No Bookmarks Exist.
So quickly it is 4:00 PM and this is the April 18th, 2024 meeting of the Climate App. | 00:00:00 | |
Climate action and adaptation. Brown Act Committee. | 00:00:08 | |
I believe it is. | 00:00:13 | |
And currently all members are present except I. | 00:00:16 | |
Coletti. | 00:00:20 | |
And so we have a quorum. | 00:00:22 | |
And I guess the 1st. | 00:00:24 | |
Action is the approval of the agenda. | 00:00:27 | |
If somebody would like to make a motion. | 00:00:30 | |
A second, all right, and a vote. | 00:00:34 | |
All in favor. | 00:00:38 | |
Aye. | 00:00:39 | |
And he knows. | 00:00:41 | |
Right. Thank you very much. | 00:00:43 | |
So. | 00:00:49 | |
Next is subcommittee and staff announcements on city related items. | 00:00:52 | |
Probably start with staff announcements. | 00:00:58 | |
Chair McDonald, no announcements this evening. Thank you. OK, thank you. And do we have any other committee announcements? | 00:01:02 | |
All right. Thank you very much. | 00:01:11 | |
So now we will open to general public comment if we have any general public attending. | 00:01:14 | |
I don't see anybody in person and there's nobody. | 00:01:22 | |
And stand corrected. | 00:01:25 | |
We have one hand raised in the virtual audience. I'll open the floor to Lisa Johnny. | 00:01:26 | |
Thank you. It's it's great to see you guys meeting again. | 00:01:34 | |
And I only just wanted to say something that. | 00:01:40 | |
I I don't quite understand if it's it. | 00:01:44 | |
In your. | 00:01:47 | |
Jurisdiction. That's not the word I went. | 00:01:50 | |
Just the concept. | 00:01:54 | |
Of, to me, climate. | 00:01:57 | |
Means we want trees. | 00:02:00 | |
And yet the City Council two years ago and the Coastal Commission just now, just last week, have approved a project that's | 00:02:02 | |
removing. | 00:02:09 | |
The entire tree canopy of a property. The Coastal Commission was only interested in the big statewide issues because I think | 00:02:16 | |
largely because they are so underfunded right now, they they can't deal with it, but we as a community need to take care of. | 00:02:26 | |
Our our own resources in the Coastal Commission. So I. | 00:02:36 | |
You know, I, I'm just hoping that we're going to see some changes that will not allow such. | 00:02:43 | |
An incredible destruction of. | 00:02:50 | |
Resources trees that we need. | 00:02:55 | |
The Monterey Audubon wrote a wonderful letter that didn't get to get read into the. | 00:02:58 | |
At the Coastal Commission because they cut off public comment when there were still 37 people waiting to to comment. | 00:03:05 | |
But. | 00:03:13 | |
That kind of destruction of trees, they're not even. | 00:03:16 | |
Keeping the Monterey Cypress at the corner where they're putting a park. Now they're taking out all of them so. | 00:03:20 | |
Anyway, as you. | 00:03:28 | |
As you work on these big issues, I hope that that will be something that. | 00:03:30 | |
Eventually gets addressed and and I'm. | 00:03:38 | |
You know our harbour seals are are yet. | 00:03:44 | |
A concern but but in terms of climate action, the one thing we can do is take care of our tree canopy. | 00:03:49 | |
So. | 00:03:59 | |
Anyway, thank you all for being on this committee and I look forward to. | 00:04:01 | |
The all the developments. Thank you. | 00:04:09 | |
No further hands raised at this time. | 00:04:17 | |
All right. Thank you. Then I will close public comment and now. | 00:04:20 | |
I guess technically I did the. | 00:04:26 | |
That was the approval of the agenda. Now we'll be doing approval of the actual. | 00:04:27 | |
Minutes from last time, technically. That I guess is on the. | 00:04:32 | |
Now since we don't have it listed as separate as regular and consent agenda and it's the only item, I guess it makes sense to just | 00:04:37 | |
approve the minutes in particular. | 00:04:41 | |
Anybody like to make a motion? I make a motion to approve. | 00:04:47 | |
Second. All right, those in favor. | 00:04:50 | |
Aye, any opposed? | 00:04:54 | |
All right, motion carries 6. | 00:04:57 | |
01. | 00:04:59 | |
501 Sorry, keep forgetting, there's only six of us. | 00:05:01 | |
All right. | 00:05:07 | |
And the next item on the agenda? | 00:05:08 | |
Is I want to make sure I read or write a. | 00:05:11 | |
So on our regular agenda item 6A is climate action adaptation planning, RFP concept review. And so Mr. First, would you like to | 00:05:16 | |
give us the. | 00:05:22 | |
Committee members. | 00:05:29 | |
Sure, Donald. | 00:05:32 | |
At the last Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee, and I'm just going to say climate committee is kind of shorthand | 00:05:35 | |
here and the request was to come back at this and we're still kind of finding our footing with our scheduling that originally was | 00:05:40 | |
going to be quarterly every three months, but we've kind of wavered a little bit with different membership. And so this was kind | 00:05:44 | |
of a special meeting. | 00:05:49 | |
Two months after the last meeting and the idea was to come back with a kind of draft or a first first draft of the. | 00:05:55 | |
RFP that available that you guys could review, give some feedback and then come back in a month for the regularly scheduled May | 00:06:04 | |
meeting and finalize that RFP and get it out to bid so. | 00:06:09 | |
What a couple things that I've updated are on the on this agenda item and then also on the Climate web web page, the Climate | 00:06:17 | |
Committee web page, cityofbg.org/climate. | 00:06:22 | |
I put up a list of Pacific Grove climate action and adaptation planning related documents, and then I've also put up links to. | 00:06:27 | |
A handful of regional. | 00:06:37 | |
Climate action and adaptation planning plans. | 00:06:39 | |
So if you didn't, if you probably saw it on this agenda item, but then also this is available to the public and will stay up. | 00:06:42 | |
And by number means, is this a comprehensive list? So if anyone has suggestions or things they'd like to see added, I'm open to | 00:06:49 | |
suggestions. | 00:06:53 | |
But it has a lot of the city documents that not necessarily have been named as climate documents or climate action documents, but | 00:06:57 | |
really kind of fit into the Venn diagram with a climate action or adaptation plan. You know, the city's general plan, which is of | 00:07:03 | |
course any climate action plan is going to have to. | 00:07:08 | |
Fit into the. | 00:07:14 | |
Cities Climate change vulnerability assessment that was completed in 2015. | 00:07:16 | |
And I think one thing that we're going to have to decide as we move forward with this is if that vulnerability assessment is | 00:07:21 | |
adequate or if you know with the, the, you know, the years since it was completed, if it needs much updating or how much updating | 00:07:26 | |
is necessary. | 00:07:30 | |
And then of course, those local coastal program. | 00:07:36 | |
The Pacific Grove shoreline management plan. | 00:07:39 | |
The draft community wide greenhouse gas inventory report that we received from Ambag in 2020. | 00:07:42 | |
And the community wildlife protection plan that was completed recently. | 00:07:50 | |
By the Monterey Fire Department. | 00:07:53 | |
For the Tri-City area that shares the fire department services Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel. | 00:07:56 | |
And then also a list of. | 00:08:02 | |
Climate action plan websites that have the plans and also other supporting documents and kind of you can get a glimpse into the | 00:08:06 | |
process that these cities and counties went through. | 00:08:10 | |
And you know a number of these have been mentioned by speakers and kind of have been referenced at a lot of our meetings and | 00:08:15 | |
discussions. So I think all of these documents and all of these plans are really good for all of us involved to kind of. | 00:08:22 | |
Brush up on and to become familiar with. | 00:08:29 | |
And the public also. | 00:08:32 | |
So the draft that is attached. | 00:08:35 | |
Tonight is meant to solicit a consultant to support the development and adoption of a Climate action and Adaptation plan. | 00:08:39 | |
And one of the things that was mentioned at the last meeting. | 00:08:46 | |
By Councilmember Colletti was that. | 00:08:49 | |
We could utilize A consultant not just to develop and write the plan, but also to kind of guide the process. So I think through by | 00:08:54 | |
issuing this RFP and. | 00:09:00 | |
Once we find a consultant, they're not just going to write the plan, they're going to work with us to kind of tailor the plan to | 00:09:05 | |
what we. | 00:09:09 | |
Want it to be and what we. | 00:09:12 | |
And like I said, the committee requested an opportunity to review a draft for IV Black and then review a second, maybe a hopefully | 00:09:16 | |
a final draft. | 00:09:20 | |
Following at next month's meeting, so I'm hoping that with the feedback we can put, I can refine what we have and hopefully after | 00:09:26 | |
next, after May's meeting, we can post this and get the ball moving. | 00:09:32 | |
So I don't know if you guys have any questions or if you guys want to move into the discussion or I do have the the draft RFP on | 00:09:40 | |
my computer too, if you'd like me to share that if anyone needs to look at certain sections of it or I. | 00:09:46 | |
Yeah. Thank you. | 00:09:52 | |
All right. Thank you so much for that and for pulling all that information together. Obviously, in three days I did not have a | 00:09:55 | |
chance to read all of that, but that will give us something to really read for the next time. But what I do want to do now is open | 00:09:59 | |
public comment for this item. | 00:10:04 | |
As well please. | 00:10:09 | |
We have no hands raised in the virtual audience. | 00:10:18 | |
Then in that case, open it to committee and discussion. | 00:10:22 | |
Yes, thank you for pulling all the documentation. I know you said you were looking for suggestions as well. And just thinking | 00:10:27 | |
about the earlier public comment that we received from Miss Johnny, we could also add the most recent tree survey that I think was | 00:10:31 | |
done in 2015. | 00:10:36 | |
Um, but I could be mistaken on the year, but that'd be helpful. | 00:10:41 | |
