20-0458), Holman Building, 542 Lighthouse Ave. (APN 006-179-044 et al) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: C-1-T / Downtown Commercial Coastal Zone: No Historic Resources Inventory: Yes CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 112 2/4

Recommended Action: Consider the evidence and uphold the appeal based on findings, conditions of approval and Classes 1 and 31 CEQA Exemptions for Existing Facilities and Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation. Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner

- Commissioner Sawyer recused herself at the beginning of the item due to her previous membership on the Historic Resources Committee which denied the permit

- After receiving a brief staff report and a presentation by the project proponent, the Chair opened the hearing for public testimony. - A. Ciani provided comments on the proposed project - I. Lorentzen Daumer provided comments on the proposed project - P. Mounteer provided comments - M. Richards (unit owner) provided comments - R. Planitzer (unit owner) provided comments - The Chair closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for deliberation. After several questions to the applicant regarding the details of the project, the Chair called for a motion. Byrne made a motion to approve the proposed glass windscreen on the north side, the proposed metal balcony on the west (Grand) side, and to include the previously proposed wireless rooftop screens that had been dropped by the applicant as part of the appeal. The motion was seconded by Chakwin and approved on a 6-0-1 vote with Sawyer recused.

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

A. Presentation on Housing Projections by the Assoc. of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Planning Director, Heather Adamson, AICP. Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Senior Planner Recommended Action: Receive presentation on AMBAG's regional growth forecasting process as information only. AMBAG's Final Regional Growth Forecast is attached for informational purposes only. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378

Ms. Adamson provided a slideshow presentation and answered questions.

12. NEXT MEETING - April 8, 2021

13. ADJOURNMENT – by order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 113 3/4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 114 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: Ben Harvey, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Ordinance to Amend PGMC Chapter 2.04 Adopt Rules and Procedures to Govern Ex Parte Contacts This item was continued from the City Council's April 7, 2021 meeting. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Council, to adopt rules and procedures to govern ex parte contacts and disclosure requirements, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION Constituents and members of the public reasonably expect they may engage elected officials on the wide variety of matters of community concern. At the same time, interested persons want to know factors a Council Member may consider related to making adjudicatory decisions. The attached draft ordinance would clarify the nature and extent of rules, procedures and limits that apply to communications that occur on matters are pending before, or are likely to come before, the City Council.

The ordinance defines the concept of ex parte contacts, meaning communications made by one person or “party” without notice or knowledge of other persons or parties who may have an interest in the same matter. The ordinance differentiates communications related to adjudicatory decisions, where the City Council acts in a judicial capacity, from legislative decisions where the City Council acts to make rules or policies, and from general communications that are included in the public record.

The ordinance allows Council Members to meet with the public to discuss pending adjudicative decisions but requires all Council Members make complete disclosures for each such contact or communication. An ex parte contact does not cause disqualification unless the Council Member is then unable to reach an impartial decision on the item.

If ex parte contacts or communications require disclosure, the ordinance creates a process whereby all members of Council, parties and the public is apprised of the 1) nature of the contact, 2) identity of the person(s) making the contact, 3) a brief summary of substantive information conveyed, and 4) copies of significant written materials conveyed. The disclosure becomes part of the administrative record.

The ordinance does not limit any procedural protection a party or member of the public may otherwise

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 115 have under the law.

OPTIONS 1. Provide alternative direction. 2. Do not approve the first reading of the draft ordinance.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of the ordinance.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments Draft Ordinance

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 116 ORDINANCE NO. 2021 -

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE EX PARTE CONTACT RULES

Findings

A. The City Council of Pacific Grove is committed to transparency in government and its obligation to provide fair processes. The City of Pacific Grove (City) intends that its adjudicatory and quasi-judicial decisions shall be made on information available to all members of Council and members of the public.

B. At its regular meeting of February 17, 2021, Council directed preparation of draft ordinance to amend the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) to adopt rules and procedures to govern ex parte contacts and disclosure requirements.

C. In considering ex parte requirements, the Council is aware of and has considered materials promulgated by the League of California Cities addressing ex parte limits and disclosures in the context of public hearings and also examined relevant polices and rules adopted by other cities.

D. Notice of the public hearing on this measure was published [where] on _____, 2021.

E. This ordinance shall be codified upon enactment as an amendment of PGMC Chapter 2.04, entitled “Council”.

F. 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., and found this activity to not be a Project defined by the 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; and

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

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

SECTION 2. A new section 2.04.090, entitled Ex Parte Communications, shall be added to Chapter 2.04 (Council) of Title 2 (Administration and City Government) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code, as follows:

2.04.090 Ex Parte Communications

1 DRAFT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 117 (a) General Purpose. Constituents and members of the public have reasonable expectations allowing them to engage elected officials on matters of community concern that are often controversial such as land use matters. At the same time, interested persons also have a right to know factors a Council Member may consider related to making adjudicatory decisions. The purpose of this section is to clarify the nature and extent of rules, procedures and limits that apply to communications that occur on matters pending before, or are likely to come before, the City Council.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall be given the definitions set forth below.

(1) Adjudicatory decisions. Adjudicatory decisions relate to evaluations or judgments where the City Council – acting in a judicial capacity – is charged with applying legal standards to a factual situation. These often arise in discretionary land use entitlement matters, personnel actions, appeals or other matters affecting vested rights or interests of named individuals or specific properties. Elements of due process are often mandated by law. Adjudicatory issues are at times characterized as quasi-judicial matters. Communications pertaining to adjudicatory decisions are subject to disclosure requirements by this section.

(2) Ex Parte. Ex parte is a Latin term that refers to unilateral contact made by one person or “party” without notice or knowledge of other persons or parties who may have an interest in the same matter. Ex parte contacts are substantive oral or written communications that occur outside of noticed meetings or hearings. Ex parte communications also include written materials that are not distributed to all Council Members or that are not otherwise included in the administrative record of the proceeding.

(3) General communications. General communications include materials that clearly indicate they have also been forwarded to the City Manager or City Clerk for inclusion in the public record; general communications are not ex parte communications and do not require disclosure by this section. Communications exclusively between Council members or between Council members and City staff, counsel or City-retained consultants are deemed do not require disclosure by this section. Information gained by Council members via their attendance at noticed public meetings before subordinate board and commissions does not require disclosure by this section.

(4) Legislative decisions. Legislative decisions relate to the City Council’s law-making, rulemaking and policy functions. These matters include enactment or promulgation of ordinances, zoning, general plan amendments, polices and procedures. These are at times characterized as quasi-legislative matters. Communication pertaining to legislative decisions do not require disclosure by this section.

(5) Pending Adjudicatory decisions. The term “pending” shall mean any adjudicatory or quasi-judicial matter that has been submitted to the City by way of application, variance, appeal or other process that will require decision by the City Council, but for which a final

2 DRAFT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 118 decision has not yet been made. Matters are pending at the time an application has been filed.

(c) Contacts related to legislative matters. Members of the City Council may discuss pending or proposed decisions freely with constituents or the public. No disclosure or record of those contacts or communications is necessary.

(d) Contacts related to adjudicatory matters. Adjudicative decisions must be fair and enable interested parties to have meaningful opportunities to prepare and be heard. Undisclosed ex parte contacts by Council Members allow a perception that information may not be available to others, including interested parties. Appearances may suggest fairness is lacking, or a bias may exist.

This section allows Council Members to meet with constituents or members of the public to discuss pending adjudicative decisions but requires all Council Members make complete disclosures for each ex parte contact or communication. A contact or communication, and related disclosures, shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification unless the Council Member determines the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for that Council Member to reach an impartial decision on the item.

The City Manager shall endeavor to identify tentative or regular agenda items that involve adjudicatory decisions, but failure to identify an item as such shall not affect the validity of actions taken by the City.

(e) Contacts related to mixed matters that include both adjudicatory and legislative decisions. At times a matter can involve a mixture of both adjudicatory and legislative decisions. For those matters, disclosures are required for each ex parte contact or communication.

(f) Ex parte disclosure requirements. Council members shall adhere to the following protocols for ex parte contacts or communications requiring disclosure by this section:

(1) Where information of a specific nature is received by a Council Member through contacts outside the record and the information is not already on the record, the member shall disclose the contact and its substance on the record prior to the commencement of the hearing to which such contact relates.

(2) No Council Member shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a City decision about which the member has knowingly had an ex parte contact or communication that has not been disclosed in accord with this section.

(3) Ex parte contacts after a hearing. Ex parte contacts or communications after a public hearing is closed and before a final decision is rendered are prohibited.

(g) Ex parte disclosure process. Identification of ex parte contacts or communications is intended to inform all members of Council, parties and public of information pertaining to the 3 DRAFT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 119 City decision. Disclosures may be made orally or by written submission and shall ordinarily occur following staff presentation on the matter. Disclosures must include:

(1) identify the nature of the contact;

(2) identify the person(s) making the contact;

(3) briefly summarize substantive information conveyed; and

(4) provide copies of significant written materials.

Ex parte disclosures shall be made a part of the administrative record.

(h) No individual right of action. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a remedy or right of action by a party or member of the public.

(i) Procedural protections. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any procedural protection a party or member of the public may be entitled to by law, based upon the facts and law that pertain to any specific proceeding.

SECTION 3. Implementation. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement effect this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following passage and adoption hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ____ day of ______, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED: 4 DRAFT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 120 ______WILLIAM PEAKE, Mayor ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk DATED:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

U:\GENERAL (NEW)\City of Pacific Grove\Ordinances\Ex Parte Contacts\Ord re Ex Parte Contacts (Draft) hq.docx

5 DRAFT

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 121

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 122 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: Lori Frati, Management Analyst MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22, including the 2.0% Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and other changes as directed by Council.

