CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing City Administrator to Enter into Agreement between County of Monterey & Participating Cities to Update Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Local hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)

Meeting Date: September 11 , 2012

Prepared by: Michael Calhoun,

Public Safety Director

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement between the County of Monterey and participating cities to update the Monterey County Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).

Description: The current Multi-jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on October 22, 2007, and the existing plan must be updated every five years in order to be eligible for certain federal, pre-and post-disaster mitigation grants.

The County of Monterey is applying for a Community Development Block Grant under the 2008 Disaster Recovery Initiative to finance the cost of a contractor/consultant to review and revise the current LHMP adopted in 2007 as required by FEMA.

In January 2012, Council approved a letter of commitment as a participating jurisdiction in Monterey County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update. Each city must sign the attached agreement to participate in the update of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is Exhibit 11A11 copy of the LHMP agreement.

Fiscal Impact: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to pay a contractor/consultant for services related to the agreement; however the City must provide a representative or representatives to assist the contractor/consultant gather the necessary data and information to complete sections of the LHMP relevant to its jurisdiction.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign the MOU agreement between the County of Monterey and participating agencies, subject to final review/approval of the City Attorney.

Decision Record: Resolution 2007-62 (October 2, 2007) adopted the Monterey County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; adopted Hazard Mitigation as an element of the General Plan on October 1, 2009; Resolution 2012-1 (January 10, 2012) approved a letter of commitment to participate in the LHMP update.

This was reviewed by the City Attorney.

Reviewed by:
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND PARTICIPATING CITIES TO UPDATE THE MONTEREY COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP)

WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved the current Multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in October 22, 2007. The LHMP must be
updated every five years in order to be eligible for certain federal, pre-and post-disaster
mitigation grants; and

WHEREAS, the current LHMP will expire in October 2012 unless reviewed, revised, and
adopted by the cities and Monterey County, and subsequently approved by FEMA, and
WHEREAS, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council approved Resolution 2012-1 on
January 10, 2012, authorizing a letter of commitment from the City to participate in the
Monterey County LHMP update process; and

WHEREAS, the County is applying for a Community Development Block Grant under
the 2008 Disaster Recovery Initiative to finance the cost of a contractor/consultant to review and
revise the current LHMP adopted in 2007; and