And then maybe guide us to think about, since it's been nearly a decade since we've done that, to do another. | 00:10:45 | |
I have a question and that is, do you think 100,000 is enough for this survey? | 00:11:03 | |
In the completion of the. | 00:11:07 | |
RFP. | 00:11:10 | |
Any member written. | 00:11:11 | |
That's a tricky question because I think like we've explored in past meetings. | 00:11:15 | |
A lot of these climate action and adaptation planning plans aren't necessarily, you know, one-size-fits-all for different cities | 00:11:19 | |
or municipalities. And I think a lot of that will depend on what exactly we want from this consultant. | 00:11:26 | |
And I think when we first looked into this and looked at comparable costs, we kind of thought it would be in the neighborhood of | 00:11:34 | |
75 to $80,000. | 00:11:38 | |
But then as different things developed, as time went on, and, you know, with inflation and just general prices going up. | 00:11:42 | |
We also had some quotes later on when it was connected to the General plan that exceeded $100,000. | 00:11:49 | |
So I'm not, I can't say with 100% confidence. | 00:11:55 | |
That it will be enough to, but I would be hopeful that we'll get a proposal that will come in under that. | 00:12:00 | |
OK, the reason I was asking was. | 00:12:06 | |
Partly because of what you said. | 00:12:11 | |
That we would want the consultant to guide us through the process. | 00:12:13 | |
But I think. | 00:12:18 | |
I believe I, I would, I think that that is pretty a standard thing. You know, I, I think all of these. | 00:12:21 | |
Communities that utilize the consultant, if they did further their planning, it wasn't just to have them jump right in and write | 00:12:27 | |
the plan. I think part of the process is to bring the consultant in, who the consultant then works with the city, the committees | 00:12:33 | |
and the public and then, you know, formulates what they're going to do. | 00:12:40 | |
So I think a lot of times the proposal won't necessarily be just a flat. | 00:12:47 | |
Figure it'll be kind of a broken down costs with different options and then eventually we would choose those options and that's | 00:12:51 | |
what you call for I believe. | 00:12:55 | |
Yeah. | 00:13:00 | |
Thank you, George. Thanks for putting this together. I'm finally seeing the light of the big. So let me put it that way. | 00:13:07 | |
Dean. | 00:13:15 | |
Is this a template that you borrowed from somewhere to craft this RFP or so? The, the general template I borrowed from similar | 00:13:16 | |
RFPs the city has put out. So if you look back at through, you know what professional service RFP's that the city has used, a lot | 00:13:23 | |
of them look very similar. And a lot of the legal language, especially at the end was borrowed directly from that. And then a lot | 00:13:30 | |
of the language to put into that template I borrowed from similar. | 00:13:38 | |
You know, cities that. | 00:13:46 | |
Had recently put out RFPs or for the similar thing. All right, that's helpful. And I think that's useful for this committee to | 00:13:47 | |
know is because we're not just like putting paragraphs in here. So this has been done before. So we should get some similar kind | 00:13:52 | |
of response when you put this out to bed is what I'm getting at. | 00:13:58 | |
The other thing is if we want to go the route of like the consultant kind of guiding us through this, my suggestion is in the | 00:14:04 | |
evaluation criteria, maybe put an additional item to say any ideas that the consultant can toss? | 00:14:10 | |
Which will help us. | 00:14:18 | |
Really do it a better job at this one would be part of the evaluation criteria. That's where that way you know which bidders are | 00:14:20 | |
trying to go a step forward. | 00:14:24 | |
With the process the the the other thing that I. | 00:14:29 | |
At least I through. | 00:14:34 | |
I know we haven't had that many discussions, but I think this was touched upon and some of the discussions is really around | 00:14:36 | |
funding. | 00:14:39 | |
So this is just. | 00:14:43 | |
I mean, technically this is just a plan. I mean, we got to like do the steps to. | 00:14:44 | |
Take care of the plan. | 00:14:48 | |
So I would expect some kind of paragraph or something in here which says guide us through the grants process too. | 00:14:50 | |
Or provide suggestions on how the city can gain grants or grants opportunities. | 00:14:58 | |
I mean, they don't have to do the grants, but they should at least communicate to us. | 00:15:04 | |
What type of grant opportunities? | 00:15:07 | |
And when, what kind of foreseeable future what, what is going away kind of thing so, so we can expedite the process as needed. | 00:15:10 | |
Does that make sense? | 00:15:17 | |
Yes, that makes sense. OK, fantastic. And then just from a timeline perspective, you have some. | 00:15:20 | |
Aggressive dates, I would say somewhat so. | 00:15:27 | |
Are you comfortable with like, wrapping everything up in July? | 00:15:32 | |
Not not necessarily wrapping everything up and those are very tentative dates. So I did want to kind of scrutinize those a little | 00:15:36 | |
further before those would get published and then let me pull up what we had. | 00:15:41 | |
But I kind of based those dates off of if this is kind of greenlit in May. | 00:15:47 | |
And then we put out the RFP in June. | 00:15:53 | |
And then you know. | 00:15:56 | |
Expecting the response of the so the deadline for proposal proposers to submit for questions would be July, the middle of July, so | 00:15:59 | |
a month and 1/2 after that or month. | 00:16:05 | |
Followed by pretty shortly the city would respond to those questions from the proposal proposer and that same month of July and | 00:16:13 | |
then final proposals after those questions are received and responded to would be the end of July. | 00:16:19 | |
And then I. | 00:16:26 | |
A you know, about a month and so the beginning of September that the the recommendation to City Council would on what to do to | 00:16:29 | |
award that so. | 00:16:34 | |
I borrowed that kind of that rough timeline based on past RFPs. | 00:16:39 | |
And to be honest, I don't have a ton of experience or much at all on, you know. | 00:16:44 | |
Releasing RFP's and following these timelines so that based off of previous RFP's that was kind of the rough timeline that I I | 00:16:50 | |
adopted just getting bumped it out just for my benefit is. | 00:16:55 | |
By city staff, is it just you or is it more than you that will come into play here? | 00:17:00 | |
I think it'll definitely be more more than myself. | 00:17:06 | |
I think that as a staff liaison to this committee, I'll kind of be leading the charts, but I'll be doing it consulting with other | 00:17:09 | |
public works staff and also planning staff. | 00:17:13 | |
So all that I'm saying is as long as you're comfortable, I'm comfortable. Let me put it that way. And I'll make sure to talk to, | 00:17:18 | |
you know, other staff that have done more RFP's than I have and kind of reassess as we get closer to putting this out, OK? | 00:17:26 | |
And then I would say final question from me. So we talked about this 100,000 amount that is allocated right now and this is now | 00:17:34 | |
spilling into July, so. | 00:17:38 | |
Does that 100,000 carry over? So that I think that'll be slightly up to you council members. I think it was budgeted in the last | 00:17:42 | |
fiscal year and we're going to submit for it to carry over. So assuming that that doesn't get spiked by council, it will, you | 00:17:49 | |
know, I think we're going to, we're going to push that to carry over to the next year and assuming the council doesn't. | 00:17:56 | |
You know, change that, then it will. | 00:18:03 | |
OK. So essentially if we take an action which is in May. | 00:18:05 | |
Which will say we are going out to RFP with this RFP process. | 00:18:10 | |
Which is going to happen in June, which is still within the fiscal year. | 00:18:14 | |
And technically, the money needs to be at least budgeted for this effort. | 00:18:18 | |
Correct, Yeah. So it was budgeted in this current fiscal year and it'll have to be carried over into next year just like any other | 00:18:23 | |
public works project, correct. I think it's budgeted under under consulting services. | 00:18:29 | |
And but was budgeted for this particularly. | 00:18:35 | |
Let me put it all. What I'm getting at is if there's any need or desire for this committee to meet. | 00:18:38 | |
In order for those funds to be expanded. | 00:18:44 | |
Let us know. | 00:18:47 | |
Otherwise, I'll assume that everything is going to go forward. | 00:18:49 | |
All right. Thank you. That's all from my side. | 00:18:53 | |
And then one, excuse me, Chair McDonald, the one other thing I wanted to mention. | 00:18:58 | |
The language that I left in here was that is is. | 00:19:03 | |
Or the selection committee for the different proposals proposers was to have staff on that. But after I posted that and I thought | 00:19:06 | |
about it, I thought it might be more appropriate to have kind of a combination of staff and committee members. | 00:19:13 | |
So I think that's something that we should keep in mind between now and next meeting is to perhaps have a number of volunteers | 00:19:20 | |
from the committee or assigned people from the committee less than a quorum. | 00:19:25 | |
That would want to join staff on a future. | 00:19:30 | |
Selection committee of. | 00:19:34 | |
The proposers. | 00:19:36 | |
Nothing like to be on that. And then the one other thing I wanted to mention is that this doesn't mention any specifics about | 00:19:42 | |
exactly where we want to go. And one thing that question that's come up in a lot of our past discussions is whether we want this | 00:19:47 | |
plan to be sequel qualified or not. | 00:19:52 | |
And I think in general what my understanding is that for the most part when you get a consultant on board. | 00:19:59 | |
Their kind of general template and framework is to go sequel qualified. I think that's just kind of the standard. So I think we | 00:20:05 | |
should be aware that most of these proposals are going to come in probably suggesting that and pushing us towards that. And it's | 00:20:11 | |