DISCUSSION Chapter 6.02 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) requires a schedule of fees to be reviewed annually in conjunction with the budget process and established by City Council resolution. Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections.

In accordance with the process adopted by Council for FY 2012-13, the current fee schedule has been adjusted, where applicable, by the 2.0% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area for the period ending December 31, 2020. The CPI adjustment applies to all fees not controlled by other entities (e.g. State of California) or fees that are market driven (cemetery site sales, facility rentals, etc.). In addition to the CPI adjustment, staff has proposed changes to fees based on the City’s cost recovery policy (Council Policy No. 400-4) and Council’s direction to recover 100% of the costs associated with providing services to the public (with certain specific exceptions).

The attached Master Fee Schedule is structured to provide the current fiscal year fees and the proposed fees for FY 2021-22. Certain Police Department fines have been adjusted based on a local comparison. All other than those that resulted from the application of the CPI and the Sewer Rate Study are identified on the schedule.

OPTIONS Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates the recommended fee additions and changes correspond to the costs of providing services for FY 2021-22.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 123 GOAL ALIGNMENT: Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue, provide high quality muni services.

Attachments Schedule Draft Resolution 21-22 CPI Ending 122020

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 124 City of Pacific Grove

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 125 CONTENTS

General Administration (Fees Applicable to All Departments and Programs) 3

City Clerk 5

Cemetery 6

Community Development 10

Fire 19

Library 22

Lighthouse 23

Police 24

Public Works 28

Recreation 29

Sewer 33

Sewer Rate Sheet 34

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 126 Proposed F/Y ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION F/Y 20-21 Fees 21-22 Fees The City may bill for special services, such as support for Based on total Based on total special events, cleanup of hazardous materials spills, actual direct actual direct and protection of public property and public safety due to and indirect indirect costs unusual events. Billings may be waived or reduced by action costs of the City Manager. 01-4406 Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or Hard) (per $0.25 $0.25 page) 01-4406 Digital Production - CD, DVD, Flash drives for PRA Actual Cost Actual Cost information requests and presentations at meetings by the public (City will not allow the use of flash drives provided by the public for reasons of virus protection) 01-4406 Notary fees (per signature) * Unless otherwise specified in Government Code § 8211 $15.00 per $15.00 per signature signature 01-4513 Returned check processing (per item) $25 $25 01-4534 Credit Card Payment Processing Fee $1.00 - $50.00 $2 $2 $51.00 - $100.00 $3 $3 $101.00 - $200.00 $5 $5 $201.00 - and up @ 4% of charged amount 4% of charged 4% of charged

Transient Occupancy Taxes may not be charged on a credit card

01-4406 Copy of Annual Budget or Annual Financial Report Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4121 Business License Administration Fee, per License If paid by August 1 (on time payment/standard) $21 $21 If paid after August 1 (late payment) $46 $47 01-4674 City Hall Facility Rental Fees: Security Deposit (SECURITY) $63 $64 Clean-up Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs Special Audio Visual Equipment Use Deposit $251 $256 Council Chambers – first four hours of use $132 $135 per hour after four hours $33 $34 Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four hours $52 $53 per hour after four hours $13 $13 City Manager Conference Room – first four hours $105 $107 per hour after four hours $27 $28 01-4516 Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Water entitlement rights - Per Acre Foot Per Year $250,000 AFY $250,000 AFY Water entitlement rights - Per one tenth (.10) Acre Foot Per $25,000 per .10 $25,000 per .10 Water entitlement rights application processing fee $433 $442 Tobacco Retailer License $384 $384

3 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 127 F/Y 20- Proposed F/Y ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 21 Fees 21-22 Fees FILMING FEES Use of Public Areas for Motion Picture and Still Photography Productions (PGMC §16.64.030), Daily Fee Calculated for 100% Cost Recovery and Approved by the Administrative Services Director (May be reduced not more Minor Film Permit This is a permit would primarily apply to still photography and really minor filming applications such as little or no crew. This type of permit typically would only require review from Police Personnel with little to $145 $148 minimal involvement from other departments.

Mid-Level Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major photoshoot or minor commercial filming application. It would require coordination between $492 $502 Police Personnel and Parks and Recreation staff for use of City property.

Major Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major commercial filming - Movies or Television shows. It could be productions that would require building stages, sites with unique environmental or location conditions; or crews with crews of 30 or more personnel. $801 $817 This type of application review would require significant review and input from a variety of City staff, including Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works.

Land Lease for Filming (Fee subject to negotiation; fee study and recommended baseline amounts are provided for .15 / square foot .15 / square foot reference, parking lots may be charged by space) per hour per hour

The City Manager may decrease fees set forth in this schedule if s/he determines that the cost of providing a particular service will be substantially less than the normal cost of such service or if programs or services are reduced.

The City may, at its discretion, choose to apply a late payment fee to outstanding amounts due to the City that remain unpaid thirty days after the due date. The penalty Min. $25 Min. $25 will be set at 10% of the amount owed, but no less than $25.

4 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 128 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT # CITY CLERK F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees 01-4406 CLERK CERTIFICATION

Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or Proof of $15 per signature $15 per signature Life, per person Certification of Documents (Per document) $15 $15

01-4406 PUBLIC RECORDS

Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white (ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and economic 0.10 per page 0.10 per page statements) 01-4513 ELECTIONS Under certain circumstances, the City must collect fees as prescribed by other governing bodies, such as the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The City has no control over these fees. Nomination Papers Filing Fee (EC Section 10228) $25 $25

Candidates Statement Filing Set by County Set by County Intent to File Initiative (EC Section 9202(b)) $200 $200

Late filing fee per late day (As set forth by State) $10 $10

01-4513 MISCELLANOUS

Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) Actual Costs Actual Costs Appeal Fee (Beautification, Traffic Commission, all others $42 $42 not listed elsewhere) Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and Minutes $28 $28

Agenda only - -

5 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 129 Proposed ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 20-21 Fees F/Y 21-22 Fees 75-4481 CEMETERY SITE SALES Single Burial Site, Adult $4,527 $4,618 Single Burial Site, Child $2,266 $2,311 Double Garden Crypt-In Ground $7,843 $8,000 Urn Garden, Double-In Ground $3,383 $3,451 Urn Garden, Single-In Ground $2,118 $2,160 Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden $2,294 $2,340 Urn Sites–Double Other than Urn Garden $3,762 $3,837 Urn Sites - Triple $4,043 $4,124 Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $7,519 $7,669 75-4482 Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Niche $2,997 $3,057 Unit 1 – Mausoleum Double Niche $5,874 $5,991 Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $14,157 $14,440 Unit 2 – Mausoleum Double Niche $5,874 $5,991 Unit 2 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $14,156 $14,439 Unit 2- Mausoleum Double Crypt $25,972 $26,491 Unit 2- Mausoleum Memorial Garden – per urn $309 $315 75-4481 New Columbarium (1 - 4 urns) $7,519 $7,669 75-4481 Memorial Wall Plaque Site $66 $67 86-4480 ENDOWMENT CARE Burial Site, Adult $1,072 $1,093 Burial Site, Child $550 $561 Double Garden Crypt $1,072 $1,093 Urn Garden, Double $660 $673 Urn Garden, Single $589 $601 Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden (In Ground, per Urn) $589 $601 Urn Sites, Double - Other Than Urn Garden $660 $673 Urn Sites - Triple $1,072 $1,093 Columbarium Niche $720 $734 Mausoleum Single Niche $660 $673 Double Niche $720 $734 Unit 2- Mausoleum Memorial Garden $121 $123 Mausoleum Crypt $720 $734 75-4484 LABOR CHARGES Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee Excluding Memorial $1,100 $1,122 Garden Sites and Child Sites Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Memorial Garden $275 $281 Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Child Sites $550 $561

6 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 130 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Open/Close Burial Site, Adult $1,878 $1,916 Open/Close Burial Site, Child $934 $953 Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (1st opening) $1,747 $1,782 Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (subsequent opening) $1,616 $1,648 Set In-Ground Marker $528 $539 Set In-Ground Marker with Border $790 $806 Set In-Ground Urn and Marker $804 $820 Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border $999 $1,019 Set or Remove In-Ground Vase $160 $163 Set In-Ground Vase with Border $355 $362 Add border to marker after original placement $519 $529 Add border to vase after original placement $388 $396 Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground Urn & $258 $263 marker with Border Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker with $318 $324 Border Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 1 for inurnment $934 $953 Place plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche at $195 $199 inurnment Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche $519 $529 after inurnment Replace Vase Holder (Unit 1 Niche & Columbarium) - vase $224 + Vase Pkg $228 + Vase Pkg holder cost Remove Urn - Unit 1 Niche $258 $263 Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 2 for inurnment $739 $754 Place plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche at $229 $234 inurnment Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche $420 $428 after inurnment Replace Vase Holder (Unit 2 Niche, New Columbarium) – $160 + Vase Pkg $163 + Vase Pkg vase holder cost plus one hour labor Remove Urn - Unit 2 Niche $258 $263 Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $1,066 $1,087

Place/Remove Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche at $130 $133 Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche after Inurnment $584 $596

Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche $290 $296 Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $609 $621 Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium niche $160 $163 Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium niche $160 $163

7 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 131 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment $870 $887 Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial $1,392 $1,420 75-4484 LABOR CHARGES $0 Open Underground Unit 2 Mausoleum Crypt for Burial $1,654 $1,687

Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt at Burial $195 $199 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt other than $420 $428 at Burial Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt at Burial $130 $133

Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt after $566 $577 OpenB il Memorial Garden Site (place urn) $462 $471 Place Plaque on Memorial Garden Site/Memorial Wall $160 $163 Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Site $355 $362 Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden Site/Memorial Wall $420 $428 Remove Niche/Crypt Slug $290 $296 Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate (Unit 1) $160 + Plate $163 + Plate Cost Cost Place Cameos $160 Per Hour $163 Per Hour Marker Rubbing $113 Per Hour $115 Per Hour Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (lower level) $1,398 $1,426 Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (upper level) $1,261 $1,286 Disinter In-Ground Casket, Child $870 $887 Disinter In-Ground Casket, Adult $1,261 $1,286 Pallbearers – weekdays only $276 $282 Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime rate) $551 $562 $84 Per hour, per $86 Per hour, per staff person - staff person - Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Minimum 2 staff Minimum 2 staff for 2 hours for 2 hours ($336) ($344) $92.50 Per hour $94 Per hour per per staff person - staff person - Overtime Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum) Minimum 2 staff Minimum 2 staff for 2 hours for 2 hours 75-4481 DEED PROCESSING Deed Fee $228 $233 Replacement Deed Fee $34 $35 Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee $228 $233 CA Disposition of Human Remain permit fee $12 $12

8 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 132 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Endowment transfer fee: Upon transfer, the party transferring deed shall pay the difference between the endowment care rate paid with initial deed and the current endowment care rate. Grounds Maintenance One-Time Fee. Upon transfer, the new site owner shall pay the one-time Grounds Maintenance Fee based on the type of 75-4481 PRODUCTS Adult Liner, Single At Cost At Cost Liner, Double Garden Crypt (taxable portion) (Pre-set – At Cost At Cost charge sales tax only) Child Liner, Single At Cost At Cost Vase Package – in-ground At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Columbarium At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 1 At Cost At Cost Vase Package B58– Mausoleum Unit 2 crypts At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 2 niches At Cost At Cost Vase Package – New Columbarium At Cost At Cost Vase Holder - In-Ground At Cost At Cost Vase Insert - In Ground At Cost At Cost (1) The City Manager has the ability to approve a 10% resident discount on Cemetery Site sales only for a specified period of time during the year. This discount would be included in an advertisement and designed to assist with advance planning.

9 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 133 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees 01-4413 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS General Plan Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee plus $5,187 $5,291 hourly fee) General Plan Update 5% of permit fee 5% of permit fee Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee $2,590 $2,642 plus hourly fee) 01-4401 SUBDIVISIONS Tentative Tract Map - Base $2,347 $2,394 $284 $290 Final Tract Map - Base + Recording Fee $2,347 $2,394 Final Tract Map - Per Lot $363 $370 Lot Line Adjustment $1,936 $1,975 Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) $2,051 $2,092 Tentative Parcel Map - Base $2,051 $2,092 Lot Mergers $1,950 $1,989 Certificate of Compliance (Min. fee plus hourly fee if more $1,904 $1,942 than 12 hours required plus applicable attorney fees) 01-4407 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - This represents a deposit for staffing time for a full EIR. All staff time will be charged at the fully-burdened rate against the deposit, along 50% of EIR cost 50% of EIR cost with all publishing and noticing costs Exemption $284 $290 Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration $6,303 $6,429 Mitigation Monitoring $4,646 $4,739 Negative Declaration Addendum $4,646 $4,739 * Filing fees by external agencies not included 01-4607 Environmental Enhancement Fund (Fund 5) $2.25/sq. ft. $2.30/sq. ft. 01-4401 USE PERMITS Use Permit and Amendments – Single Family $1,874 $1,911 Use Permit and Amendments – Multi-Family, Commercial, $3,056 $3,117 Institutional, all other uses (Actual cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee) Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists $1,258 $1,283 Major administrative use permits $1,227 $1,252 Minor administrative use permits $1,211 $1,235 Administrative Home Sharing use permit $328 $335 01-4401 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Architectural Permit – Single Family $3,122 $3,184

10 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 134 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Architectural Permit – Multi-Family four units or less $3,820 $3,896 Architectural Permit - Multi-Family five units or more $4,309 $4,395

Architectural Permit - Multi-Family units, each additional $1,661 $1,694 unit above the initial five units Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, $3,229 $3,294 all others. 10,000 sq. ft. or less Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, $4,792 $4,888 all others. 10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, $9,678 $9,872 all others. 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, $12,321 $12,567 all others. Over 100,000 sq. ft. Administrative Architectural Permit $1,503 $1,533 Administrative Design Change $1,503 $1,533

01-4402 COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS Counter Review & Determination - no new square footage $217 $221 (Plus hourly fee if more than ½ hour required) Counter Review & Determination - new square footage (Plus $876 $894 hourly fee if more than 3 hours required) Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit $151 $154 Massage Permit Application $151 $154 01-4403 SIGN PERMITS $0 Downtown Sign Permit $560 $571 Administrative Sign Permit $876 $894 Sign Permit $2,293 $2,339 01-4754 HISTORIC REVIEW Historic Demolition Permit $4,910 $5,008 Off-site relocation permit $4,910 $5,008 Historic Resources Inventory Determinations $1,877 $1,915 On-site relocation permit $2,455 $2,504 Historic Preservation Permit $1,775 $1,811 Initial Historic Screening $462 $471 * Historic Determination are not eligible for multiple permit 01-4401 VARIANCES Variances and Amendments $2,607 $2,659

11 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 135 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Administrative Variances and Amendments $1,458 $1,487 01-4401 STORMWATER Tier 3 and 4 – 15,000 square feet of impervious surface or $1,650 $1,683 greater (incl. 2 reviews) Tier 2 – 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious surface (incl. 2 $1,100 $1,122 Tier 1 – 2,500-5,000 square feet impervious surface $691 $705 Each subsequent Tier 2 review $484 $494 Inspection Fee $128 $131 Annual Inspection and re-inspection $193 $197 Each subsequent Tier 1 review $305 $311 01-4401 APPEALS Appeals of enforcement and zoning ordinance interpretations $2,495 $2,545 25% of base 25% of base permit fee or permit fee or $1,069 $1,090 Appeals/hearings of planning permits whichever is whichever is greater + greater + noticing costs noticing costs 10% of base 10% of base permit or permit or $512.00, $522.00, Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing or Decision whichever is whichever is greater + greater + noticing costs noticing costs Appeal fees for Coastal Development Permits are waived. 01-4401 OVERLAY FEES Area of Special and Biological Significance 5% of permit 5% of permit fees fees Butterfly Buffer 5% of permit 5% of permit fees fees 01-4401 NOTICING Mailing Actual Cost Actual Cost Publishing $357 $364 Re-Noticing of Planning Commission or Zoning $401 $409 Administrator Public Hearings Re-Noticing of ARB or Zoning Administrator Hearing $93 $95 Re-Noticing of ARB or Zoning Administrator Public $401 $409 Hearings on Historic Permits

12 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 136 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees 01-4401 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Waiver of De Minims Development plan permit $2,200 $2,244 Single Family Residence up to 1,500 square feet $2,200 $2,244 Single Family Residence over 1,500 square feet $3,851 $3,928 Multi-family Residential $2,672 plus $908 $2,725 plus $926 per unit per unit Commercial or Industrial up to 10,000 sq. ft. $5,501 $5,611 Commercial or Industrial 10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. $11,000 $11,220 Commercial or Industrial 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. $55,002 $56,102 Commercial or Industrial over 100,000 sq. ft. $110,004 $112,204 Grading less than 100 cubic yards $550 $561 Grading 101- 10,000 cubic yards $2,200 $2,244 Grading 10,001- 100,000 cubic yards $4,400 $4,488 Grading greater than 100,000 cubic yards $8,800 $8,976 Lot Line Adjustment $2,200 $2,244 Subdivision $2,200 per lot $2,244 per lot Emergency Permit $1,650 $1,683 Amendment 50% of base 50% of base permit fee permit fee Temporary Event $2,750 $2,805 Extension - Fee may be waived, if permit is subject to Water 25% of base 25% of base Waiting List permit fee permit fee 01-4123 TRANSIENT USE LICENSES Initial STR Application Review $388 $396 Application Renewal $238 $243 Annual License $640 $653 Home Sharing License Annual $179 $183 Transient License Change or Reprint Fee $30 $31 01-4503 CODE ENFORCEMENT Abandonment or purchase of City property (§ 23.64.300, $3,372 $3,439 Abandoned Property Registration Fee $210 $214 Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost 01-4503 VACANT PROPERTIES Inspection per property (min. or actual cost) $158 $161 Registration per property $158 $161 01-4406 COPIES Copies, hard and soft (scanned) 0.25 per page 0.25 per page

01-4401 MISCELLANEOUS Certificate of Use and Occupancy $720 $734

13 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 137 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees As determined As determined County Filing Fees by County by County Density bonus $2,131 $2,174 General File Research $60 $61 Hourly Fee $123 $125 Inquiry Fee $342 $349 Miscellaneous Project Review/Document Preparation $218 $222 Multiple Permits for Single Family residential applications For single family For single family only. Highest fee no discount; all lower fees discounted 25% applications only applications only Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit $412 $420 Sidewalk Vendor Permit $46 $47 Permit Extension (Fee may be waived if permit is subject to 25% of permit 25% of permit Water Waiting List) base fee base fee Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary Project Review $244 $249 Records Management and Retention (per file) $55 $56 Rental Property Registration $224 $228 Revocable License for Encroachments (plus hourly fee after $819 $835 2 hours) Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if more than 4 hours $462 $471 required) Tree Permit with Development $278 $284 Tree Permit with Development Violation $236 $241 Water Wait List $234 $239 ABC License Review Fee $173 $176 01-4425 ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND BREEDING Animal Keeping Permit $172 $175 Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal $41 $42 Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats $146 $149 Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs $146 $149 Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) $73 $74 Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) $73 $74 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES 01-4521 Tree Permit - Single Tree Removal or Single Tree Trimming $64 $65 Tree Permit – For each additional tree removal and/or $29 $30 Tree Permit Application Fee $94 $96 01-4207 Tree replant in-lieu fee $808 $824 15-4701 HOUSING FEES Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff Demand - Per $120 $122 Reconveyance Fee $181 $185 County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey County Actual Cost Actual Cost Recorder)