WHEREAS, each city must sign the agreement to participate in the update of the LHMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement between the County of
Monterey and the participating cities to update the LHMP, subject to final review and
approval of the City Attorney.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 11th day of September 2012, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
___________________________
JASON BURNETT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
52
Attachment "A" 53
•
AGREEMENT FOR THE UPDATE OF LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the COUNTY of Monterey, hereinafter
the "COUNTY," and the following CITIES, hereinafter individually referred to as the "CITY"
and collectively the "CITIES":
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
King City
Marina
Monterey
Pacific Grove
Salinas
Sand City
Seaside
Soledad
RECITALS
WHEREAS, it is required that the COUNTY and the CITIES have in place an approved and
adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (hereinafter the "LHMP") which addresses pre- and post
disaster mitigation and it is in the best interest for the COUNTY and CITIES to work together to
have an approved and adopted LHMP; and
WHEREAS, the CITIES, except the City of Seaside, and the COUNTY, in 2006, agreed to
develop, and, subsequently, did adopt a LMHP in 2007; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements
(hereinafter "FEMA"), said plan must be reviewed and revised every five years to maintain status
as an accepted LHMP by FEMA; and
WHEREAS, the LHMP adopted in 2007 will expire in 2012 unless reviewed, revised and
adopted by the CITIES and the COUNTY and subsequently approved by FEMA; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement sets forth the responsibilities of the COUNTY and the CITIES
concerning financing the LHMP; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES desire to share and maintain a LHMP for the good
of all.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
I. COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS
The COUNTY, in coordination with the City of Salinas, shall procure a contractor/consultant to
develop a draft LHMP that has been revised and updated to include CITIES and the COUNTY.
The COUNTY shall pursue award of a Community Development Block Grant under the 2008
1
54
Planning Guidance dated July 1, 2008. Should County tall to be awaraea aoove-menuun~u
grant, COUNTY shall be under no obligation to hire consultant/contractor or finance in any way
the review and revision of the LHMP.
If such grant is awarded, COUNTY shall work diligently with City of Salinas to select a
contractor/consultant for stated purpose and with contractor/consultant to complete project.
COUNTY shall provide a representative or representatives to assist contractor/consultant in
obtaining data and information necessary to complete sections of the LHMP within COUNTY
jurisdiction. COUNTY shall meet with CITIES as necessary to discuss progress of project, act
on proposed drafts, and to work diligently to bring fmal draft LHMP to Monterey County Board
of Supervisors for adoption. COUNTY will provide overall project coordination and grant
administration for work related to its portions ofLHMP and that of CITIES, with exception of
the City of Salinas.
II. CITIES' OBLIGATIONS
CITIES, with the exception of the City of Salinas, shall bear no burden to pay
contractor/consultant for services related to this agreement. CITIES shall provide a
representative or representatives to assist contractor/consultant in obtaining data and information
necessary to complete sections of the LHMP relevant to their jurisdiction and to meet as
necessary to discuss progress of project, act on proposed drafts, and to work diligently to bring
fmal draft LHMP to their governing body for adoption.
III. SPECIAL TERMS FOR CITY OF SALINAS
The City of Salinas has independently obtained GRANT funds for purposes of rev iewing and
revising LHMP and updating the Public Safety Element of its General Plan. The City of Salinas
wishes to work with COUNTY and CITIES in developing a County-wide LHMP while
maintaining control of the style, format, and information contained within its own section of
LHMP. In order to merge into one plan the needs and preferences of City of Salinas with those
of the other CITIES and COUNTY, City of Salinas and COUNTY agree to jointly select and
utilize the same contractor for overall project. COUNTY and City of Salinas agree to work with
contractor toward this purpose.
IV. SPECIAL TERMS FOR CITY OF SEASIDE
City of Seaside did not participate in existing LHMP but independently developed its own
LHMP which is also in need of update. City of Seaside agrees fully participate in this process
and to allow access to digital copy to its existing LHMP to contractor selected by City of Salinas
and COUNTY.
V. TERM
This Agreement shall become effective as of the 1st day of August 2012, and shall terminate
upon acceptance of updated LHMP by FEMA.
2
55
VI. INDEMNIFICATION
A. COUNTY hereby agrees to indemnify and save hannless each CITY, its officers,
agents, and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, judgments or
decrees made or rendered against the CITY, its officers, agents or employees by
reason of any injury, death or property damage suffered or sustained by any person or
entity caused by, or alleged to have been caused by the sole negligent act or omission
or willful misconduct of COUNTY during the planning of the LHMP.
B. Further, as to such acts, COUNTY, at its own cost, expense and risk, shall defend any
and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings that may be brought or instituted by
third parties against the CITY, its officers, agents or employees or any such claim or
demand, and shall pay and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered
against the CITY, its officers, agents or employees in any such suit, action, or other
legal proceedings.
VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Amendment - This Agreement may be amended or modified only by an instrument
ill writing signed by all the parties hereto.
B. Waiver- Any waiver of any terms and conditions hereof must be in writing and
signed by the parties hereto. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions hereof shall
not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Agreement.
C. Compliance with Applicable Law - The parties shall comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement.
D. Headings- The section and paragraph headings are for convenience only and shall
not be used to interpret the terms of this Agreement.
E. Time is of the Essence - Time is of the essence in each and all of the provisions of
this Agreement.
F. Governing Law - This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the
laws of the State of California.
G. Non-exclusive Agreement- This Agreement is non-exclusive and both parties
expressly reserve the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar
services.
H. Construction of Agreement- The parties 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 hereto.
I. 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.
3
56
J. Authority - Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity
represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into
this Agreement on behalf of such entity and bind the entity to the terms and
conditions of the same.
K. Integration - This Agreement, including the exhibits hereto, shall represent the
entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereto and
shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or
oral, between the parties as of the effective date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and each of the CITIES have caused this Agreement
to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year first set forth above.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY .
By ________' __________ __
Emergency Services Manager
Dated --------------------
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By ___________________ _
County Counsel
Dated ---------------------
CITY OF GONZALES
By ___________________ _
City Manager
Dated ---------------------
CITY OF KING CITY
By _____________________ __
City Manager
Dated -----------------------
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
By _____________________ _
City Administrator
Dated ----------------------
CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
By ___________________ _
Chief of Police
Dated ----------------------
•
CITY OF GREENFIELD
By _____________________ __
Deputy City Mgr/Public Works Director
Dated ----------------------
CITY OF MARINA
By _____________________ __
Fire Chief
Dated ----------------------
4
57 CITY OF MONTEREY CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By _____________________ _ By ___________________ __
Fire Chief City Manager
Dated- --------------------- Dated- --------------------
CITY OF SALINAS CITY OF SAND CITY
By~· --------------------- By ___________________ __
Fire Chief Chief of Police
Dated- --------------------- Dated- --------------------
CITY OF SEASIDE CITY OF SOLEDAD
By _____________________ _ By _____________________ _
City Manager '-. City Manager
Dated- --------------------- Dated-

CITY COUNCIL: City Support Group Policy

Meeting Date: September11, 2012

Prepared by: Molly Laughlin

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Receive the City Support Group policy.

Description: The City Council adopted Policy 89-47 on October 3, 1989 to recognize those local organizations formed to support the City or one of its departments in some manner, to recognize the value of these support groups, and to define the relationship and involvement between the City and these groups.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/ A

Staff Recommendation: Receive the policy.

Important Considerations: The City's support groups are defined to be voluntary and nonpolitical, with the sole or primary purpose of providing monetary, social, cultural or other assistance to the City or one of its departments. The current City support groups are:  Friends of Harrison Memorial Library; Carmel Public Library Foundation; Friends of Carmel Forest; Friends of Sunset Foundation; and the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden Committee.

Decision Record: The City Support Groups Policy C89-47 was originally adopted by Council on October 3, 1989 (Resolution 89-121).

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

S U P P 0 R T  G R 0 U P S  P 0 L I C Y

21 SEPTEMBER 1989

GENERAL:
The City Council recognizes that individuals of the community will join together from time to time in support groups to assist the municipal organization (City) or one of its departments for a variety of reasons. The City Council also recognizes the value of the assistance so provided by support groups and encourages the
formation of such groups where appropriate and/or a need exists.  So that both the City and its entities and the support groups have a clear understanding of the nature and extent of the relationship, the following guidelines have been developed and adopted by the City Council.

DEFINITION:
Support groups are associations of individuals who have voluntarily joined together in a unit whose sole or primary purpose is to provide assistance -- either monetary, social, cultural or otherwise-- but not political -- to the City or one of its departments.

NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP:
The City recognizes t he importance of support groups to the financial, social, cultural and environmental fabric of our community as well as the need for private support groups to be independent and freed of the restrictions which are applicable to public entities.  It is al so recognized by t he City that a relationship will exist between support groups and the City. It is the intent of the City to keep t he relationship with all support groups to a minimum, recognizing that support groups are private in existence, a status which requires neither the specific public noticing, reporting and liability responsibilities of , nor financial assistance
from, the City.  While members of support groups have the freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution, the support group is recognized by the City as a private body.

CITY INVOLVEMENT WITH SUPPORT GROUPS/PERSONNEL:
City personnel, whether elected, employed or appointed, shall not serve on the board of directors (either as a member or in an ex officio capacity) of a support group. Employees of support groups are not City employees and support groups and their officers shall refrain from representing themselves as agents or officers of the City. City staff will be assigned by the City Administrator to serve in a liaison capacity and to provide technical assistance to support groups if requested .

USE OF CITY FACILITIES:*
Support groups are entitled to free use of City facilities for meetings, either general membership, board, executive committee, or special committe-e as long as: a) the date and time are convenient to the operation and maintenance of the facility in which the meeting is desired; b) the meeting room is not needed for a City
board, committee or commission meeting; c) the meeting is to occur during regular hours of operation or does not require the scheduling of staff beyond regular schedules if held at a time other than regular hours; d) the desired room is available; e) the City will not incur a substantial cost for providing the room; and f) the
use of the City facilities by the support group is in furtherance of the interests of the City. The City shall draw up an agreement with each support group which shall outline the terms and conditions for the free use of meeting rooms and of storage space.

Support groups may also store assets and belongings in a public facility subject to a valid Hold Harmless Agreement and certificate of insurance being on file with the City Clerk's office and naming the City as an additional insured party, and provided that the space is not required for municipal purposes. City facilities, with the exception of library facilities, may not be used to provide free space or equipment for the business office of the support group. The use of library facilities shall be determined by the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, with the exception of events held at these facilities at which alcoholic beverages are offered. Limitations on such use are described in this Policy in the paragraph titled ~Insurance~.*

USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT*
No support group, its officers or members, shall utilize any equipment belonging to the City and/or any of its departments except audio/visual equipment and room furnishings which are normally provided upon request with the use of a room. City equipment is defined but is not limited to telephones, desks, copy machines, computers and computer terminals, mail and stamping devices, facsimile machines, typewriters and adding machines. The City Administrator may grant use of City equipment in special circumstances. The use of library equipment shall be determined by the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees.*

MEMBERSHIP ROLLS:
Membership rolls of support groups and the City can be exchanged if an agreement is reached between the parties and is consistent with both State and Federal laws.

* For statutory provisions governing use of library facilities and equipment, see Education Code, Title 1, Divison 1, Part 11, Chapter 5, Section 18919 and Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code Section 2.72.050.

POSTAGE:
Each support group shall secure and maintain its own Post Office box or mailing address. The City's or a City department's Post Office box or bulk mailing permit are to be used for official City business only. Each support group shall incur all expenses associated with the mailing of its literature, minutes, agendas and fund-raising requests.

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES:
No support group, organized for the purpose of assisting the City or one of its departments, shall partake, either officially or unofficially, in any political activity involving the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, its officers, employees, or facilities. Political activity includes, but is not limited to: Mayoral and City Council elections
local ballot issues involvement in administrative or personnel matters  Support Groups are encouraged to use proper and accepted internal City communication channels and the public appearances section of City Council meetings.

INSURANCE :
The City will provide general liability insurance coverage for support groups including the cost of the insurance deductible as long as the support groups are meeting or holding events in public buildings or at public facilities . If a support group meets away from a public building or public facility and/or outside the
City limits, then it shall be the option of the support group as to whether it desires to secure insurance protection. The City will not provide insurance protection for activities and events held outside of the City limits or away from public buildings and/or public facilities and will not provide coverage at any activity where alcoholic beverages are being served unless such activity is officially sanctioned and cosponsored via a Resolution of the City Council.

Should support groups desire to serve alcoholic beverages at an event, either in a public building or at a public facility, the support group will be required to secure its own insurance coverage,
unless the City Council adopts a Resolution of cosponsorship.

CO-SPONSORSHIP:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is required in order for the City to co-sponsor with any support group any event, performance, activity or function, whether onetime,
cumulative or ongoing.

FUND-RAISING EVENTS WITHIN PUBLIC FACILITIES:
The City recognizes that support groups from time to time will request the utilization of public facilities for fund-raising activities. Such requests for the use of public facilities shall be forwarded to the City Council for its review at least thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled event. The City will give preferential consideration to support groups over other groups for fund-raising activities within public facilities.

Reguests . for the use of Library facilities shall be forwarded to the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees for its review at least thirty days prior to the scheduled event.* However, any
event approved by the Library Board of Trustees at which alcoholic beverages are to be offered must also have prior approval of the City Council as set forth in this Policy in the paragraph titled "Insurance." Support Groups are cautioned that obtaining such approval by both bodies could take seven weeks or more, depending on the scheduling of their respe.c tive meetings .

BYLAWS:
Each support group shall provide a copy of its current bylaws to the City Clerk.

ANNUAL AUDIT:
The City requires a copy of the annual audit, review or internal financial report of each support group.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY:
The City Administrator is delegated as the City official responsible for the implementation of this policy.

PERIODIC REVIEW:
The City Council will, from time to time, review the intent and content of this policy and make any necessary amendments which it deems necessary to protect the interests of the City and the support groups. All support groups will be notified whenever a review is determined to be needed.