going to be up to us as a committee to kind of guide it away from that if that's what we want or? | 00:20:18 | |
Guided towards that, if that's what we want. | 00:20:25 | |
Could you please describe the difference between what that would look like? I'm assuming there would be a cost difference because | 00:20:29 | |
it would be more complex to go through the secret process, but would there be advantages and disadvantages that you know of? | 00:20:34 | |
So I think that. | 00:20:40 | |
I'm not 100. This is still something that seems to elude me a little bit, but my understanding is that a sequel Qualified Climate | 00:20:42 | |
Action Plan meets the requirements of the secret guidelines, specifically section 15183.5 B. | 00:20:49 | |
And the key advantage is that it streamlines the greenhouse gas analysis of new development projects. | 00:20:56 | |
That are subject to environmental review. So like if we have a big development. | 00:21:04 | |
And part of their. | 00:21:08 | |
Environmental Review. | 00:21:10 | |
Is going in part of the sequel requirements for their environmental review is going to include a greenhouse gas? | 00:21:13 | |
Study by being in a city that has a secret qualified climate action plan, they can kind of. | 00:21:18 | |
Use that data to help get their. | 00:21:25 | |
Analysis. | 00:21:28 | |
And then I think the there's different opinions on how much that matters for a city or for a climate action plan to be sequa | 00:21:30 | |
qualified for things like getting grants where I think in the past when not a lot of cities had climate action plans, I think that | 00:21:37 | |
if you were one of the few. | 00:21:43 | |
Cities that were kind of ahead of the curve and already had one and it was sequel qualified, you could use that to your advantage | 00:21:50 | |
to get grants. But then we have heard from speakers and other people that that advantage is really not there anymore. And now they | 00:21:55 | |
aren't giving kind of preferential treatment to cities that have these plans and are sequel qualified. They're more looking at | 00:22:01 | |
other factors. So I think that some of the advantages of having a sequel qualified plan. | 00:22:06 | |
Aren't as big as they might have been five years ago or 10 years ago. And that's that's kind of based off of what we heard from | 00:22:13 | |
mostly from. | 00:22:17 | |
The staff person from the city of Watsonville who kind of looking back at their experience of creating a sequel qualified plan and | 00:22:22 | |
then looking at other regional cities kind of had, you know, had. | 00:22:28 | |
Questioned what would have been the most advantageous. | 00:22:36 | |
I think it's definitely a question we'd want answered from the proposals and. | 00:23:14 | |
I'll have to consult with other consult with other staff to see if it's a how to appropriately put it into the RFP or if that's | 00:23:19 | |
maybe something more appropriate for later on in the. | 00:23:24 | |
Selection process and the kind of just the collaborative process once we have a consultant selected. | 00:23:29 | |
And part of the reason I ask is because different consultants might price that out differently. So if we've already chosen A | 00:23:36 | |
consultant, we might not have the benefit of seeing the differentiation across all of the different consultants. So that might be | 00:23:41 | |
an advantage of having that visibility in the initial process. So it's definitely something that I'm willing to look into kind of | 00:23:46 | |
other RFP's and other. | 00:23:51 | |
Kind of see it, try and strategize on how to work that in as a question at some point. That'd be great. Thank you. | 00:23:57 | |
Yeah. No, that that's a very valid point because the cost difference could be important. It does. And this is just for | 00:24:06 | |
clarification because I don't know if it's more a sequa. | 00:24:11 | |
I guess qualified plan, is that what would be considered more traditional? I know you mentioned the non traditional versus | 00:24:17 | |
traditional. Yeah, I think, I think the word I remember hearing and maybe I misspoke, but it was conventional or non conventional, | 00:24:21 | |
but kind of in the same idea, yeah. | 00:24:26 | |
I think usually a sequel qualified plan would be a conventional plan and then non sequel qualified as non conventional. | 00:24:32 | |
And does anybody know what a non conventional plan looks like? I think that it can look like. | 00:24:40 | |
They can any number of things, you know, I think, I don't think there's any. | 00:24:46 | |
It has been, you know. | 00:24:50 | |
By definition non conventional. | 00:24:52 | |
It kind of. You can tailor tailor make it to whatever you'd like. | 00:24:55 | |
Sorry, I was going to say didn't. | 00:25:00 | |
Then the guy from Watsonville. | 00:25:02 | |
Some suggested nontraditional plan. He did. He did. I think he said he wished they'd done that in retrospect. So they don't | 00:25:05 | |
currently have a non traditional plan. Do I remember that correctly? | 00:25:11 | |
OK. So I think that's a really strong endorsement for maybe not going the traditional secret route, not only because it would | 00:25:19 | |
maybe cost more money, but because it doesn't seem to maybe make sense in these times since there's already so many guidance and | 00:25:26 | |
regulations in place that we're not having to kind of reinvent the wheel anymore. We could maybe utilize that and do something | 00:25:32 | |
more, more tailor fit to our needs. Yeah, I agree. And I think if I could or we can figure out a way to put some language. | 00:25:39 | |
Kind of leading the perspective, perspective proposers to that concept that might help to have them justify one way or the other. | 00:25:46 | |
Yeah, what what would work to our advantage, maybe just not now, but in the long term. | 00:25:53 | |
So that we don't have a week plan, for example, of five years down the road, it would really be to our advantage to be secret | 00:26:02 | |
qualified. | 00:26:05 | |
You know on On that note, does this have a timeline like for? | 00:26:10 | |
The respondent to come up with the deliverable like a year's timeline or? | 00:26:15 | |
It does not have a. It doesn't have those timelines delineated in this RFP, no. | 00:26:22 | |
But I think I would expect that any proposal from the proposers would include their timeline and then it would before we would | 00:26:28 | |
make an agreement. | 00:26:32 | |
With that proposal or any propos? | 00:26:37 | |
We would kind of negotiate that timeline or set that timeline. | 00:26:40 | |
OK. And if you want to, you can make it explicit there to say that suggests that they include a timeline with their with their | 00:26:44 | |
proposal. | 00:26:48 | |
So that we can evaluate that. | 00:26:52 | |
Along with milestones. | 00:26:56 | |
Stop by that. Agreed. And as you guys know, like Rincon is doing our housing element and Rincon had proposed a CAP kind of concept | 00:26:58 | |
too. | 00:27:03 | |
So technically, Rincon can bid, right? Absolutely. Yeah. OK. All right. Just making your work. | 00:27:10 | |
That seems from the last meeting that. | 00:27:18 | |
We really didn't know what. We just really had no idea where we were going and that the hiring of the consultant was going to be | 00:27:22 | |
more advisory. | 00:27:26 | |
Unless jumping right into a plan, you know, whether we focus on adaptation or you know what we focus on. So. | 00:27:31 | |
I'm just curious. And then you said that. | 00:27:39 | |
That this RFP as drafted is probably going to elicit responses more along the the. | 00:27:43 | |
Conventional. | 00:27:49 | |
So I wonder, are we going to get all of our base questions answered? | 00:27:51 | |
In this RFPD believe. | 00:27:57 | |
So I think what I was trying to say with whether this I think anytime that we solicit. | 00:28:03 | |
Consultants. | 00:28:10 | |
Consultants are going to default to a conventional plan. Mm-hmm. Because I think that is by far the most common type of plans. So | 00:28:11 | |
I think anytime a consultant looks at what's been done in the past or what they've done in the past. | 00:28:17 | |
Chances are those were conventional plans and I think most of the time the non conventional plans were mostly authored in house my | 00:28:23 | |
understanding. | 00:28:27 | |
So I think by going this way with a consultant, we are kind of leaning in that direction and I think it's going to take some. | 00:28:33 | |
Like almost intervention from us or if that's really what we want to avoid. | 00:28:41 | |
Then it's going to take, you know, us kind of being vocal about that and intent on that. | 00:28:46 | |
And the consultants, you know, the consultants are going to hopefully come with quite a bit more experience on this topic than any | 00:28:54 | |
of us and they might have a good case to make. | 00:28:58 | |
Or the conventional plan? Mm-hmm. | 00:29:04 | |
Do we know of any consultants that have developed non conventional plans that we could invite to specifically apply? | 00:29:08 | |
I am not aware of. That's something I'd be happy to look into. I think that the. | 00:29:17 | |
Yeah, I'm not. So that's not a question I'm prepared to answer. | 00:29:24 | |
I'm just thinking that might be something useful to look into because somebody who has done unconventional plans in the past may | 00:29:29 | |
be more likely to kind of think outside the box and look more specifically at Taylor, making them to individual city's needs. | 00:29:36 | |
Do we have examples of any local? | 00:29:44 | |
Communities that have a non conventional plan, I would have to double check, but I believe that the except for Carmel, maybe | 00:29:47 | |
Carmel, Carmel's plan is conventional, yes. They did it in house though, right? They did it with the help of two different | 00:29:54 | |
consultants. So they started it, they with a similar kind of setup as we have with a climate committee and then the climate | 00:30:00 | |
committee with staff first wrote their vulnerability assessment and then they brought in one consultant group that did their | 00:30:06 | |
climate action plan. | 00:30:12 | |
They've got included as an appendix to their climate adaptation plan that was written by another consultant and those consultants | 00:30:19 | |