14 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 138 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees 15-4701 HOUSING REHAB LOAN FEES (CalHOME Loan Funded Loan Processing $1,955 $1,994 Underwriting $601 $613 Property Tax Verification $60 $61 Loan Document Preparation – SFD $360 $367 Loan Document Preparation – Manufactured Housing $420 $428 Inspection To Determine Scope of Work (Actual Cost) $260 $265 Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) $260 $265 Development of Work Write-up & Specifications (Actual $2,482 $2,532 Project Bidding (Actual Cost) $1,241 $1,266 Progress Inspection/Payment Authorization (Actual Cost) $129 $132 15-4701 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONITORING - ANNUAL FEE PER HOUSEHOLD Affordable Units (New description to include all property $120 $122 addresses listed above) Registered Units $120 $122 BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES ACCT. # PLAN CHECK 01-4203 Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) $137 $140

Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) $137 $140 Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) $137 $140 Solar voltaic system $297 $303 Non-Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in larger $132 $135 Structuralj) Plan Review (hourly not included in a larger $163 $166 project) Plan Checking — A combination permit fee shall be payable in cases of new construction in lieu of the separate fees. A plan review fee equal to 75 percent of the fee for single-family residential projects and 90 percent of the permit fee 01-4404 for all other projects shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Permit fees shall be based on the value of improvements as follows: $673 per 90 $686 per 90 days Plan review extension days after the after the first 180 first 180 days days 01-4203 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Combination Permit: Value up to $500.00 $127 $130

Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $127 $130

15 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 139 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or $11 $11 fraction thereof) Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $269 $274 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 $44 $45 or fraction thereof) Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $1,221 $1,245 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $31 $32 $1,000.00 or fraction Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $1,963 $2,002 Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $19 $19 $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $3,009 $3,069

Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $15 $15 $1,000.00 or fraction Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $9,708 $9,902

Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $14 $14 $1,000.00 or fraction Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $17,270 $17,615 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or $9 $9 fraction thereof) Single Permit: Value up to $500.00 $110 $112 Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $110 $112 Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or $6 $6 fraction thereof) Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $209 $213

Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 $31 $32 or fraction thereof) Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $886 $904

Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $20 $20 $1,000.00 or fraction Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $1,419 $1,447

Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $14 $14 $1,000.00 or fraction

16 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 140 Proposed F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $2,150 $2,193 Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $11 $11 $1,000.00 or fraction Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $6,876 $7,014 Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $10 $10 $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $11,875 $12,113 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or $6 $6 fraction thereof) The Valuation for new construction shall be the full cost (labor and materials) of the construction or a minimum of $125 per square foot (for a combination permit including plumbing, mechanical, electrical and building). On-site storm water management plan review and inspection $368 $375 (assumes non-Low Impact Development; includes plan review of 1-hour and the required field inspections.) Additional fee if LID requirements or additional time $123 $125 required, per hour $1,126 per 90 $1,149 per 90 Building Permits Extension days after days after first 180 days first 180 days 01-4203 OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS The following are minimum hourly fees. If the total cost to the City is greater than the fees shown below, the actual cost shall be recovered. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, the hourly wages and benefits of the employees involved: and reimbursement for any professional services that are directly related to the inspection or review. Inspections outside of normal business hours (2-hour $319 $325 minimum) Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of CBC § 108.8 $215 $219 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $133 $136 including but not limited to Historic preservation inspection Trafficf control plan review $169 $172 Change of Street Address $169 $172 Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee, 2 hour $338 $345 minimum) Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit fee 20% 20% Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential $248 $253

17 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 141 Proposed F/Y 20-21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22 Fees Fees Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial $423 $431 Temporary Occupancy $338 $345 ASBS Stormwater Inspection Fee min. deposit (Fee $3,328 $3,395 calculation of 26 rainy season inspections) Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP Inspection $193 $197 Additional plan review due to changes/additions/revisions to $104 $106 approved plans per hour (1/2 hour min.) 01-4404 Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way Permit. $473 $482

01-4203 Grading Inspection (hourly fee, 1-hour minimum) $104 $106 Grading Plan Checking (hourly fee, ½-hour minimum) $104 $106

01-4203 Excavation Review/Inspection (except utility companies) $259 $264

01-4401 Residential Zoning Records Report $187 $191

Sewer Lateral Report Review $138 $141 Investigative fee for work without proper City permits Cost equal to the Cost equal to the permit cost plus permit cost plus staff time to staff time to investigate investigate 01-4203 Excavation and Inspection Services Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (per $123 $125 hour with a ½-hour Encroachment permit: street opening/excavation $242 $247

Encroachment permit: driveway $242 $247 Encroachment permit: sidewalk $160 $163

Encroachment: temporary (e.g., building construction $242 $247 requiring scaffolding in Right-of-Way Encroachment permit: permanent underground (e.g. utility $242 $247 line) Encroachment permit: permanent above ground (e.g. $242 $247 retaining wall, fence, etc.) Encroachment permit, annual charge for permanent above- $3.34/ sq. ft. $3.41/ sq. ft. ground encroachment (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.) Encroachment permit hourly processing fee, if more than 2 $123 $125 hours review or Annual encroachment permit (Encompasses up to 40 utility $8,712 $8,886 openings per year )

18 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 142 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # FIRE Fees 21-22 Fees FIRE PREVENTION Fire Inspection/Permit Required Due to Materials, Processes, 01-4436 or Occupancies Engine Company Inspections (internal inspection) No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re inspections $92 $94 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections -initial inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Second re-inspection $102 $104 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Third re-inspection $204 $208 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Fourth & each re- $510 $520 inspection Annual Day Care Inspection (Six or more children) $67 $68 Community Care Facility Inspections Pre-Inspection Fee < 25 Occupants $146 $149 > 25 Occupants $249 $254 Fire Clearance Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $146 $149 > 50 Occupants $249 $254 Annual Inspection Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $146 $149 > 50 Occupants $249 $254 High Rise Inspection $1,030 $1,051 Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $67 $68 Fire hydrant flow test (per hydrant) $77 $79 Fireworks permit $192 $196 Special Event Tent/Canopy permit < 200 square feet (during regular business hours; after hours inspection fees vary based on overtime rates) 400 - 1,000 square feet $143 $146 1000 – 2,000 square feet $198 $202 >2,000 square feet $249 $254 Double Permit Double Permit Unauthorized Work Fee Fee Unauthorized Occupancy $102 $104 10% of 10% of Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential Building Plan Building Plan Check Fee Check Fee 20% of 20% of Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial Building Plan Building Plan Check Fee Check Fee Fully Burdened Fully Burdened Project Consultation Fee Cost Cost

19 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 143 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # FIRE Fees 21-22 Fees Fully Burdened Fully Burdened Expedited Plan Checks Cost Cost Fire Service Underground systems: Plan $1,030 $1,051 Check/Inspection/Flush (includes plan review, inspection,

Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review Fee - Internal

Plan Review & Inspection (1-5 heads) in-house review $437 $446 Plan Review & Inspection (6-180 heads), in-house review $832 $849 Plan Review & Inspection (>181 heads), in-house review $832 $849 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire $672 + $685+ Sprinkler System > 180 Heads (external review), i.e. new contractor cost contractor cost system $437 + $446 + Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review Fee (External) contractor cost contractor cost

Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot $832 $849 and Clean Agent) — New System

Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot $536 $547 and Clean Agent) — Alerations, relocation, or addition $619 $631 Fire Alarm System Review

Fire Alarm System Review – (external review) Variable Variable

$245 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Installation, Review & Inspectio $240 Medical Gas Review & Inspection $240 $245 Special Events Stand-By (Fire) Actual Costs Actual Costs Hazardous Materials Response Actual Costs Actual Costs Penalty if appointment is made for a system test or inspection 01-4502 and contractor/developer (or their representative) is not ready Actual Costs Actual Costs and did not call to cancel/reschedule. Fully Burdened Fully Burdened DUI Response Cost Cost ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTS Fire Alarm System False Alarm Response 01-4439 First call in 12-month period - No charge $0 $0 Second call in 12-month period $20 $20 Third call in 12-month period $31 $32 Fourth call in 12-month period $61 $62 Fifth call in 12-month period $102 $104 6th and all subsequent calls $510 $520

20 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 144 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # FIRE Fees 21-22 Fees Vehicle Rates - Based on CA Office of Emergency Services 01-4439 (OES) Rates (updated by the OES annually) – Charged per incident (Rates updated to reflect OES rates) Sedan $119 $119 Pickup/Utility $140 $140 SUV $205 $205 Van $194 $194 Other-Rescue) – ¾ ton and above $230 $230 POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) Rate per mile $0.575 $0.560 Apparatus GPM Hourly Rates: 1 – 1,000 (E6433) $127 $127 1,501 – 2,000 (T 6474) $140 $140 HYPERBARIC CHAMBER 04-4609 Carbon Monoxide Treatment $1,061 $1,082 Standard Hyperbaric Treatment for Decompression Illness $5,949 $6,068 (first 5 hours) Standard Hyperbaric Treatment Extensions (per each 75 $563 $574 minutes of extended treatment) Facility Use Fee - Per Hour - In lieu of Treatment Fees $1,190 $1,214 (First hour) Fees not paid within a reasonable period of time will be Min. $25 Min. $25 subject to the City’s late payment fee.