* For statutory provisions governing use of library facilities and equipment, see Education Code, Title 1, Divison 1, Part Part 11, Chapter 5, Section 18919 and Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal
Code Section 2.72.050.

CITY COUNCIL: Public Agenda Forecast

City Council Public Agenda Forecast

U= Upcoming
N=Near Future
L=Long Term ITEM

N Amend the Community Activities and Cultural Commission term
U ASBS (Stormwater) Monitoring Update
N Cell Tower Lease (Youth Center) agreement extension
N Community Human Services Appointment
U Commercial District Zoning Ordinance amendment
U Board and Commission Appointments
L Design Guidelines amendments-March 2013
U Beach Boardwalk bid award
U San Antonio Trail bid award
U Street Improvements bid award
U Friends of Mission Trail support group addition
U Grid pruning contract
U Fire grant from Monterey Insurance Agencies
U Document Destruction
Downtown Event update
N EMS Service Provider Agreement
O Extraordinary Business/Announcements
N Fire true -up
N Flanders RDEIR
N Labor Agreements
N Mgmt Plans Review systems
Paper Bags update
U Pension Obligation
L POST-- Jan 2013
N QTR 4 Financial Report
N QTRLY Marketing Report
N QTRLY MCCVB Report
N QTRLY Sunset Center Financial
U Retirement Actuary
N Salary Resolution
N Shared Services
N Sunset Contract renewal
N Sunset Center "Free Days" awards
U Tobacco Retailer License
N Trail Grants Working Group
N Trash can design and placement
N Treasurer & Financial Reporting
N Volunteer Program/CCAC Bylaws amendments
N Water Conservation Report
Workshop Topics
U Sunset Center agreement
U Emergency Preparedness
N Trash can design and placement
N Rights of Way

CITY COUNCIL: Refinancing & Refunding Option for the City's CalPERS Retirement Side Fund

Meeting Date: September 11 , 2012

Prepared by: Jason Stilwell

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Discussion of certain refinancing and refunding options for the City's CalPERS Retirement Side Fund.

Description: On July 3, 2012 the City Council directed the City Administrator to begin analyzing refinancing options for the City's CalPERS side fund. This item was one of the Key Projects adopted by the City Council as part of the City Administrator 2012 Goals. The CalPERS Committee had four major recommendations with the first being to "pay the side fund debt as soon as possible."

Fiscal Impact: The financing structure for the issuance of any pension obligation bond (POB) will be determined based on two specific components:

• The availability of a new sales tax revenue stream (a portion of which could be applied toward the Side-Fund POB and allow for a quicker payoff)

• POB Buyers - Potential investors in POBs include private placement providers (banks and investment groups) or investment banks which offer underwriting services and a distribution ofbuyers (both individual and institutional), also known as a public offering.

NHA Advisors and Jones Hall both recommended that the City approve the POB documents at its October meeting and be prepared to lock interest rates on the POB shortly after the November election results are known. If the POB is approved in October and is structured as a public offering, the City still retains its option to work directly with a private placement provider.

Staff Recommendation: Receive the report and provide direction.

Important Considerations: Assuming Council provides direction to staff at this meeting, NHA Advisors and Jones Hall will draft the appropriate legal documents, credit review, rating agency interaction, and selection of an underwriter. Once formal approval of the POB is complete at the October meeting, the City will be prepared to issue the POB shortly after the November 6 election. This November process (selling the POB to an underwriter) would lock in the term and interest rates and is anticipated to be completed in September. Once the validation procedure has been completed, the POB issue will be brought back before the City
Council one more time for final authorization. This schedule should enable the City to lock in interest rates in late October or early November 2012.

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell,  City Administrator  Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN REFINANCING AND REFUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE CITY’S CALPERS RETIREMENT SIDE FUND

RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation and provide direction.

DISCUSSION: On July 3, 2012 the City Council directed the City Administrator to begin the process of analyzing refinancing options for the City’s CalPERS side fund. This item pertains to one of the Key Projects adopted by the City Council on January 10, 2012 as part of the City Administrator 2012 Goals. One Key Project is to begin implementing CalPERS Committee recommendations. The Committee had four major recommendations with the first being to “pay the side fund debt as soon as possible.”

Side-Fund Background – In 2003, when the City’s pension plans were pooled with other small cities and agencies, CalPERS reviewed the contributed assets and estimated liabilities of the City’s pension plans. CalPERS determined that the pension liabilities for the two plans exceeded the asset values by roughly $6 million. At the time, CalPERS found that other small cities also had assets that were not equal to their liabilities. As a result, CalPERS sought to realign the assets and liabilities creating what it calls a Side-Fund.

The Side-Fund is treated as a loan from CalPERS to the City. As of June 30, 2011 the Side-Fund balance for the City’s two pension programs totaled over $6.2 million. CalPERS adjusted the actuarial investment return rate to 7.50% in March 2012. The two Side-Fund program balances will be verified through the Lump Sum Payoff Amount letter that the City will request from CalPERS.

The Side-Fund payments will change if there are contract amendments or the actuarial investment return rate assumption is changed (as it did in March 2012).

The City’s two Side-Funds have amortization schedules that anticipate a final payoff in FY 2033-34 for the safety fund and FY 2022-23 for the miscellaneous Fund.