helped, didn't just write the plans, but also helped with their to, you know, run their meetings, do community engagement and the | 00:30:24 | |
whole process. | 00:30:28 | |
Thanks. I believe it's one of the counties, I want to say Santa Cruz County. | 00:30:34 | |
Or that has the has a non dimensional plan. | 00:30:39 | |
But don't quote me on that. | 00:30:44 | |
But there are Regent, there are an an example or two or two regionally that are non conventional and I believe that those | 00:30:46 | |
municipalities were a big enough organizations and. | 00:30:50 | |
Mostly created the plans themselves in house without a consultant. | 00:30:56 | |
OK. That's really helpful to know and. | 00:31:02 | |
Like Commissioner Myers had said that or committee member. | 00:31:06 | |
Committee, a member said. | 00:31:11 | |
I also kind of was under the impression that the idea was to get into a consultant to guide us on the path, which likely would | 00:31:15 | |
lead to writing a plan. So I would think it would be important to to make sure that. | 00:31:20 | |
Making it clear at the beginning that we are looking for somebody to guide us and what is the best option for us would be | 00:31:27 | |
beneficial because that way they're really aware that we are not married to a conventional plan. And we really want somebody who | 00:31:32 | |
will will look beyond that and let us know if that is or isn't the best option for us, why and why not. And, and I think that will | 00:31:38 | |
guide us in the best direction, especially having had information that there's buyers remorse a bit people who've gone the | 00:31:44 | |
conventional route. | 00:31:50 | |
And so anything we can do to get more information and. | 00:31:57 | |
Yeah, If I may make a suggestion, I think any items like this, we can technically put it as part of the evaluation criteria. So | 00:32:37 | |
the evaluation criteria can state. | 00:32:41 | |
What is your approach towards developing this plan? Are you going with a conventional approach or non conventional approach? | 00:32:46 | |
Provide us the pros and cons. | 00:32:51 | |
And similarly milestones or low cost, whatever be the case, that can be your evaluation criteria since we're involving staff and | 00:32:57 | |
and a committee set here. | 00:33:01 | |
We can examine that thoroughly and, say, decide what we want to do at that point in time. | 00:33:06 | |
But I'm pretty sure the consultants know both approaches is just that how How will they tackle both in the context of Pacific | 00:33:11 | |
Grove? That is to be TBD kind of thing. | 00:33:17 | |
That makes sense. Yeah, I think that that sounds like a good idea. Yeah. So anything that, you know, kind of flushes out that we | 00:33:23 | |
are looking to potentially lean on conventional, I think would help because we would be more likely to get somebody to go that | 00:33:28 | |
route because they're probably very used to writing proposals where everybody's looking for conventional. So we're going to lead | 00:33:33 | |
that direction. It may not really occur to them to give us more of that outside of the box thinking that they might have going in | 00:33:39 | |
on conventional route. | 00:33:44 | |
That kind of leads into the grants too because that's my biggest concern with non conventional. | 00:33:50 | |
I think we talked about that after the Watsonville meeting, but. | 00:33:57 | |
So just, I think it's just more information. We just need a lot of information. | 00:34:03 | |
Which would come up in. | 00:34:13 | |
The course of your discussions with people, making their submissions and then asking them questions and the questions back and | 00:34:17 | |
forth, right? | 00:34:20 | |
Commissioner Myers, I think so. I think getting the, getting this RFP out and getting proposals in, we'll start to answer some of | 00:34:24 | |
those questions and we'll probably find. | 00:34:28 | |
Out and find more questions that we didn't even know. Yeah. | 00:34:33 | |
That's usually the case exactly, yeah. | 00:34:38 | |
And it sounds like that will give us a really robust evaluation process so we better understand what's best for the city. | 00:34:41 | |
And knowing that the evaluation process is going to be robust, I suggest not two days for that little timeline, maybe put a window | 00:34:47 | |
in there so that we are able, first of all, we need to find our own schedules to match with staff schedules and et cetera. | 00:34:54 | |
So maybe give some cushion there. | 00:35:03 | |
Thank you. Understood. | 00:35:04 | |
Anybody with any other discussion points on this topic? I know we'll be bringing it back next month to discuss it more fully to | 00:35:09 | |
get a second review of this. And I'm, I'm guessing too, that that will give us more time to read all the materials that, that | 00:35:15 | |
George so wonderfully put together for us. And if and if in the meantime people have further comments or feedback, I'm always | 00:35:21 | |
available phone calls or e-mail or if you'd like to meet. | 00:35:27 | |
I'm here. | 00:35:34 | |
Right. Because I think if we notice things in the meanwhile based on our discussion today feed that directly to to you that would | 00:35:36 | |
make the most sense and then you would have that information to pull together for the the meeting next month on the agenda, | 00:35:40 | |
correct, Correct. | 00:35:44 | |
That would be great. I know I tried. Thank you for the links too to the other counties and cities. I know I was able to open a | 00:35:50 | |
couple of them. I had trouble with a few opening but I don't know if that was my own Internet or computer not allowing me. So we | 00:35:55 | |
may want to double check the links. | 00:35:59 | |
That were provided. | 00:36:05 | |
Yeah. And I was able, I think I was able to download. I didn't try to count any ones yet. Actually I ran out of time, so. | 00:36:07 | |
OK. So yeah, but I think that that's a good resource and but none of the ones you sent us that you're certain of were non | 00:36:13 | |
conventional plans, correct? | 00:36:18 | |
One of the counties, possibly one of the counties, I believe that the county of Santa Cruz, but I want to double check on that so | 00:36:23 | |
I can look into that and respond to the group. | 00:36:27 | |
With a better answer because I think that would help us to maybe key in because there's so many to read and they're on very many | 00:36:32 | |
pages. So if we knew that, OK, here's a good example of a non conventional. | 00:36:38 | |
That we could at least look to and get an idea for. How does that look different than the conventional? That kind of helps us. | 00:36:44 | |
With our future discussions, I think because we'll have a better perspective of what that looks like. | 00:36:50 | |
Yeah, the comparison piece. Yeah, exactly. | 00:36:55 | |
And I think we had talked at one of our long ago meetings that Carmel may be more similar to us than some of the others because of | 00:36:58 | |
the similar coastal aspects to us. And so I think that one and maybe a non conventional one may be really good starting points for | 00:37:03 | |
us. | 00:37:08 | |
As far as reviewing. | 00:37:14 | |
Sounds great. | 00:37:16 | |
Anything else you feel that we need to cover in our discussion today? | 00:37:18 | |
I don't think so. I think if we kind of all kind of spend the next month to review those documents and regional plans. | 00:37:22 | |
And then we can plan to come back in May and I think we're working on a potential speaker for May, so having a speaker for that | 00:37:30 | |
meeting as a regular meeting. | 00:37:34 | |
And then also to review a second draft, maybe a final draft of the RFP. | 00:37:38 | |
We can move forward like that. | 00:37:44 | |
OK. And kind of on that note, if we don't have anything else on this item, what I can do is close this item and go to item 7, | 00:37:46 | |
which is next meeting. And I don't know if technically we need to take public comment on the next meeting item, but it's an item | 00:37:50 | |
on the agenda, so I would presume that we should. | 00:37:55 | |
I don't know. I don't think you're welcome to. I don't think we need to. But if you'd like to, OK, I can open it up just in case | 00:38:00 | |
if anybody out there in video land that has a comment regarding next meeting. | 00:38:06 | |
The floor is yours, Lisa. Hi is. Can you hear me? | 00:38:13 | |
'Cause I have, Oh, you can hear me. | 00:38:21 | |
OK, All right. So my, my comments are totally unprepared today because I I wasn't able to just jump on this, but I think it's | 00:38:24 | |
great that you're planning to meet next month. | 00:38:31 | |
One thing considering there's so much that needs to be understood about this is there is the option because we well, our new city | 00:38:39 | |
manager doesn't start until May 6th, but he he has a. | 00:38:48 | |
Bachelor's degree in geography and and with a concentration in environmental planning and analysis. So he he might. | 00:38:57 | |
Have some? | 00:39:11 | |
Good perspective on this and in any case, and he has lots of experience in planning and city management. | 00:39:12 | |
The city allows. | 00:39:22 | |
The city manager to have a I forget what the spending authority something that's under $50,000. It doesn't have to go through City | 00:39:25 | |
Council and so you could you know, there's the option of hiring somebody on a much. | 00:39:35 | |
Smaller scale just on the in the advisory role this friend well and even with the historical consultant for. | 00:39:45 | |
The NOAA building that that that contract is just $16,000. | 00:39:56 | |
So it's possible that you could. | 00:40:03 | |
Get more on board with with what you think you need if you go that route and and I would think that the. | 00:40:07 | |
Planning Director, the CDD director Karen Vaughn. | 00:40:16 | |
Might also be more experienced in in. | 00:40:22 | |
RFPs because. | 00:40:27 | |
Public Works does so many of our RFPs, but they're all for CIP kind of projects, they're all. | 00:40:30 | |
Not for this kind of planning. And in fact they got really bogged down when they tried to do the archaeological resources one. So | 00:40:36 | |
anyway, those are just things that. | 00:40:41 | |
George may already be planning to do or may be aware of, but I thought that would be great. And then. | 00:40:48 | |