21 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 145 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # LIBRARY F/Y 20-21 Fees 21-22 Fees 01-4455 OVERDUE FINES AND OTHER PENALTIES

Children’s items (per day with a $5.00 maximum) $0.25 $0.25

All other items (per day with a $10.00 maximum) $0.50 $0.50

01-4455 OTHER FEES AND RENTALS

Photocopies (per black & white copy) $0.15 $0.15 Photocopies (per color copy) $0.25 $0.25 Computer printout (per page) $0.15 $0.15 01-4455 CARD REPLACEMENT

Replace borrower’s card $3 $3 01-4455 LOST /DAMAGED MATERIAL REPLACEMENT/REPAIR Re-cataloging/processing charge for lost book or recording $3 $3

Charges for lost or damaged items will be made at "Cost, Actual Cost Actual Cost replacement price " as listed in the item record of the Koha Library Catalog.

22 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 146 F/Y 20- F/Y 20- Proposed Proposed ACCT. POINT PINOS 21 21 F/Y 21-22 F/Y 21-22 # LIGHTHOUSE Adult Children Adult Children Fees 7-17 Fees Fees 7-17 Fees Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Entrance Fee (Suggested 01-4451 $5 $2 $5 $2 Donation)

23 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 147 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # POLICE Fees 21-22 Fees PARKING ENFORCEMENT, MUNICIPAL CODE 01-4426 VIOLATIONS 14.08.010 Parking on ice plant $48 $48 14.12.010 Parking on golf course $268 $268 14.12.020 Violation to turf – Golf Course/Park $64 $64 Exceeds 2% 16.12.055 Tamper with chalk marks $107 $125 16.32.130 Parking on park grounds $48 $48 16.40.030 Storing vehicle on street $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.040 Storing vehicle on street - Removal by Police $107 $125 16.40.045 Overnight Parking of Oversize Vehicles or $48 $48 16.40.050 Parking for repair $48 $48 16.40.060 Parallel parking $48 $48 16.40.070 Parallel parking, one-way street $48 $48 16.40.080 Parallel parking, one-way roadway $48 $48 16.40.110 Angle Parking $48 $48 16.40.130 Angle Parking/12” from barrier $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.160 Parking Adjacent to Schools - Sign Compliance $38 $48 16.40.170 Parking On Narrow Streets $48 $48 16.40.185 Parking on North Side of Mermaid Avenue $38 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.190 Failure to Set Parking Brake $91 $125 16.40.200(b) Parking Within 20’ of Intersection $48 $48 16.40.260 Temporary No Parking $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.210 Peddlers, vendors - Unlawful Parking $38 $48 16.40.280 City Lots, Angle Parking $48 $48 16.40.290 City Lot, Use of Single Space Only $48 $48 16.40.300 City Lots, Reserved Spaces $48 $48 16.40.360(a) No Parking – Red Zone $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.360(b-d) Curb markings – yellow/white/green $38 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.360(f) Handicapped Zone $321 $350 16.40.430 Blocking Alley $48 $48 16.40.500 Bus Zone $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 16.40.510-535 Overtime Parking or Evasion of Parking $38 $48 16.40.540 Parking in Business District $48 $48 16.40.550 No Parking Anytime $48 $48 16.40.555 No Parking Certain Hours $48 $48 16.40.560 No Parking 4 am-6 am $48 $48 16.40.575 Parking - Commercial Vehicle in Residential 2:00 $48 $48 16.40.580 Parking, Over Marked Space $48 $48 16.40.585 Parking in Privately Owned Lots $48 $48 16.40.610 Displaying Vehicle for Sale $48 $48 16.41.040 Resident Parking $48 $48

24 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 148 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # POLICE Fees 21-22 Fees

Exceeds 2% 16.42.100(a) Meter Violation – expired $38 $48 16.68.020 No tour bus parking $268 $268 16.68.030 Parked bus with engine running $268 $268 18.36.030 House Cars on Private Property $48 $48 18.36.040 House Cars on Streets /Public Property $48 $48 01-4501 5200 (a) No Front Plates $48 $48 5204 (a) No Current Tab Displayed $48 $48 4000 (a) Expired Registration $48 $48 21211 (b) Parking in bicycle path $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 2500.1 Parked in Fire Lane $107 $125 22500(a) Parking in intersection $48 $48 22500(b) Parking in crosswalk $48 $48 22500(e) Parking driveway $48 $48 22500(f) Parking on sidewalk $48 $48 22500 (g) Obstructing Traffic $48 $48 22500(h) Double parking $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 22500 (i) Blocking Wheelchair Access $321 $350 22502(a) Parking more than 18” from curb or on wrong side $48 $48 of roadway 22505 (e) (1) Parked Wrong Way on One Way $48 $48 Exceeds 2% 22507.8(a) Unauthorized parking in Handicapped zone $321 $350 22507.8 (c) (2) Parked in Crosshatched Portion of Disabled $321 $350 Exceeds 2% Space 22514 Park, stop or leave vehicle within 15 feet of Fire $48 $48 hydrant 22515 Unattended Vehicle with Engine On $48 $48 01-4502 Parking Citation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within $25 $25 21 Days) 01-4502 Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee $10 $10 01-4502 MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS

Municipal Code Violation - 1st Violation $100 $100

Municipal Code Violation - 2nd Violation within 1 year $200 $200

Municipal Code Violation - Each Additional Violation $500 $500 within 1 year Municipal Code Violation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested $25 $25 within 30 Days) 01-4204 ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES - PGMC § 10.04.010 Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog $21 $21 Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog $48 $49 Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days) $27 $28

25 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 149 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # POLICE Fees 21-22 Fees Dog License, Replacement Tag $10 $10 ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES - PGMC § 01-4425 10.04.100 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed & Altered No Fee No Fee Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Altered $80 $82 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unaltered $80 $82 Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered $161 $164 Boarding Fee, per day PG Kennels $38 $39 SPCA Costs Boarding Fee, transported to SPCA $150 $165 ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE 01-4429 Alarm Registration $34 $35 Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit Expiration $5 $5 Date) 01-4504 False Alarm - First Response - Unpermitted Alarm $134 $137 False Alarm - First Response No Fee No Fee False Alarm - Second Response $58 $59 False Alarm - Third Response $161 $164 False Alarm - Fourth Response $267 $272 False Alarm - Fifth and Subsequent Response $374 $381 Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation $321 $327 Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days) $25 $26 01-4502 ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $10 $10 Booking Fee $28 $29 Clearance Letter – No Record on File $33 $34 Clearance Letter – Record on File $43 $44 Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $11 $11 Information Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $5 $5 Evidence Video Reproduction $40 $41 Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan administration) $28 $29 Removal of Traffic Boot $126 $129 Repossession Receipt $15 $15 Sign-off of tickets by other agencies $16 $16 Renamed Stored Vehicle Fee Vehicle Release Fee $214 $218 01-4205 PARKING PERMITS & FEES Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly $39 $40 Consolidate Parking Meter Rate per Hour $1.75 $2 into one rate Delete Parking Meter Rate per Hour - Peak Weekends $2.25 $2.25 Public Parking Lot Permit Processing, Delinquency Penalty $25 $26 Public Parking Lot Permit, Annual $363 $370 Public Parking Lot Permit, 12-Month, TRANSFERABLE $462 $471

26 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 150 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # POLICE Fees 21-22 Fees Public Parking Lot Permit, Monthly $39 $40 Residential Parking Permit Processing, per permit, Annual $11 $11 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit Program - Initial $24 $24 Residential Registration Temporary Overnight Parking - 72 Hour Resident Permit $4 $4 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Weekly - Exemption $89 $91 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Annual - Exemption $374 $381 Timed Space - Daily $5 $5 01-4421 POLICE RESPONSE - DUI, Peace Disturbance, Social Hosting, & Special Police Commander Hourly Rate $198 $202 Police Sergeant Hourly Rate $189 $193 Police Officer Hourly Rate $167 $170 Police Services, Animal Control & Parking Enforcement $140 $143 New Position Community Service Officer Hourly Rate Patrol Vehicle Hourly Rate $58 $59 01-4201 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS Amplified Sound Permit $80 $82 Drone Permit Fee - Daily $21 $21 Drone Permit Fee - Annual $78 $80 Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee $400 $408 Garage Sale Permit Processing $10 $10 Massage Permit $24 $24 Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit $53 $54 Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit $27 $28 Renewal/Extension Transportation of Large Structure deposit – variable fee $201 $205 based on size/type of structure - unused portion to be Transportation of Large Structure permit – per structure $573 $584

27 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 151 F/Y 20-21 Proposed F/Y ACCT. # PUBLIC WORKS FEES Fees 21-22 Fees 01-4445 MISCELLANEOUS FEES Requested Special Traffic Marking Review (per hour with a $122 $124 1-hour minimum) Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown Street Lights) $52 $53 Memorial Bench (1) Fee represents labor costs associated $402 $410 with installing the bench. Materials for bench are charged at the additional actual cost. Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) $520 $530 Memorial Tree Fee represents labor costs associated with the $938 $957 planting the tree. Tree to be charged at cost. This cost will be in addition to the labor fee. Tree Permit violation (minimum $200 or cost of tree Min. $200 Min. $200 replacement or $1,000) Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application $86 $88 Trash receptacle left on sidewalk/street Violation PGMC $82 $84 Tree Appeal $212 $216 New Newsrack Annual Application Fee - $56 New Newsrack Program Fee Half Rack - $36 New Newsrack Program Fee Full Rack - $77 01-4445 Equipment Use Charges (when responding to emergencies on private property) Current FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates https://www.fema.gov/media- (Personnel to be charged based on time and hourly rate) Standard size barricade, each per day ($100 $3 $3 deposit required) Four-foot delineator, each per day ($100 $4 $4 deposit required) Eight-foot barricade, each per day ($100 $11 $11 deposit required) 18-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 $3 $3 deposit required) 24-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 $3 $3 deposit required) Temporary Directional Signage Per Day $3 $3 Temporary Parking Signage Per Day $2 $2

(1) The Memorial Bench is charged at the listed fee, plus the actual cost of the bench.