NHA Advisors, the City’s financial advisor, and Jones Hall, the City’s bond counsel, were asked to develop a financing program and additional information for the City Council to consider. As part of this financing program, options were analyzed to provide the City Council with projections under two scenarios: (1) the refinancing of the Side-Fund through the lower interest rates available in the capital markets (keeping the original terms for the two Side-Fund programs), and

(2) refinancing the Side-Fund programs under an accelerated structure recognizing a new revenue stream from a successful ballot initiative in November 2012.

The issuance of a pension obligation bond (“POB”) requires a “validation procedure” in the local Superior Courts. For a validation, the City Council provides initial authorization to issue the bonds and then files a court action, publicly noticing the City’s intent to issue bonds to refund its existing CalPERS
obligation. The City Council initiated this action at its July 3, 2012 meeting. If there is no challenge, the validation is ratified by the Superior Court, typically within 90 days of its filing.

Because the bonds are payable from all legally available funds of the City (which is also true for the existing CalPERS obligation), validation is necessary to affirm bond counsel’s position that the POB are exempt from the Constitutional Debt Limit because they are issued to refund a pre-existing obligation imposed by law
(vested pension benefits). Validation documents were submitted in a timely manner in July and the court process is anticipated to be complete in October.

After the September 11th discussion, the City Council will be required to take a formal action on the POB bond documents (resolutions and forms of financing documents) at an October meeting. Assuming there is direction to staff during the September 11th meeting, NHA Advisors and Jones Hall will commence drafting the appropriate legal documents, credit review, rating agency interaction, and selection of an underwriter. Once formal approval of the POB is complete at the October meeting, the City will be prepared to issue the POB shortly after the conclusion of the November election. This November process (selling the POB to
an underwriter) would lock in the term and interest rates and is anticipated to be completed in September. Once the validation procedure has been completed, the POB issue will be brought back before the City Council one more time for final authorization. This schedule should enable the City to lock in interest rates in late October or early November 2012.

FINANCIAL OPTIONS: The financing structure for the issuance of any POB will be determined based on two specific components:

• The availability of a new sales tax revenue stream (a portion of which could be applied toward the Side-Fund POB and allow for a quicker payoff)

• POB Buyers – Potential investors in POBs include private placement providers (banks and investment groups) or investment banks which offer underwriting services and a distribution of buyers (both individual and institutional), also know as a public offering

Private placement providers will only buy the entire POB (as opposed to an underwriter selling pieces off to multiple parties) and typically will not exceed terms of 10 years. This limitation could impact the ability to refinance the safety Side-Fund under its existing term (22 years remaining). If the sales tax initiative passes and the two Side-Fund POBs are structured as 10-year obligations, a private placement solution remains an option.

The primary difference in the sale of the POB through a private placement provider or underwriter is the requirement of a public rating (through one of the three major rating agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investor Service or Fitch Ratings) and the creation of the disclosure document (known as an official statement or offering memorandum). A private placement provider will typically do their own due diligence and credit review and will, therefore, not require the City go through the rating or disclosure work. This would save approximately $35,000-$40,000 which is then compared to the overall comparative analysis that NHA Advisors would do to determine if a private placement or public offering will result in a lower cost to the City.

In order to minimize the impact of these costs, the City could choose to wait until after the election to start the financing process. It is the recommendation of NHA Advisors and Jones Hall that the City approve the POB documents at its October meeting and be prepared to lock interest rates on the POB shortly after the November election results are known. If the POB is approved in October and is structured as a public offering, the City still retains its option to work directly with a private placement provider. The rating and disclosure document would serve as additional information that may not be required but available.

CITY COUNCIL: Ratify Appointments to Boards & Commissions

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

September 11, 2012

TO: The Honorable Mayor Burnett & Council Members

FROM: Heidi Burch, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Agenda Item VIII-B

The material for:

Item VIII-B – Ratify appointments to the Boards and Commissions will be provided under separate cover.

Thank you,

Heidi Burch
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan Creating New Regulations for Single Family Dwellings, Two Unit Residential Projects & Mixed Use Projects in CC, SC & Residential & Limited Commercial Districts

Meeting Date: 11 September 2012

Prepared by: Sean Conroy,

Ping & Bldg Services Manager

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an ordinance adopting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan creating new regulations for single family dwellings, two unit residential projects and mixed use projects in the Central Commercial, Service Commercial, and Residential and Limited Commercial districts. (First reading)

Description: The proposed amendments would 1) change single family dwellings from a permitted use to a limited use in the Central Commercial (CC) District and from a permitted use to a conditional use in the Service Commercial (SC) and Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) districts; 2) establish floor area restrictions for two-unit residential developments; and 3) prohibit new residential units on the first story of any building in the Central Commercial (CC) District if the units would front directly on a public street.

Overall Cost: N/ A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the first reading of the Ordinance.

Important Considerations: The proposed amendments are designed to protect and maintain the character of the downtown by limiting the development of single-family dwellings, by restricting the size of two-unit residential developments and by encouraged mixed use projects.

Single family dwellings are currently considered a permitted use in all commercial districts. For most commercial district neighborhoods, single family dwellings would likely appear out of place and would be inconsistent with the character of the downtown.  Allowing new single family dwellings could negatively impact community character.

Decision Record: On 26 October 2011 the Planning Commission recommended amendments to the zoning ordinance. On 6 March 2012 the Council reviewed the recommendations and requested changes to the proposed ordinance. On 12 July 2012 the Commission adopted revised recommendations based on the direction from the City Council.