Maybe at you would put on the agenda for your next meeting to create a subcommittee, because I mean, you can only have two people. | 00:40:54 | |
But you need to have it on the agenda before. So it's like today, even though you may know you want a subcommittee, you can't do | 00:41:04 | |
it today. But just just some thoughts from my observations from what what's going on. Thank you so much. | 00:41:12 | |
No further hands. | 00:41:24 | |
All right. Well that was very helpful and then any other? | 00:41:27 | |
Any comments on that? | 00:41:33 | |
You know, that actually does make an an interesting point and I'm wondering if. | 00:41:35 | |
So we're we're kind of like going almost big package. I don't do you remember what Rincon's came in As for that just the CI. I | 00:41:43 | |
could have sworn they came back with something else on another bid that we asked them for that ended up being so much larger than | 00:41:48 | |
their initial bid that my concern is that might be the case with climate action, but I don't remember what they're. | 00:41:53 | |
Yeah. So we're already talking way over what we were anticipating. | 00:42:01 | |
Potentially. | 00:42:05 | |
And I think as their bids evolved with different timelines and different things, the cost for the Climate Action and Adaptation | 00:42:06 | |
Planning add-on grew. | 00:42:10 | |
So I think they're the first bit I saw from them was in the $85,000 neighborhood, but then like the second and third bit I saw | 00:42:14 | |
were over 100,000 approaching 150,000. | 00:42:19 | |
OK. Yeah. And so I guess what I'm wondering is as we're talking for the. | 00:42:25 | |
Next meeting agenda and then when that will be? | 00:42:31 | |
Wouldn't make sense to. | 00:42:35 | |
Consider the possibility of getting it as a two stage process, a consultant first and then expanding that into because that was | 00:42:38 | |
sort of my question earlier but it wasn't quite. | 00:42:42 | |
Sure. How to formulate it at the time, since we kind of were talking bigger RFP, does it make sense? | 00:42:48 | |
Part of that process to. | 00:42:53 | |
Do it as a two stage process. Start with the consulting and then add in for the consulting. Are we less likely to get bids that | 00:42:56 | |
way would you think? | 00:42:59 | |
I don't feel prepared to answer that question. It's not something that I've explored in depth. | 00:43:05 | |
Yeah, no worries. I just kind of wanted to throw it out there as kind of a thinking point because it will be relevant for the | 00:43:10 | |
meeting for next month. | 00:43:14 | |
And so. | 00:43:19 | |
I'm not sure how that would work as far as writing an RFP specifically though. Yeah, my suggestion is I think. | 00:43:20 | |
More or less like all of these plans, Like I've looked at quite a few of them more as they look similar. It doesn't like there's | 00:43:25 | |
not rocket science to like develop something incredibly different. | 00:43:30 | |
My suggestion is, I think it's a great suggestion from Mr. Gianni that the city manager is here. I think it's important for us to, | 00:43:36 | |
at least in the time window that he's here between 6th and 16th or whatever, just at least have a chat with him to see what his | 00:43:42 | |
views are and perhaps we can invite him to this call. | 00:43:47 | |
So that he can attend and he can provide his views. | 00:43:53 | |
And that way we can be directed as to what what we need to do next. And he's part of Marina, he's already knows the Marina kind of | 00:43:56 | |
climate action, etc. That'll be helpful. Indeed. There's a limit 40,000. She's correct. So there's a limit 40,000 up to 40,000. | 00:44:03 | |
So 39999.99. | 00:44:12 | |
That he's authorized to. | 00:44:14 | |
Provide money for. | 00:44:17 | |
I think with the series of steps that we have taken, I think we're at a good point already. | 00:44:19 | |
And if we're doing as George is suggesting, we should be able to get there. But I think taking Matt's opinion doesn't hurt. And so | 00:44:24 | |
let us do that and maybe we can come prepared for the May 16th and invite him to my suggestion. So. | 00:44:31 | |
Yeah, that makes a lot of. | 00:44:39 | |
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I think that that might give us more insight into whether it makes sense to do it as | 00:44:42 | |
sort of a tiered approach to doing the consulting first, decide which direction we want to go and then solicit an RFP that more | 00:44:46 | |
directly addresses on the direction that makes sense for us. But I again, I don't know how that would impact applicants for an RFP | 00:44:51 | |
so. | 00:44:55 | |
I know that probably doesn't give you great guidance on, I understand the question. I just, I don't have a well thought out answer | 00:45:02 | |
for you. Yeah, no, no, I wouldn't expect that on the spot. More just kind of like us thinking and like trying to think about like | 00:45:09 | |
what are good next steps. So maybe even a way to address both options that might like, I don't know if you could do the RFP as | 00:45:15 | |
like 2 parts, one for the consulting phase and then the second-half as the development phase type thing. So. | 00:45:22 | |
OK, yeah, I was thinking more like an informal thing. So I'm going to connect with Matt at some point, I think. So I'm pretty sure | 00:46:03 | |
George is definitely going to connect. So I think we'll have some feedback before the May 16 meeting. I don't think we need to | 00:46:08 | |
wait till May 16th to get this done. | 00:46:14 | |
So it can be an informal call or chat. | 00:46:21 | |
What do you think? | 00:46:25 | |
Like you said, I definitely plan to include the CDD director and the new city manager in the this discussion and I I think it'll | 00:46:27 | |
start informally, definitely. | 00:46:31 | |
OK. So hopefully we've given you enough guidance on our thoughts and the direction we think would be useful to kind of put that | 00:46:37 | |
together as if it needs any modifications or or what the new city manager might recommend if that should be A2 staged approach or | 00:46:41 | |
something like that. | 00:46:45 | |
I think so. I think so. I agree. | 00:46:51 | |
OK, great. | 00:46:54 | |
Well, that being done, then I would move for adjournment. | 00:46:56 | |
And thank you very much. | 00:47:00 | |
And see you guys on May 16th, 2024 at 4:00 PM. | 00:47:03 | |
Thank you everyone. | 00:47:08 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
So quickly it is 4:00 PM and this is the April 18th, 2024 meeting of the Climate App. | 00:00:00 | |
Climate action and adaptation. Brown Act Committee. | 00:00:08 | |
I believe it is. | 00:00:13 | |
And currently all members are present except I. | 00:00:16 | |
Coletti. | 00:00:20 | |
And so we have a quorum. | 00:00:22 | |
And I guess the 1st. | 00:00:24 | |
Action is the approval of the agenda. | 00:00:27 | |
If somebody would like to make a motion. | 00:00:30 | |
A second, all right, and a vote. | 00:00:34 | |
All in favor. | 00:00:38 | |
Aye. | 00:00:39 | |
And he knows. | 00:00:41 | |
Right. Thank you very much. | 00:00:43 | |
So. | 00:00:49 | |
Next is subcommittee and staff announcements on city related items. | 00:00:52 | |
Probably start with staff announcements. | 00:00:58 | |
Chair McDonald, no announcements this evening. Thank you. OK, thank you. And do we have any other committee announcements? | 00:01:02 | |
All right. Thank you very much. | 00:01:11 | |
So now we will open to general public comment if we have any general public attending. | 00:01:14 | |
I don't see anybody in person and there's nobody. | 00:01:22 | |
And stand corrected. | 00:01:25 | |
We have one hand raised in the virtual audience. I'll open the floor to Lisa Johnny. | 00:01:26 | |
Thank you. It's it's great to see you guys meeting again. | 00:01:34 | |
And I only just wanted to say something that. | 00:01:40 | |
I I don't quite understand if it's it. | 00:01:44 | |
In your. | 00:01:47 | |
Jurisdiction. That's not the word I went. | 00:01:50 | |
Just the concept. | 00:01:54 | |
Of, to me, climate. | 00:01:57 | |
Means we want trees. | 00:02:00 | |
And yet the City Council two years ago and the Coastal Commission just now, just last week, have approved a project that's | 00:02:02 | |
removing. | 00:02:09 | |
The entire tree canopy of a property. The Coastal Commission was only interested in the big statewide issues because I think | 00:02:16 | |
largely because they are so underfunded right now, they they can't deal with it, but we as a community need to take care of. | 00:02:26 | |
Our our own resources in the Coastal Commission. So I. | 00:02:36 | |
You know, I, I'm just hoping that we're going to see some changes that will not allow such. | 00:02:43 | |
An incredible destruction of. | 00:02:50 | |
Resources trees that we need. | 00:02:55 | |
The Monterey Audubon wrote a wonderful letter that didn't get to get read into the. | 00:02:58 | |
At the Coastal Commission because they cut off public comment when there were still 37 people waiting to to comment. | 00:03:05 | |
But. | 00:03:13 | |
That kind of destruction of trees, they're not even. | 00:03:16 | |
Keeping the Monterey Cypress at the corner where they're putting a park. Now they're taking out all of them so. | 00:03:20 | |
Anyway, as you. | 00:03:28 | |
As you work on these big issues, I hope that that will be something that. | 00:03:30 | |
Eventually gets addressed and and I'm. | 00:03:38 | |
You know our harbour seals are are yet. | 00:03:44 | |
A concern but but in terms of climate action, the one thing we can do is take care of our tree canopy. | 00:03:49 | |
So. | 00:03:59 | |
Anyway, thank you all for being on this committee and I look forward to. | 00:04:01 | |
The all the developments. Thank you. | 00:04:09 | |
No further hands raised at this time. | 00:04:17 | |
All right. Thank you. Then I will close public comment and now. | 00:04:20 | |
I guess technically I did the. | 00:04:26 | |
That was the approval of the agenda. Now we'll be doing approval of the actual. | 00:04:27 | |
Minutes from last time, technically. That I guess is on the. | 00:04:32 | |
Now since we don't have it listed as separate as regular and consent agenda and it's the only item, I guess it makes sense to just | 00:04:37 | |