28 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 152 FY 20-21 F/Y 20-21 Non- Proposed F/Y 21-22 Non- Resident/ Non- Resident / FY 21-22 Resident / ACCT. # RECREATION Profit Commercial Resident/ Commercial Non-Profit 01-4467 PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES) 2 Days Per Week $176 $195 $180 $199 3 Days Per Week $278 $309 $284 $315 5 Days Per Week $454 $504 $463 $514 01-4462 YOUTH SPORTS $88 $97 $90 $99 01-4463 PROGRAMS Full Day Youth Camp (5 day week) $176 $195 $180 $199 Full Day Youth Camp (4 day week) $141 $157 $144 $160 Full Day Youth Camp (3 day week) $105 $117 $107 $119 Daily Drop-In (per Day) $40 $44 $41 $45 01-4462 YOUTH CENTER PROGRAM Membership (per Semester) provides free daily $72 $72 $73 $73 admission & discount at Membership (for the School Year) provides free daily $121 $121 $123 $123 admission & discount Daily Admission $2 $2 $2 $2 Dance Admission $10 $10 $10 $10 01-4467 SWIMMING (during the Summer Season) Progressive Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child $74 $82 $75 $84

Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per 20 minute $34 $38 $35 $39 lesson Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per child (2 $19 $21 $19 $21 students required) per 20 minute lesson Group Swim Lessons Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (After Lessons - $3 $3 $3 $3 2:30 - 4:30) Monday-Thursday Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (during full-day $5 $6 $5 $6 offering noon - 4:30) mostly Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Holidays Family Card (50 Lovers Point Swims Monday-Thursday, $80 $89 $82 $91 or 25 Lovers Point Swims on Fri, Sat, Sun & Holidays)

Private use of swimming pool (rental fee per hour) $101 $170 $103 $173 Subject to Rental 01-4462 OTHER PROGRAMS, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS Contractual Agreements for Recreational Programs in Contract Contract Contract Contract Facilities and Parks

Adult Contract Recreation Programs Contract Contract Contract Contract

Youth Special Trips/Excursions (85% of cost) Contract Contract Contract Contract

The City Manager or his designee may reduce Recreation fees based on unanticipated reductions in activity days/hours.

29 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 153 FY 20-21 F/Y 20-21 Non- Proposed F/Y 21-22 Non- Resident/ Non- Resident / FY 21-22 Resident / ACCT. # RECREATION Profit Commercial Resident/ Commercial Non-Profit

01-4670 FACILITY RENTAL Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Pacific Grove Recreation Department and non- profit recreation organizations are not subject to facility rental fees. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Caledonia, George Washington, Arnett Park, and similar Picnic Facilities 1 – 50 persons $36 $62 $37 $63 51 + persons $88 $153 $90 $156 Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis $20 $36 $20 $37 and Pickleball Parks/Facilities Reservable (under Contract) w/ Liability Contract Contract Contract Contract Insurance Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr. minimum $105 $184 $107 $188 rental) Community Center, Lebeck Room – Security Deposit $500 $500 $510 $510

Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per hr. $35 $61 $36 $62 (Minimum of 2 hours) Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental) $402 $704 $410 $718

Chautauqua Hall Facility – Security Deposit $500 $500 $510 $510

Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental) $105 $184 $107 $188 Youth Center Meeting Room $35 $61 $36 $62 Little House at Jewell Park $17 $31 $17 $32

Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100 Persons $164 + $185 $286 + $185 $167 + $189 $291 + $189 (Special Events or Special Use) Damage Deposit Damage Deposit Damage Damage Deposit Deposit

Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100 Persons $342 $342 $349 $349 (Special Events or Special Use)

Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Berwick Park, $169 + $185 $314 + $185 $172 + $189 $320 + $189 Jewell Park, Pt. Pinos Lighthouse and Elmarie Dyke Damage Deposit Damage Deposit Damage Damage Gazebo reservation fee per hour. (Minimum 2 hours Deposit Deposit Min.)

Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 – 100 $171 $171 $174 $174 Persons Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 $342 $342 $349 $349 Persons

30 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 154 FY 20-21 F/Y 20-21 Non- Proposed F/Y 21-22 Non- Resident/ Non- Resident / FY 21-22 Resident / ACCT. # RECREATION Profit Commercial Resident/ Commercial Non-Profit

01-4670 MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY

Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Recreation Department and a civic, community, or local organization are not charged Softball Park Rental rates. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. Fees for direct costs, such as staffing and utilities are charged to these entities.

Daily Use $205 $358 $209 $365 Field Use, Per Hour $30 $51 $31 $52

Lights per hr. $26 $26 $27 $27 Fully burdened Fully burdened Fully burdened Fully burdened Staff, Per hour rate rate rate rate

Restrooms (Previously charged under other Class rates) No charge No charge No charge No charge Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II, Class III, $171 $171 $174 $174 Class IV) MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION FEES & 01-4462 CHARGES Transfer Fee (transfers between classes and/or sessions) $5 $5 $5 $5 Refund Processing Fee (if within written time frame) 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund

SPECIAL EVENT FEES Application fee per event – Minimal Impact Events $24 $24 $24 $24

Application fee – Events with 1 – 999 participants $210 $210 $214 $214

Application fee – Events with more than 1,000 $768 $768 $783 $783 participants SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS (Note: This is a pass through of rates 01-4462 charged to the City by insurance carrier, so fees will change as premium rates change)

All private parties, wedding receptions, anniversaries, Cost + Cost + Cost + Cost + 10% and events with or without alcohol or admissions fees 10% 10% 10% Note: If insurance is provided by the event holder, the City requires $2,000,000 coverage per event and the City must be named as Additional Insured under the policy.

HOLIDAYS Rental facilities will not be available on the following days: New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day and the day following, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

31 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 155 RESERVATIONS No verbal reservations will be accepted. Facility is not reserved until all fees have been paid and a contract has been executed. All reservations will be made on a first-come, first-served basis at a maximum of six months and a minimum of 10 working days prior to use. Cancellations result in loss of deposit and insurance fees. No refunds if cancelled within 10 business days of event. Park fees allow for a two-hour time block; deposit refund to be made within thirty days following event if City determines no damage resulted from usage.

RENTAL POLICIES 1. The City may require appropriate deposits or extra payments for special charges incurred. 2. All renters of City facilities shall complete a rental application and have it on file with the Recreation Department. City facilities may not be sublet without the express authorization of City.

3. All senior citizen nutrition programs serving Pacific Grove residents are exempt from rental fees and charges. 4. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all renters shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees, both severally and collectively from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses whatsoever (including damages to property and injuries to or death of persons, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees), howsoever the same may be caused, except in cases of City’s sole negligence, resulting directly or indirectly from or arising out the negligence or willful misconduct of the renter, its employees, agents, subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable with respect to the performance of this Agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include: (1) bodily injury, (2) death to any person or persons or, (3) injury to or destruction of tangible and/or property including that of the City, whether direct or consequential including the loss of use resulting therefrom. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described herein. The City, at its sole option, may choose to provide all or a portion of the defense of claims, damages, losses, liability, costs, and expenses as set forth above, and in such event, the renter shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from the costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, of such defense.” 5. Official Pacific Grove youth groups, under 18 years of age, will be allowed to use City facilities as Class I (no charge), scheduled at a time when a supervisor is on duty, with the approval of the City Manager, for activities on a space available basis. Examples of qualified users would be the PONY Baseball League, Pop Warner league, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts and Brownies.