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator  Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

COMMITTEE REPORT

TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CREATING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND MIXED USE PROJECTS IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. (FIRST READING)

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2010 the City was presented with two residential projects that were proposed in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. During the review of these projects, the Planning Commission and City Council both expressed some concern regarding the potential incompatibility of new single family residential projects, or projects that looked like large single family dwellings in the commercial districts. In response, the Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee made up of Chair Reimers, Commissioner Beach (now Council Member Beach), and Sean Conroy, Planning and Building Services Manager. The subcommittee met on several occasions to review these issues and recommended several zoning amendments to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission originally recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to the City Council on 24 August 2011. The City Council reviewed the proposed amendments on 6 March 2012. While the Council was supportive of the basis for the amendments, the project was sent back to the Planning Commission with a request for changes. The Planning Commission made new recommendations to the Council on 12 July 2012 that included the following:

1) Change single family dwellings from a permitted use to a limited use in the Central Commercial (CC) District and from a permitted use to a conditional use in the Service Commercial (SC) and Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Districts;

2) Establish floor area restrictions for two-unit residential developments; and

3) Prohibit new residential units on the first story of any building in the Central Commercial (CC) District if the units would front directly on a public street.

The following section describes the reasons for the Planning Commission’s original recommendations, the Council’s response and the current recommendations from the Commission.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE
Schedule II-B found in CMC Section 17.14 identifies three types of use categories: Permitted (P), Conditional (C), and Limited (L). A permitted use is permitted by right and cannot be denied based on the use alone. Single family dwellings are listed as a permitted use in all commercial districts. Currently, a proposed single family residential project could not be denied based on objections to the use itself. For example, if a property owner on Ocean Avenue proposed to convert a commercial building to a single family residence, and was not requesting any discretionary approvals (design review, variance, use permit, etc.), the proposal could not be denied. Single family projects that require other discretionary permits could still be denied or altered based the discretionary aspects of the application, but not based on the use.

A conditional use requires the issuance of a discretionary conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. Conditional uses must meet specific adopted standards in order to be approved, but also are at the discretion of the Commission. Examples include restaurants, drinking places and multi-family projects at certain densities.

Limited uses are required to meet specific limitations, but do not require the issuance of a conditional use permit. As long as the specific limitations are met, the proposed use could be authorized administratively by staff. Examples include convenience markets and vehicle repair shops.

The Planning Commission originally recommended that the single family dwelling use be changed from a permitted use to a limited use in all commercial districts. Under this recommendation, only sites that are currently developed with a single family dwelling would be permitted to maintain or rebuild a single family dwelling. The reasons for this recommendation included:

• For most commercial district neighborhoods, single family dwellings would likely appear out of place and would be inconsistent with the character of the downtown.  Allowing new single family dwellings could negatively impact community character.

• Except for in the RC District where single family dwellings are limited to R-1 standards, single family residential projects in the CC or SC Districts could take advantage of the more liberal floor area ratios of the commercial districts. For example, a single family dwelling in the CC or SC District could have a floor area
ratio of up to 135%. On a 4,000-square-foot lot, this could result in a 5,400-square-foot dwelling, compared to an 1,800-square-foot dwelling that would be allowed on a similarly sized lot in the R-1 District.

• The General Plan encourages the development of housing in the downtown, particularly when part of mixed used development. Prohibiting single family dwellings on sites where a single family dwelling does not currently exist would require new residential development to have at least two units and would more
likely result in mixed-use projects. Increasing housing density and encouraging mixed-use development contributes to a pedestrian oriented downtown.

Council Review: The Council agreed with the Commission’s concerns that single family dwellings, particularly in the CC District, could negatively impact community character and the viability of the downtown. However, the Council determined that the making single family dwellings a limited use in all zones went too far. The Council also expressed an interest in allowing properties that had been developed or used as single family
dwellings in the past but have since been converted to other uses be allowed to revert to the single family use in the future.

Commission Response: The Planning Commission is now recommending that Single Family Dwellings be considered a limited use in the CC District. This would limit new single family dwellings to only those sites that are currently developed with a single family dwelling, or where the record indicates that the property had in the past been used as a single-family dwelling.

The Commission is also now recommending that Single Family Dwellings be a conditional use in the SC and RC districts. This would require the adoption of specific findings by the Commission in order to approve a new single family dwelling in these zones (see Exhibit “A”).

UNIT SIZE RATIO
The Commission and the Council have expressed concern with two-unit projects that have proposed one very large unit and one very small unit. The concern, particularly for apartment projects in the RC District, is that the small unit is less likely to be rented and could be proposed simply as a way to take advantage of the floor area benefits a multifamily project provides. (Note: The code requires that single family dwellings in the RC District comply with R-1 floor area standards. This requirement doesn’t existing in the
CC or SC Districts).

Since the project concerns had been primarily related to two-unit projects, the Planning Commission originally recommended the following amendment:

“For two (2) unit developments, the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at least 60% of the size of the larger unit.”

Council Review: The Council was uncomfortable with the proposed unit size ratio, and recommended that the Commission either rethink this requirement or adjust the ratio to 40% or 50%.

Commission Response: The Commission is now recommending the following:
“For two (2) unit developments, the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at least 60 40% of the size of the larger unit.”

This amendment would avoid the potential of one very large and one very small unit being proposed in a two-unit development, and would ensure that both units would be a little more comparable in size. For example, a two unit building on a 4,000 square foot lot in the RC District would be allowed a maximum of 3,200 square feet of floor area. If unit “A” was proposed to be 2,250 square feet, unit “B” would need to be at least 900 square feet (2,250 x .40 = 900).