approve the minutes in particular. | 00:04:41 | |
Anybody like to make a motion? I make a motion to approve. | 00:04:47 | |
Second. All right, those in favor. | 00:04:50 | |
Aye, any opposed? | 00:04:54 | |
All right, motion carries 6. | 00:04:57 | |
01. | 00:04:59 | |
501 Sorry, keep forgetting, there's only six of us. | 00:05:01 | |
All right. | 00:05:07 | |
And the next item on the agenda? | 00:05:08 | |
Is I want to make sure I read or write a. | 00:05:11 | |
So on our regular agenda item 6A is climate action adaptation planning, RFP concept review. And so Mr. First, would you like to | 00:05:16 | |
give us the. | 00:05:22 | |
Committee members. | 00:05:29 | |
Sure, Donald. | 00:05:32 | |
At the last Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Committee, and I'm just going to say climate committee is kind of shorthand | 00:05:35 | |
here and the request was to come back at this and we're still kind of finding our footing with our scheduling that originally was | 00:05:40 | |
going to be quarterly every three months, but we've kind of wavered a little bit with different membership. And so this was kind | 00:05:44 | |
of a special meeting. | 00:05:49 | |
Two months after the last meeting and the idea was to come back with a kind of draft or a first first draft of the. | 00:05:55 | |
RFP that available that you guys could review, give some feedback and then come back in a month for the regularly scheduled May | 00:06:04 | |
meeting and finalize that RFP and get it out to bid so. | 00:06:09 | |
What a couple things that I've updated are on the on this agenda item and then also on the Climate web web page, the Climate | 00:06:17 | |
Committee web page, cityofbg.org/climate. | 00:06:22 | |
I put up a list of Pacific Grove climate action and adaptation planning related documents, and then I've also put up links to. | 00:06:27 | |
A handful of regional. | 00:06:37 | |
Climate action and adaptation planning plans. | 00:06:39 | |
So if you didn't, if you probably saw it on this agenda item, but then also this is available to the public and will stay up. | 00:06:42 | |
And by number means, is this a comprehensive list? So if anyone has suggestions or things they'd like to see added, I'm open to | 00:06:49 | |
suggestions. | 00:06:53 | |
But it has a lot of the city documents that not necessarily have been named as climate documents or climate action documents, but | 00:06:57 | |
really kind of fit into the Venn diagram with a climate action or adaptation plan. You know, the city's general plan, which is of | 00:07:03 | |
course any climate action plan is going to have to. | 00:07:08 | |
Fit into the. | 00:07:14 | |
Cities Climate change vulnerability assessment that was completed in 2015. | 00:07:16 | |
And I think one thing that we're going to have to decide as we move forward with this is if that vulnerability assessment is | 00:07:21 | |
adequate or if you know with the, the, you know, the years since it was completed, if it needs much updating or how much updating | 00:07:26 | |
is necessary. | 00:07:30 | |
And then of course, those local coastal program. | 00:07:36 | |
The Pacific Grove shoreline management plan. | 00:07:39 | |
The draft community wide greenhouse gas inventory report that we received from Ambag in 2020. | 00:07:42 | |
And the community wildlife protection plan that was completed recently. | 00:07:50 | |
By the Monterey Fire Department. | 00:07:53 | |
For the Tri-City area that shares the fire department services Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel. | 00:07:56 | |
And then also a list of. | 00:08:02 | |
Climate action plan websites that have the plans and also other supporting documents and kind of you can get a glimpse into the | 00:08:06 | |
process that these cities and counties went through. | 00:08:10 | |
And you know a number of these have been mentioned by speakers and kind of have been referenced at a lot of our meetings and | 00:08:15 | |
discussions. So I think all of these documents and all of these plans are really good for all of us involved to kind of. | 00:08:22 | |
Brush up on and to become familiar with. | 00:08:29 | |
And the public also. | 00:08:32 | |
So the draft that is attached. | 00:08:35 | |
Tonight is meant to solicit a consultant to support the development and adoption of a Climate action and Adaptation plan. | 00:08:39 | |
And one of the things that was mentioned at the last meeting. | 00:08:46 | |
By Councilmember Colletti was that. | 00:08:49 | |
We could utilize A consultant not just to develop and write the plan, but also to kind of guide the process. So I think through by | 00:08:54 | |
issuing this RFP and. | 00:09:00 | |
Once we find a consultant, they're not just going to write the plan, they're going to work with us to kind of tailor the plan to | 00:09:05 | |
what we. | 00:09:09 | |
Want it to be and what we. | 00:09:12 | |
And like I said, the committee requested an opportunity to review a draft for IV Black and then review a second, maybe a hopefully | 00:09:16 | |
a final draft. | 00:09:20 | |
Following at next month's meeting, so I'm hoping that with the feedback we can put, I can refine what we have and hopefully after | 00:09:26 | |
next, after May's meeting, we can post this and get the ball moving. | 00:09:32 | |
So I don't know if you guys have any questions or if you guys want to move into the discussion or I do have the the draft RFP on | 00:09:40 | |
my computer too, if you'd like me to share that if anyone needs to look at certain sections of it or I. | 00:09:46 | |
Yeah. Thank you. | 00:09:52 | |
All right. Thank you so much for that and for pulling all that information together. Obviously, in three days I did not have a | 00:09:55 | |
chance to read all of that, but that will give us something to really read for the next time. But what I do want to do now is open | 00:09:59 | |
public comment for this item. | 00:10:04 | |
As well please. | 00:10:09 | |
We have no hands raised in the virtual audience. | 00:10:18 | |
Then in that case, open it to committee and discussion. | 00:10:22 | |
Yes, thank you for pulling all the documentation. I know you said you were looking for suggestions as well. And just thinking | 00:10:27 | |
about the earlier public comment that we received from Miss Johnny, we could also add the most recent tree survey that I think was | 00:10:31 | |
done in 2015. | 00:10:36 | |
Um, but I could be mistaken on the year, but that'd be helpful. | 00:10:41 | |
And then maybe guide us to think about, since it's been nearly a decade since we've done that, to do another. | 00:10:45 | |
I have a question and that is, do you think 100,000 is enough for this survey? | 00:11:03 | |
In the completion of the. | 00:11:07 | |
RFP. | 00:11:10 | |
Any member written. | 00:11:11 | |
That's a tricky question because I think like we've explored in past meetings. | 00:11:15 | |
A lot of these climate action and adaptation planning plans aren't necessarily, you know, one-size-fits-all for different cities | 00:11:19 | |
or municipalities. And I think a lot of that will depend on what exactly we want from this consultant. | 00:11:26 | |
And I think when we first looked into this and looked at comparable costs, we kind of thought it would be in the neighborhood of | 00:11:34 | |
75 to $80,000. | 00:11:38 | |
But then as different things developed, as time went on, and, you know, with inflation and just general prices going up. | 00:11:42 | |
We also had some quotes later on when it was connected to the General plan that exceeded $100,000. | 00:11:49 | |
So I'm not, I can't say with 100% confidence. | 00:11:55 | |
That it will be enough to, but I would be hopeful that we'll get a proposal that will come in under that. | 00:12:00 | |
OK, the reason I was asking was. | 00:12:06 | |
Partly because of what you said. | 00:12:11 | |
That we would want the consultant to guide us through the process. | 00:12:13 | |
But I think. | 00:12:18 | |
I believe I, I would, I think that that is pretty a standard thing. You know, I, I think all of these. | 00:12:21 | |
Communities that utilize the consultant, if they did further their planning, it wasn't just to have them jump right in and write | 00:12:27 | |
the plan. I think part of the process is to bring the consultant in, who the consultant then works with the city, the committees | 00:12:33 | |
and the public and then, you know, formulates what they're going to do. | 00:12:40 | |
So I think a lot of times the proposal won't necessarily be just a flat. | 00:12:47 | |
Figure it'll be kind of a broken down costs with different options and then eventually we would choose those options and that's | 00:12:51 | |
what you call for I believe. | 00:12:55 | |
Yeah. | 00:13:00 | |
Thank you, George. Thanks for putting this together. I'm finally seeing the light of the big. So let me put it that way. | 00:13:07 | |
Dean. | 00:13:15 | |
Is this a template that you borrowed from somewhere to craft this RFP or so? The, the general template I borrowed from similar | 00:13:16 | |
RFPs the city has put out. So if you look back at through, you know what professional service RFP's that the city has used, a lot | 00:13:23 | |
of them look very similar. And a lot of the legal language, especially at the end was borrowed directly from that. And then a lot | 00:13:30 | |
of the language to put into that template I borrowed from similar. | 00:13:38 | |
You know, cities that. | 00:13:46 | |
Had recently put out RFPs or for the similar thing. All right, that's helpful. And I think that's useful for this committee to | 00:13:47 | |
know is because we're not just like putting paragraphs in here. So this has been done before. So we should get some similar kind | 00:13:52 | |
of response when you put this out to bed is what I'm getting at. | 00:13:58 | |
The other thing is if we want to go the route of like the consultant kind of guiding us through this, my suggestion is in the | 00:14:04 | |
evaluation criteria, maybe put an additional item to say any ideas that the consultant can toss? | 00:14:10 | |
Which will help us. | 00:14:18 | |
Really do it a better job at this one would be part of the evaluation criteria. That's where that way you know which bidders are | 00:14:20 | |
trying to go a step forward. | 00:14:24 | |