6. If the person or organization imposes a cover charge, sells alcoholic beverages, or otherwise comes under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the City must be provided with evidence of a valid license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 7. If the person or organization imposes a cover charge, sells alcoholic beverages, or otherwise comes under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the City must be provided with evidence of a valid license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

32 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 156 Proposed F/Y SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND CONNECTION F/Y 20-21 ACCT. # 21-22 FEES Fees Fees 6 Year Sewer 6 Year Sewer Rate Chart Rate Chart 76-4471 Sewer Service Charge Attached Attached

85% of fee 85% of fee charged by charged by 76-4470 Sewer Connection Fee M1W M1W

33 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 157 Sewer Rate Bimonthly City of Pacific Grove Portion ONLY (effective dates)

Description Units 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021 7/1/2022 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 Business/Gov't Location/Each Business $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Residential-Vacant Each Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Residential Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/Apartments Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/Apartments-Vaca Each Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Condominium Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Condo/Retirement Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Minimum/Vacancy Location/Each Business $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Motel/Hotel Each Room $26.56 $27.26 $27.96 $28.70 $29.46 $30.22 Bed & Breakfast Inn Each Room $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 Supermarkets Location $258.14 $264.90 $271.84 $278.98 $286.28 $293.78 Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $63.16 $64.82 $66.52 $68.26 $70.06 $71.88 Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $87.10 $89.38 $91.72 $94.14 $96.60 $99.12 Rest Home/Convalescent Capacity $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 General Hospital Capacity $103.64 $106.34 $109.14 $112.00 $114.92 $117.94 Animal Hospital Business $115.32 $118.34 $121.44 $124.62 $127.90 $131.24 Restaurant 1 meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $2.26 $2.32 $2.38 $2.44 $2.50 $2.56 Restaurant 2 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $3.54 $3.64 $3.72 $3.82 $3.92 $4.04 Restaurant 3 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Bar Location/Each Business $102.66 $105.34 $108.10 $110.94 $113.84 $116.82 Nightclub Location/Each Business $307.68 $315.74 $324.00 $332.50 $341.20 $350.14 Takeout Food - Small Location/Each Business $114.66 $117.66 $120.74 $123.90 $127.14 $130.48 Takeout Food - Medium Location/Each Business $282.08 $289.48 $297.06 $304.84 $312.82 $321.02 Takeout Food - Large Location/Each Business $514.34 $527.82 $541.64 $555.84 $570.40 $585.34 Bakery Location/Each Business $92.98 $95.42 $97.92 $100.48 $103.12 $105.82 Theater Per Screen @ Each $152.54 $156.54 $160.64 $164.86 $169.18 $173.60 Bowling Center Location/Each Business $464.14 $476.30 $488.78 $501.58 $514.74 $528.22 Gym Per 500 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Mortuary Location/Each Business $125.36 $128.64 $132.02 $135.48 $139.02 $142.68 School (Minimum) Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 School (Grades 0-6) Student Population $0.66 $0.68 $0.70 $0.72 $0.74 $0.76 School (7-College) Student Population $1.28 $1.30 $1.34 $1.38 $1.42 $1.46 Boarding School Student Population $12.96 $13.30 $13.66 $14.02 $14.38 $14.76 Instructional Facility Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Church Per 100 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Photo / Laboratory / Printer Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Service Station/Garage Location/Each Business $45.36 $46.54 $47.76 $49.02 $50.30 $51.62 Paint and Body Shops Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $156.46 $160.56 $164.76 $169.08 $173.52 $178.06 Laundromat Each Washing Machine $41.12 $42.20 $43.32 $44.44 $45.62 $46.80 Special User [2] Individual Determination NA NA NA NA NA NA

34 PGCC 4-21-21 Page 158 RESOLUTION NO. 21-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 April 21, 2021 regarding changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and;

3. Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on April 21, 2021 was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections, and;

4. The City Council desires to adopt an amended Master Fee Schedule for FY 2021-22, 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 2021-22 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. In the case of reductions, the reductions can be implemented on July 1, 2021, on a case-by-case basis, by decision of the City Manager.

4. Approved changes shall be effective July 1, 2021.

5. 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 4-21-21 Page 159 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 21st day of April 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor

ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 160 For Release: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 21-45-SAN

WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif. Technical information: (415) 625-2270 [email protected] www.bls.gov/regions/west Media contact: (415) 625-2270

Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — December 2020 Area prices were up 0.4 percent over the past two months, up 2.0 percent from a year ago Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), increased 0.4 percent for the two months ending in December 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (See table A.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Richard Holden noted that the December increase was influenced by higher prices for new and used motor vehicles and household furnishings and operations. (Data in this report are not seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month-to-month changes may reflect seasonal influences.)

Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U advanced 2.0 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) The index for all items less food and energy increased 1.4 percent over the year. Food prices rose 6.9 percent. Energy prices declined 1.4 percent, largely the result of a decrease in the price of gasoline. (See table 1.)

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 161 Food Food prices advanced 1.0 percent for the two months ending in December. (See table 1.) Prices for food away from home advanced 1.1 percent. Prices for food at home advanced 1.0 percent for the same period, influenced by higher prices for meat, poultry, fish and eggs (3.9 percent).

Over the year, food prices rose 6.9 percent. Prices for food at home rose 8.4 percent since a year ago, and prices for food away from home rose 5.4 percent.

Energy The energy index decreased 0.9 percent for the two months ending in December. The decrease was mainly due to lower prices for natural gas service (-10.0 percent). Prices for gasoline rose 0.3 percent, while prices for electricity were unchanged for the same period.

Energy prices declined 1.4 percent over the year, largely due to lower prices for gasoline (-9.2 percent). Prices paid for natural gas service jumped 13.8 percent, and prices for electricity rose 5.9 percent during the past year.

All items less food and energy The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.4 percent in the latest two-month period. Higher prices for new and used motor vehicles (6.2 percent), household furnishings and operations (3.9 percent), and apparel (2.1 percent) were partially offset by lower prices for medical care (-0.8 percent) and shelter (-0.2 percent).

Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy increased 1.4 percent. Components contributing to the increase included household furnishings and operations (9.6 percent), new and used motor vehicles (5.3 percent), and shelter (1.3 percent). Partly offsetting the increases were price decreases in apparel (-5.7 percent) and medical care (-1.7 percent).

Table A. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percent changes, all items index, not seasonally adjusted 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Month 12- 12- 12- 12- 12- 2-month 2-month 2-month 2-month 2-month month month month month month

February ...... 0.9 3.0 0.8 3.4 1.4 3.6 0.5 3.5 0.9 2.9 April ...... 0.7 2.7 1.1 3.8 0.8 3.2 1.2 4.0 -0.5 1.1 June...... 0.6 2.7 0.3 3.5 0.9 3.9 0.2 3.2 0.7 1.6 August ...... 0.7 3.1 0.2 3.0 0.6 4.3 0.1 2.7 0.0 1.6 October...... 0.9 3.6 0.6 2.7 0.7 4.4 1.0 3.0 0.5 1.1 December...... -0.3 3.5 -0.1 2.9 0.1 4.5 -0.5 2.5 0.4 2.0

The February 2021 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco area is scheduled to be released on March 10, 2021.

PGCC 4-21-21 2 Page 162 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Impact on December 2020 Consumer Price Index Data Data collection by personal visit for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) program has been suspended since March 16, 2020. When possible, data normally collected by personal visit were collected either online or by phone. Additionally, data collection in December was affected by the temporary closing or limited operations of certain types of establishments. These factors resulted in an increase in the number of prices considered temporarily unavailable and imputed.

While the CPI program attempted to collect as much data as possible, many indexes are based on smaller amounts of collected prices than usual, and a small number of indexes that are normally published were not published this month. Additional information is available at https://www.bls.gov/covid19/effects-of- covid-19-pandemic-on-consumer-price-index.htm.

Technical Note The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measures of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 93 percent of the total U.S. population and (2) a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers approximately 29 percent of the total U.S. population. The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force.

The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each month, prices are collected in 75 urban areas across the country from about 6,000 housing units and approximately 22,000 retail establishments—department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index.

The index measures price changes from a designated reference date; for most of the CPI-U the reference base is 1982-84 equals 100. An increase of 7 percent from the reference base, for example, is shown as 107.000. Alternatively, that relationship can also be expressed as the price of a base period market basket of goods and services rising from $100 to $107. For further details see the CPI home page on the internet at www.bls.gov/ cpi and the CPI section of the BLS Handbook of Methods available on the internet at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ cpi/.

In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local area index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period.

PGCC 4-21-21 3 Page 163 The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California.

Information in this release will be made available to individuals with sensory impairments upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.

PGCC 4-21-21 4 Page 164 Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) Indexes Percent change from- Item and Group Oct. Nov. Dec. Dec. Oct. Nov. 2020 2020 2020 2019 2020 2020 Expenditure category

All items...... 301.736 - 302.948 2.0 0.4 - All items (1967=100) ...... 927.620 - 931.345 - - - Food and beverages ...... 306.640 - 311.289 6.9 1.5 - Food ...... 306.683 - 309.903 6.9 1.0 - Food at home ...... 273.855 271.026 276.632 8.4 1.0 2.1 Cereals and bakery products ...... 297.907 - 274.104 4.7 -8.0 - Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs...... 291.640 - 302.923 17.5 3.9 - Dairy and related products ...... 286.002 - 292.860 7.3 2.4 - Fruits and vegetables ...... 370.335 - 380.780 12.2 2.8 - Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage 197.425 - 200.308 -3.8 1.5 - materials(1) ...... Other food at home ...... 222.887 - 224.729 4.5 0.8 - Food away from home...... 343.914 - 347.655 5.4 1.1 - Alcoholic beverages ...... 309.500 - 331.788 6.6 7.2 - Housing ...... 360.365 - 360.604 2.3 0.1 - Shelter ...... 409.262 409.791 408.547 1.3 -0.2 -0.3 Rent of primary residence(2)...... 468.725 469.137 468.851 0.7 0.0 -0.1 Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3)...... 439.287 439.320 439.175 1.8 0.0 0.0 Owners' equiv. rent of primary 439.287 439.320 439.175 1.8 0.0 0.0 residence(1)(2) ...... Fuels and utilities...... 454.677 - 448.817 6.6 -1.3 - Household energy ...... 395.792 387.455 387.643 7.3 -2.1 0.0 Energy services(2) ...... 397.431 388.872 389.079 7.4 -2.1 0.1 Electricity(2)...... 418.345 418.345 418.345 5.9 0.0 0.0 Utility (piped) gas service(2)...... 351.688 315.730 316.601 13.8 -10.0 0.3 Household furnishings and operations...... 148.320 - 154.036 9.6 3.9 - Apparel ...... 97.508 - 99.570 -5.7 2.1 - Transportation ...... 199.173 - 201.420 -2.1 1.1 - Private transportation ...... 195.173 - 201.613 0.5 3.3 - New and used motor vehicles(4)...... 93.468 - 99.226 5.3 6.2 - New vehicles(1)...... 156.445 - 164.646 4.5 5.2 - Used cars and trucks(1) ...... 276.003 - 270.081 9.1 -2.1 - Motor fuel ...... 236.633 236.201 237.489 -9.3 0.4 0.5 Gasoline (all types)...... 235.820 235.344 236.514 -9.2 0.3 0.5 Gasoline, unleaded regular(4)...... 235.004 234.535 235.524 -9.5 0.2 0.4 Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)(5)...... 223.775 222.670 225.011 -8.9 0.6 1.1 Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)...... 226.343 225.956 227.645 -8.3 0.6 0.7 Motor vehicle insurance(1) ...... 510.364 - 521.248 -2.5 2.1 - Medical care ...... 549.432 - 545.016 -1.7 -0.8 - Recreation(6)...... 125.741 - 125.834 4.6 0.1 - Education and communication(6)...... 150.807 - 151.046 0.2 0.2 - Tuition, other school fees, and child care(1) .. 1,813.998 - 1,815.374 -0.9 0.1 - Other goods and services ...... 516.488 - 523.161 4.1 1.3 -