CC DISTRICT
The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance encourage mixed-use development. CMC Section 17.14.010.C indicates that residential uses are primarily appropriate on the second floor of structures. The following amendment is proposed:

“No new residential units are permitted on the first story of any building in the CC District if the units would front directly on a public street.”

Council Review: The Council did not take a position on this proposed amendment.

Commission Response: The Zoning Ordinance currently requires residential use for the second-story of all commercial buildings, except where a commercial use may already exist. However, there is nothing currently adopted that would preclude, for example, the conversion of a retail space to a residential use on the first story of a building in the CC District. The proposed amendment would protect and promote the mixed-use nature of the downtown as envisioned in the General Plan by maintaining a commercial component at the street level and a residential component on the upper level.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the first reading of the ordinance.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2012-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CREATING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND MIXED USE PROJECTS IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (FIRST READING)

WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on its community character; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to protect the village character through clear policies and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on 12 July 2012; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are designed to ensure that residential construction be compatible with the character of the downtown and to encourage mixed use development; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance is also its Local Coastal Implementation Plan; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance requires certification of an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan by the California Coastal Commission; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance will be carried out in a manner consistent with the California Coastal Act; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 150305.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby resolve to:

Adopt the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan (exhibit “A”).
Severability. If any part of this ordinance, even as small as a word or phrase, is found to be unenforceable such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other part.

Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption by the City Council or the California Coastal Commission, whichever occurs last.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ___ day of ________ 2012 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

________________________
JASON BURNETT, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

Exhibit “A” Zoning Amendments
(Changes shown in strikeout and underline)
Schedule II-B CMC Section 17.14
Schedule II-B: Commercial Districts – Use Regulations
P = Permitted Use
L = Limitations Apply
C = Conditional Use
Permit Required
Commercial Districts
Additional Regulations
CC SC RC
Residential/Public and Semipublic
Single-Family P
L-5
P
C
P
C
See CMC 17.08.050(G)
Specific Limitations and Conditions:
L-1: Limited to advertising, consumer credit reporting, secretarial court reporting,
equipment maintenance and repair, personnel supply services, and nonretail computer
services and repair.
L-2: Allowed only as accessory use to gasoline stations and limited to a maximum of 300
square feet. No sales of alcohol are permitted. See CMC 17.14.040(D)(2) and (J)(2).
L-3: Any establishments with activities generating noise, odors, deliveries by large
vehicles, high traffic by customers, or requiring large storage needs are not permitted.
L-4: Limited to offices for the following categories: operators of nonresidential buildings,
apartment buildings, dwellings, real estate agents and managers, and title companies.
L-5: Limited to sites that are already developed with a single family dwelling, or that
were originally developed as, or used as, a single family dwelling but has since
been converted to another use. Existing single family dwellings can be maintained,
altered, repaired and/or redeveloped. R-1 District floor area ratio standards shall
apply to these sites.
17.64.230 – Single Family Dwellings in the SC & RC Districts (Required Findings
for approval)
1. There is an existing single family dwelling on site that is being
maintained, remodeled, altered, expanded or demolished and replaced
with a new single family dwelling; or
2. The project contributes to community character and will be compatible
with the streetscape, mass, bulk and uses of surrounding properties.

CMC Section 17.14.040
N. Multifamily Dwellings.
1. Condominium subdivisions are limited to:
a. Sites of 4,000 square feet or less; and
b. Projects incorporating an equal or greater number of rental
apartment units for sites larger than 4,000 square feet.
2. The minimum size of any residential unit shall be 400 square feet.
3. All multifamily projects of three or more units shall include a mix of unit
sizes, and at least 25 percent of all units shall be 400 to 650 square feet in
size.
4. For two (2) unit residential developments, the floor area of the smaller
unit shall be at least 40% of the size of the larger unit.
5. No new residential units are permitted on the first story of any building in
the CC District if the units would front directly on a public street unless the
building was originally developed as, or used as, a single family dwelling but
has since been converted to another use.

CITY COUNCIL: Update on Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan

Meeting Date: 11 September 2012

Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Receive an update on Carmel's Water Conservation Work Plan.

Description: This report contains an update of the City's Water Conservation Work Plan. The report includes a discussion on City facilities and operations, fire readiness, potential sources for new water, existing ordinances, and public outreach.

Overall Cost: N/A
City Funds: N/ A
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Receive an update on Carmel 's Water Conservation Work Plan.

Important Considerations: In October 2009 the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that Cal-Am cease its unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River by December 31, 2016. The order also establishes a schedule for Cal-Am to reduce pumping by a set amount each year. If a replacement water supply is not developed prior to 2016, Peninsula jurisdictions will be
facing significant water cutbacks.

Decision Record: On 1 November 2011 the City Council approved the Water Conservation Work Plan.
Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON CARMEL’S WATER CONSERVATION WORK PLAN

BACKGROUND
California American Water (Cal-Am) is the primary purveyor of water for the Monterey Peninsula. The majority of the water used by Cal-Am comes from either the Carmel River or the Seaside Basin. In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ruled that Cal-Am did not have valid permits for the majority of the water it was pumping from the Carmel River and limited the amount of water that could be pumped (Order 95-10). In October, 2009 the SWRCB issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that Cal-Am cease its unauthorized diversions by December 31, 2016.

With the unresolved issues related to finding a regional water solution, it is important that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea be proactive in determining how to prepare for a restricted water supply in the future. On 1 November 2011 the City Council approved a Water Conservation Work Plan to assist with reducing water use in the City. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Council with an update on the work plan.