With the process the the the other thing that I. | 00:14:29 | |
At least I through. | 00:14:34 | |
I know we haven't had that many discussions, but I think this was touched upon and some of the discussions is really around | 00:14:36 | |
funding. | 00:14:39 | |
So this is just. | 00:14:43 | |
I mean, technically this is just a plan. I mean, we got to like do the steps to. | 00:14:44 | |
Take care of the plan. | 00:14:48 | |
So I would expect some kind of paragraph or something in here which says guide us through the grants process too. | 00:14:50 | |
Or provide suggestions on how the city can gain grants or grants opportunities. | 00:14:58 | |
I mean, they don't have to do the grants, but they should at least communicate to us. | 00:15:04 | |
What type of grant opportunities? | 00:15:07 | |
And when, what kind of foreseeable future what, what is going away kind of thing so, so we can expedite the process as needed. | 00:15:10 | |
Does that make sense? | 00:15:17 | |
Yes, that makes sense. OK, fantastic. And then just from a timeline perspective, you have some. | 00:15:20 | |
Aggressive dates, I would say somewhat so. | 00:15:27 | |
Are you comfortable with like, wrapping everything up in July? | 00:15:32 | |
Not not necessarily wrapping everything up and those are very tentative dates. So I did want to kind of scrutinize those a little | 00:15:36 | |
further before those would get published and then let me pull up what we had. | 00:15:41 | |
But I kind of based those dates off of if this is kind of greenlit in May. | 00:15:47 | |
And then we put out the RFP in June. | 00:15:53 | |
And then you know. | 00:15:56 | |
Expecting the response of the so the deadline for proposal proposers to submit for questions would be July, the middle of July, so | 00:15:59 | |
a month and 1/2 after that or month. | 00:16:05 | |
Followed by pretty shortly the city would respond to those questions from the proposal proposer and that same month of July and | 00:16:13 | |
then final proposals after those questions are received and responded to would be the end of July. | 00:16:19 | |
And then I. | 00:16:26 | |
A you know, about a month and so the beginning of September that the the recommendation to City Council would on what to do to | 00:16:29 | |
award that so. | 00:16:34 | |
I borrowed that kind of that rough timeline based on past RFPs. | 00:16:39 | |
And to be honest, I don't have a ton of experience or much at all on, you know. | 00:16:44 | |
Releasing RFP's and following these timelines so that based off of previous RFP's that was kind of the rough timeline that I I | 00:16:50 | |
adopted just getting bumped it out just for my benefit is. | 00:16:55 | |
By city staff, is it just you or is it more than you that will come into play here? | 00:17:00 | |
I think it'll definitely be more more than myself. | 00:17:06 | |
I think that as a staff liaison to this committee, I'll kind of be leading the charts, but I'll be doing it consulting with other | 00:17:09 | |
public works staff and also planning staff. | 00:17:13 | |
So all that I'm saying is as long as you're comfortable, I'm comfortable. Let me put it that way. And I'll make sure to talk to, | 00:17:18 | |
you know, other staff that have done more RFP's than I have and kind of reassess as we get closer to putting this out, OK? | 00:17:26 | |
And then I would say final question from me. So we talked about this 100,000 amount that is allocated right now and this is now | 00:17:34 | |
spilling into July, so. | 00:17:38 | |
Does that 100,000 carry over? So that I think that'll be slightly up to you council members. I think it was budgeted in the last | 00:17:42 | |
fiscal year and we're going to submit for it to carry over. So assuming that that doesn't get spiked by council, it will, you | 00:17:49 | |
know, I think we're going to, we're going to push that to carry over to the next year and assuming the council doesn't. | 00:17:56 | |
You know, change that, then it will. | 00:18:03 | |
OK. So essentially if we take an action which is in May. | 00:18:05 | |
Which will say we are going out to RFP with this RFP process. | 00:18:10 | |
Which is going to happen in June, which is still within the fiscal year. | 00:18:14 | |
And technically, the money needs to be at least budgeted for this effort. | 00:18:18 | |
Correct, Yeah. So it was budgeted in this current fiscal year and it'll have to be carried over into next year just like any other | 00:18:23 | |
public works project, correct. I think it's budgeted under under consulting services. | 00:18:29 | |
And but was budgeted for this particularly. | 00:18:35 | |
Let me put it all. What I'm getting at is if there's any need or desire for this committee to meet. | 00:18:38 | |
In order for those funds to be expanded. | 00:18:44 | |
Let us know. | 00:18:47 | |
Otherwise, I'll assume that everything is going to go forward. | 00:18:49 | |
All right. Thank you. That's all from my side. | 00:18:53 | |
And then one, excuse me, Chair McDonald, the one other thing I wanted to mention. | 00:18:58 | |
The language that I left in here was that is is. | 00:19:03 | |
Or the selection committee for the different proposals proposers was to have staff on that. But after I posted that and I thought | 00:19:06 | |
about it, I thought it might be more appropriate to have kind of a combination of staff and committee members. | 00:19:13 | |
So I think that's something that we should keep in mind between now and next meeting is to perhaps have a number of volunteers | 00:19:20 | |
from the committee or assigned people from the committee less than a quorum. | 00:19:25 | |
That would want to join staff on a future. | 00:19:30 | |
Selection committee of. | 00:19:34 | |
The proposers. | 00:19:36 | |
Nothing like to be on that. And then the one other thing I wanted to mention is that this doesn't mention any specifics about | 00:19:42 | |
exactly where we want to go. And one thing that question that's come up in a lot of our past discussions is whether we want this | 00:19:47 | |
plan to be sequel qualified or not. | 00:19:52 | |
And I think in general what my understanding is that for the most part when you get a consultant on board. | 00:19:59 | |
Their kind of general template and framework is to go sequel qualified. I think that's just kind of the standard. So I think we | 00:20:05 | |
should be aware that most of these proposals are going to come in probably suggesting that and pushing us towards that. And it's | 00:20:11 | |
going to be up to us as a committee to kind of guide it away from that if that's what we want or? | 00:20:18 | |
Guided towards that, if that's what we want. | 00:20:25 | |
Could you please describe the difference between what that would look like? I'm assuming there would be a cost difference because | 00:20:29 | |
it would be more complex to go through the secret process, but would there be advantages and disadvantages that you know of? | 00:20:34 | |
So I think that. | 00:20:40 | |
I'm not 100. This is still something that seems to elude me a little bit, but my understanding is that a sequel Qualified Climate | 00:20:42 | |
Action Plan meets the requirements of the secret guidelines, specifically section 15183.5 B. | 00:20:49 | |
And the key advantage is that it streamlines the greenhouse gas analysis of new development projects. | 00:20:56 | |
That are subject to environmental review. So like if we have a big development. | 00:21:04 | |
And part of their. | 00:21:08 | |
Environmental Review. | 00:21:10 | |
Is going in part of the sequel requirements for their environmental review is going to include a greenhouse gas? | 00:21:13 | |
Study by being in a city that has a secret qualified climate action plan, they can kind of. | 00:21:18 | |
Use that data to help get their. | 00:21:25 | |
Analysis. | 00:21:28 | |
And then I think the there's different opinions on how much that matters for a city or for a climate action plan to be sequa | 00:21:30 | |
qualified for things like getting grants where I think in the past when not a lot of cities had climate action plans, I think that | 00:21:37 | |
if you were one of the few. | 00:21:43 | |
Cities that were kind of ahead of the curve and already had one and it was sequel qualified, you could use that to your advantage | 00:21:50 | |
to get grants. But then we have heard from speakers and other people that that advantage is really not there anymore. And now they | 00:21:55 | |
aren't giving kind of preferential treatment to cities that have these plans and are sequel qualified. They're more looking at | 00:22:01 | |
other factors. So I think that some of the advantages of having a sequel qualified plan. | 00:22:06 | |
Aren't as big as they might have been five years ago or 10 years ago. And that's that's kind of based off of what we heard from | 00:22:13 | |
mostly from. | 00:22:17 | |
The staff person from the city of Watsonville who kind of looking back at their experience of creating a sequel qualified plan and | 00:22:22 | |
then looking at other regional cities kind of had, you know, had. | 00:22:28 | |
Questioned what would have been the most advantageous. | 00:22:36 | |
I think it's definitely a question we'd want answered from the proposals and. | 00:23:14 | |
I'll have to consult with other consult with other staff to see if it's a how to appropriately put it into the RFP or if that's | 00:23:19 | |
maybe something more appropriate for later on in the. | 00:23:24 | |
Selection process and the kind of just the collaborative process once we have a consultant selected. | 00:23:29 | |
And part of the reason I ask is because different consultants might price that out differently. So if we've already chosen A | 00:23:36 | |
consultant, we might not have the benefit of seeing the differentiation across all of the different consultants. So that might be | 00:23:41 | |
an advantage of having that visibility in the initial process. So it's definitely something that I'm willing to look into kind of | 00:23:46 | |
other RFP's and other. | 00:23:51 | |
Kind of see it, try and strategize on how to work that in as a question at some point. That'd be great. Thank you. | 00:23:57 | |
Yeah. No, that that's a very valid point because the cost difference could be important. It does. And this is just for | 00:24:06 | |