Commodity and service group

All items...... 301.736 - 302.948 2.0 0.4 - Commodities ...... 195.480 - 198.670 3.6 1.6 - Commodities less food & beverages...... 136.971 - 139.370 0.4 1.8 - Nondurables less food & beverages ...... 176.727 - 178.743 -2.6 1.1 - Durables ...... 97.579 - 100.055 4.6 2.5 - Services...... 390.133 - 389.878 1.4 -0.1 -

Note: See footnotes at end of table. PGCC 4-21-21 5 Page 165 Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued Indexes Percent change from- Item and Group Oct. Nov. Dec. Dec. Oct. Nov. 2020 2020 2020 2019 2020 2020 Special aggregate indexes

All items less medical care ...... 291.583 - 292.990 2.3 0.5 - All items less shelter...... 257.109 - 259.377 2.6 0.9 - Commodities less food ...... 144.291 - 147.395 0.9 2.2 - Nondurables ...... 243.351 - 246.720 3.4 1.4 - Nondurables less food...... 187.047 - 190.577 -1.5 1.9 - Services less rent of shelter(3)...... 383.125 - 383.574 1.5 0.1 - Services less medical care services...... 379.150 - 379.118 1.5 0.0 - Energy ...... 301.437 297.853 298.710 -1.4 -0.9 0.3 All items less energy ...... 305.402 - 306.814 2.2 0.5 - All items less food and energy ...... 306.041 - 307.173 1.4 0.4 - Footnotes (1) Indexes on a December 1977=100 base. (2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means estimator. (3) Indexes on a December 1982=100 base. (4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample. (5) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base. (6) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base. - Data not available NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

PGCC 4-21-21 6 Page 166 Agenda No. 11 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Diana Godwin, Library Manager MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget - CEQA: Pertaining to Library Funds Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Introduce and hold the first reading of an ordinance to amend the Fiscal Year 20/21 Operating Budget and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION The Library has received a bequest from Jerry Laverty in the amount of $192,053. Jerry was a longtime, loyal user of the Library and wanted the gift to support the Library into the future. These funds have been deposited into Fund 31, Operating Donations.

It is the intent of the Library to use these funds for purposes including interim salaries for two Library Clerks and minor operating costs. Funding for the two part-time Library positions and the minor operating costs are estimated to be approximately $11,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Staff is in the process of developing the Fiscal Year 21/22 Proposed Budget. The proposed use of the additional funding will be presented as part of the Fiscal Year 21/22 budget process.

OPTIONS Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no net impact to the Fiscal Year 20/21 General Fund unrestricted fund balance. The attached budget amendment reflects the receipt of the bequest in the Operating Donations Fund; and transfers funds from the Operating Donations Fund to the General Fund to support the $11,000 in additional operating costs.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: City Asset Stewardship: Repair, maintain and improve City assets, including streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, buildings, and parks and trails.

Attachments Budget Amendment Ordinance PGCC 4-21-21 Page 167 Budget Amendment Ordinance

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 168 ORDINANCE NO. 21-____

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING THE APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2020-21

FACTS

1. The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget on June 17, 2020.

2. It is customary to amend the budget to adjust revenues and expenditures to reflect updated information since the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget.

3. The City Manager is recommending amendments to the FY 2020-21 Budget to reflect the City Council’s goals for the fiscal year budget.

4. The Council has determined it is appropriate to amend the approved budget for FY 2020-21.

5. Pursuant to Charter Article 15, an amendment of the budget must be approved by ordinance,

6. A summary of the Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, was published on ______.

7. 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.

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

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

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

SECTION 2. The revenue and expenditure budget for the following funds is amended, as stated herein, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

Increase/Decrease Revenues 1 General Fund – Transfer from Op. Donations $ 11,000 31 Operating Donations – Library $ 192,053

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 169 Increase/Decrease Expenditures 1 General Fund $11,000 31 Operating Donations – Transfer to GF $11,000

SECTION 3. The Fiscal Year 20/21 estimated fund balances are based on preliminary information; and adjusted for this amendment, are referenced herein:

Fiscal Year 20/21 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, After Proposed Budget Amendments

Preliminary Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expenditures Ending Fund Balance FY 20/21 FY 20/21 FY 20/21 FY 20/21

1 General Fund $ 9,275,307 22,378,324 24,151,132 $ 7,502,499 31 Operating Donations $ 62,543 196,053 37,000 $ 221,596

SECTION 4. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE This th day of April, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

______BILL PEAKE, Mayor ATTEST:

______SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______PGCC 4-21-21 DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney Page 170 Agenda No. 11 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT: Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Operating Budget - CEQA: Pertaining to the Capital Improvement Plan Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget on June 24, 2020. The annual budget is comprised of two elements, the Operating Budget and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The proposed budget amendments in this ordinance pertain to the CIP.

The CIP serves as a living document to drive the City’s larger maintenance and asset management needs; as a result, it may require amendments and updates throughout the year to reflect changes that arise during implementation. The City Council’s approval is needed to amend the CIP. An overview of the proposed CIP budget amendments is provided below and in the attached ordinance. Staff is proposing increasing the budget for three approved CIP projects: 1. Street Rehabilitation Project on Lower Lighthouse Ave & Funston Ave 2. Community Center Gutter, Facia, and Downspout Replacements, and 3. Beach Access Step Maintenance Additional funding allocations are limited to non-general fund sources, as noted in the table below. There is no impact on the General Fund as a result of these proposed changes. Project Fund Proposed Increase Street Rehabilitation of Lower Fund 76 $485,426 Lighthouse Ave & Funston Ave Sewer Fund Community Center Gutter, Facia and Fund 46 $23,025 Downspout Replacement Strong Disbursement Fund

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 171 Beach Access Steps Fund 92 $8,359 Mcindoo Donation

Street Rehabilitation on Lower Lighthouse Ave & Funston Ave The Street Rehabilitation Project was approved as part of the FY20/21 CIP with a budget of $868,000 derived from Measure X, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), and the General Fund.

During project engineering, a video inspection of the sewer infrastructure was performed. This inspection revealed sewer repairs were needed on both Lower Lighthouse Ave and Funston Ave. Allocation of $485,426 from the Sewer Fund is needed to allow for the sewer infrastructure improvements to occur prior to rehabilitating the roadway. It is standard practice to address underground infrastructure improvements prior to repaving roadways to ensure optimal service life. A segment of this sewer allocation will serve as contingency funds. Any unused funds will remain in the Sewer Fund for use on future sewer improvements.

This $485,426 Sewer Fund allocation will bring the total project budget up to $1,354,190.

Community Center Gutter, Facia, and Downspout Replacement Project Elements of the existing roof infrastructure at the Community Center have significantly deteriorated and are in dire need of replacement. To facilitate these repairs, the Community Center Gutter, Facia and Downspout Replacement project was approved as part of the FY20/21 CIP with a $50,000 budget derived from the Strong Disbursement Fund.

Following a competitive bid process, an additional $23,025 is needed to facilitate repairs. This project is vital to preserve the existing roof infrastructure integrity and prevent a more costly, extensive roof repair project in the future. This additional Strong Disbursement Fund allocation will bring the total project budget up to $73,025.

Beach Access Steps Maintenance Project To address the safety of the Beach Access Steps at Lovers Point, a maintenance project was funded via the CIP with a $20,000 budget derived from the Mcindoo Donation Fund. In order to facilitate safety improvements, an additional $8,359 is needed. The $20,000 approved project budget is sufficient to cover the concrete construction work but is not sufficient to cover the cost of the metal nosing required for this maintenance repair project.

Approval of this ordinance will allow for an additional $8,359 allocation from the McIndoo Donation Fund, bringing the total project budget to $28,359.

OPTIONS 1. Make no adjustments 2. Provide alternate direction to staff

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None of the proposed changes would result in negative fund balances. All funds have sufficient fund balances to support the changes. A list of the updated fund balances is included within the ordinance.

Changes are only applicable to the noted non-general fund sources. There is no impact on the general fund.

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 172 GOAL ALIGNMENT: City Asset Stewardship: Repair, maintain and improve City assets, including streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, buildings, and parks and trails.

Attachments Ordinance

PGCC 4-21-21 Page 173 ORDINANCE NO. 21-____