ADOPTED WATER CONSERVATION WORK PLAN
As part of the work plan the City has reviewed its facilities and operations to make certain that proper steps have been taken to promote operations that will conserve water.

The following is a list of work plan requirements followed with an update by staff.
A. City Facilities & Operations:
1. Evaluate current irrigation practices to determine if water saving opportunities exist.
2. Evaluate City landscaped areas to determine if more drought tolerant plantings or alternative materials would be appropriate.

3. Perform an audit of City buildings and facilities to determine if retrofitting existing fixtures would be appropriate.

Response: With regards to irrigation, the City primarily uses a combination of drip irrigation and low flow spray heads. Larger areas that require irrigation, such as Devendorf Park, use a rotor spray system that is more efficient than a standard sprinkler head. The City could improve its irrigation practices by installing a rain shutoff sensor on all of its irrigation systems.

A rain shutoff sensor is an irrigation shutoff device that prevents automatic irrigation systems from turning on during and after a rain storm or when there is high moisture content in the air. The City currently uses a rain sensor system at Devendorf and First Murphy parks. Areas in need of the rain sensor system include Vista Lobos, Scenic Road, Ocean Avenue and the Sunset Center. The City is currently preparing to purchase
additional rain sensors.

With the exception of Devendorf Park, all city facilities with landscape irrigation utilize drought tolerant plant materials. While there is limited opportunity to improve on the current drought tolerant landscaping, the City could remove specific landscaped areas and replace them with mulch. This option is not recommended at this time, but may be necessary in the future.

It should be noted that the City has been very proactive in retrofitting its facilities. Low flow toilets have been installed in almost all City facilities, including the public restrooms. The public restrooms also include low flow faucets with three-second timers.

Two facilities that are in need of retrofitting are City Hall and the First Murphy House.

The Building Maintenance department is aware of this need and intends to retrofit these buildings with low flow fixtures in the near future.

B. Maintain Fire Readiness
1. Maintain fire hydrants.
2. Monitor and clear heavy vegetation (fuel loads)
3. Maintain fire fighting staff and adequate apparatus and equipment.
4. Continue building and fire code compliance programs.

Response: In 2008 Cal-Am, working in conjunction with the City, completed a major $1 million capital investment in upgraded water mains and installation of numerous new fire hydrants. The project involved digging up and replacing 5,680 feet of severely corroded water-mains that were originally installed in the 1930s.

The City continues to maintain a high state of operational readiness with highly trained personnel staffing a three-person engine and two-person ambulance 24/7 with modern state of the art facilities, fire apparatus and equipment. The City also has aggressive building and fire code compliance programs and conducts annual fuel reduction and weed abatement surveys.

C. Identify Potential Sources for Additional Water
1. Evaluate the potential of using recycled water from the Carmel Area Waste Water District (CAWD).
2. Explore opportunities to better utilize the spring water at Del Mar.
3. Support regional efforts to develop water development contingency
plans.

Response: The City is currently in discussion with the Pebble Beach Community Services District (CSD) about connecting to the recycled water pipeline. The pipeline would provide 5-acre feet of water to be used for irrigation at Rio Park and for the pathway along 4th Avenue. Staff expects to have the details worked out on the proposed connection by the end of the year. The estimated cost of connecting to the pipeline is $4,000-5000.

With regards to the Del Mar spring, the City recently replaced a 10,000 gallon tank with a 25,000 gallon tank that collects non-potable water. The tank is connected to the irrigation system along Scenic Road, which previously used potable water. This will reduce water use by approximately 1 acre foot per year.
Some of this water savings is expected to be applied to the restrooms on Scenic. It should be noted that the Del Mar spring water could potentially be pumped up to 4th Avenue in the event that Carmel is not able to
connect to the recycled water pipeline.

The City has continued to participate in regional discussions regarding the development of water contingency plans and in determining the most productive and cost effective approach of supplying a long-term water supply to the Peninsula. The City played an important role in the formation of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Technical Advisory Committee. The committee was formed in December 2011 with the purpose of evaluating future options for a long-term water supply.

D. City Ordinances:
1. Review City ordinances related to water conservation and landscaping to determine if additional best management practices should be considered.

Response: Besides the facilities and operations under the City’s direct control, the City can influence the water conservation on private property as well. The City has been proactive in adopting a landscape ordinance and a water conservation ordinance. For example, CMC Section 17.34 requires that 75% of landscaping be drought tolerant and that irrigation systems be designed to minimize the use of water. CMC 17.50 requires the use of water-conserving plumbing fixtures for all new homes or substantial construction
projects. The City also encourages cisterns and rain catchment systems.

E. Public Outreach:
1. Review and continue to determine the potential impact of water rationing on residents and business owners.
2. Provide information to the public on appropriate Best Management Practices.
3. Encourage businesses, particularly inns to retrofit old plumbing fixtures to reduce water consumption to the extent possible.
4. Develop statements on the City’s web page with water conservation messages.

Response: In an effort to raise awareness, the City is in the process of constructing a water conservation page on its website. The web-page will include information pertaining to water conservation as well as links to local water conservations sites such as montereywaterinfo.org.

The City has also made available the Best Management Practices Guide produced by Cal-Am Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The guide provides information on how to reduce water use for both residential and commercial properties.  The Guide is available at City Hall and on the City website.

SUMMARY
It should be emphasized that this Water Conservation Work Plan is meant to be expanded and revised as new thoughts and programs are developed. Staff will provide periodic updates on the progress of the work plan.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on Carmel’s Water Conservation Work Plan.