clarification because I don't know if it's more a sequa. | 00:24:11 | |
I guess qualified plan, is that what would be considered more traditional? I know you mentioned the non traditional versus | 00:24:17 | |
traditional. Yeah, I think, I think the word I remember hearing and maybe I misspoke, but it was conventional or non conventional, | 00:24:21 | |
but kind of in the same idea, yeah. | 00:24:26 | |
I think usually a sequel qualified plan would be a conventional plan and then non sequel qualified as non conventional. | 00:24:32 | |
And does anybody know what a non conventional plan looks like? I think that it can look like. | 00:24:40 | |
They can any number of things, you know, I think, I don't think there's any. | 00:24:46 | |
It has been, you know. | 00:24:50 | |
By definition non conventional. | 00:24:52 | |
It kind of. You can tailor tailor make it to whatever you'd like. | 00:24:55 | |
Sorry, I was going to say didn't. | 00:25:00 | |
Then the guy from Watsonville. | 00:25:02 | |
Some suggested nontraditional plan. He did. He did. I think he said he wished they'd done that in retrospect. So they don't | 00:25:05 | |
currently have a non traditional plan. Do I remember that correctly? | 00:25:11 | |
OK. So I think that's a really strong endorsement for maybe not going the traditional secret route, not only because it would | 00:25:19 | |
maybe cost more money, but because it doesn't seem to maybe make sense in these times since there's already so many guidance and | 00:25:26 | |
regulations in place that we're not having to kind of reinvent the wheel anymore. We could maybe utilize that and do something | 00:25:32 | |
more, more tailor fit to our needs. Yeah, I agree. And I think if I could or we can figure out a way to put some language. | 00:25:39 | |
Kind of leading the perspective, perspective proposers to that concept that might help to have them justify one way or the other. | 00:25:46 | |
Yeah, what what would work to our advantage, maybe just not now, but in the long term. | 00:25:53 | |
So that we don't have a week plan, for example, of five years down the road, it would really be to our advantage to be secret | 00:26:02 | |
qualified. | 00:26:05 | |
You know on On that note, does this have a timeline like for? | 00:26:10 | |
The respondent to come up with the deliverable like a year's timeline or? | 00:26:15 | |
It does not have a. It doesn't have those timelines delineated in this RFP, no. | 00:26:22 | |
But I think I would expect that any proposal from the proposers would include their timeline and then it would before we would | 00:26:28 | |
make an agreement. | 00:26:32 | |
With that proposal or any propos? | 00:26:37 | |
We would kind of negotiate that timeline or set that timeline. | 00:26:40 | |
OK. And if you want to, you can make it explicit there to say that suggests that they include a timeline with their with their | 00:26:44 | |
proposal. | 00:26:48 | |
So that we can evaluate that. | 00:26:52 | |
Along with milestones. | 00:26:56 | |
Stop by that. Agreed. And as you guys know, like Rincon is doing our housing element and Rincon had proposed a CAP kind of concept | 00:26:58 | |
too. | 00:27:03 | |
So technically, Rincon can bid, right? Absolutely. Yeah. OK. All right. Just making your work. | 00:27:10 | |
That seems from the last meeting that. | 00:27:18 | |
We really didn't know what. We just really had no idea where we were going and that the hiring of the consultant was going to be | 00:27:22 | |
more advisory. | 00:27:26 | |
Unless jumping right into a plan, you know, whether we focus on adaptation or you know what we focus on. So. | 00:27:31 | |
I'm just curious. And then you said that. | 00:27:39 | |
That this RFP as drafted is probably going to elicit responses more along the the. | 00:27:43 | |
Conventional. | 00:27:49 | |
So I wonder, are we going to get all of our base questions answered? | 00:27:51 | |
In this RFPD believe. | 00:27:57 | |
So I think what I was trying to say with whether this I think anytime that we solicit. | 00:28:03 | |
Consultants. | 00:28:10 | |
Consultants are going to default to a conventional plan. Mm-hmm. Because I think that is by far the most common type of plans. So | 00:28:11 | |
I think anytime a consultant looks at what's been done in the past or what they've done in the past. | 00:28:17 | |
Chances are those were conventional plans and I think most of the time the non conventional plans were mostly authored in house my | 00:28:23 | |
understanding. | 00:28:27 | |
So I think by going this way with a consultant, we are kind of leaning in that direction and I think it's going to take some. | 00:28:33 | |
Like almost intervention from us or if that's really what we want to avoid. | 00:28:41 | |
Then it's going to take, you know, us kind of being vocal about that and intent on that. | 00:28:46 | |
And the consultants, you know, the consultants are going to hopefully come with quite a bit more experience on this topic than any | 00:28:54 | |
of us and they might have a good case to make. | 00:28:58 | |
Or the conventional plan? Mm-hmm. | 00:29:04 | |
Do we know of any consultants that have developed non conventional plans that we could invite to specifically apply? | 00:29:08 | |
I am not aware of. That's something I'd be happy to look into. I think that the. | 00:29:17 | |
Yeah, I'm not. So that's not a question I'm prepared to answer. | 00:29:24 | |
I'm just thinking that might be something useful to look into because somebody who has done unconventional plans in the past may | 00:29:29 | |
be more likely to kind of think outside the box and look more specifically at Taylor, making them to individual city's needs. | 00:29:36 | |
Do we have examples of any local? | 00:29:44 | |
Communities that have a non conventional plan, I would have to double check, but I believe that the except for Carmel, maybe | 00:29:47 | |
Carmel, Carmel's plan is conventional, yes. They did it in house though, right? They did it with the help of two different | 00:29:54 | |
consultants. So they started it, they with a similar kind of setup as we have with a climate committee and then the climate | 00:30:00 | |
committee with staff first wrote their vulnerability assessment and then they brought in one consultant group that did their | 00:30:06 | |
climate action plan. | 00:30:12 | |
They've got included as an appendix to their climate adaptation plan that was written by another consultant and those consultants | 00:30:19 | |
helped, didn't just write the plans, but also helped with their to, you know, run their meetings, do community engagement and the | 00:30:24 | |
whole process. | 00:30:28 | |
Thanks. I believe it's one of the counties, I want to say Santa Cruz County. | 00:30:34 | |
Or that has the has a non dimensional plan. | 00:30:39 | |
But don't quote me on that. | 00:30:44 | |
But there are Regent, there are an an example or two or two regionally that are non conventional and I believe that those | 00:30:46 | |
municipalities were a big enough organizations and. | 00:30:50 | |
Mostly created the plans themselves in house without a consultant. | 00:30:56 | |
OK. That's really helpful to know and. | 00:31:02 | |
Like Commissioner Myers had said that or committee member. | 00:31:06 | |
Committee, a member said. | 00:31:11 | |
I also kind of was under the impression that the idea was to get into a consultant to guide us on the path, which likely would | 00:31:15 | |
lead to writing a plan. So I would think it would be important to to make sure that. | 00:31:20 | |
Making it clear at the beginning that we are looking for somebody to guide us and what is the best option for us would be | 00:31:27 | |
beneficial because that way they're really aware that we are not married to a conventional plan. And we really want somebody who | 00:31:32 | |
will will look beyond that and let us know if that is or isn't the best option for us, why and why not. And, and I think that will | 00:31:38 | |
guide us in the best direction, especially having had information that there's buyers remorse a bit people who've gone the | 00:31:44 | |
conventional route. | 00:31:50 | |
And so anything we can do to get more information and. | 00:31:57 | |
Yeah, If I may make a suggestion, I think any items like this, we can technically put it as part of the evaluation criteria. So | 00:32:37 | |
the evaluation criteria can state. | 00:32:41 | |
What is your approach towards developing this plan? Are you going with a conventional approach or non conventional approach? | 00:32:46 | |
Provide us the pros and cons. | 00:32:51 | |
And similarly milestones or low cost, whatever be the case, that can be your evaluation criteria since we're involving staff and | 00:32:57 | |
and a committee set here. | 00:33:01 | |
We can examine that thoroughly and, say, decide what we want to do at that point in time. | 00:33:06 | |
But I'm pretty sure the consultants know both approaches is just that how How will they tackle both in the context of Pacific | 00:33:11 | |
Grove? That is to be TBD kind of thing. | 00:33:17 | |
That makes sense. Yeah, I think that that sounds like a good idea. Yeah. So anything that, you know, kind of flushes out that we | 00:33:23 | |
are looking to potentially lean on conventional, I think would help because we would be more likely to get somebody to go that | 00:33:28 | |
route because they're probably very used to writing proposals where everybody's looking for conventional. So we're going to lead | 00:33:33 | |
that direction. It may not really occur to them to give us more of that outside of the box thinking that they might have going in | 00:33:39 | |
on conventional route. | 00:33:44 | |
That kind of leads into the grants too because that's my biggest concern with non conventional. | 00:33:50 | |
I think we talked about that after the Watsonville meeting, but. | 00:33:57 | |
So just, I think it's just more information. We just need a lot of information. | 00:34:03 | |
Which would come up in. | 00:34:13 | |
The course of your discussions with people, making their submissions and then asking them questions and the questions back and | 00:34:17 | |
forth, right? | 00:34:20 | |
Commissioner Myers, I think so. I think getting the, getting this RFP out and getting proposals in, we'll start to answer some of | 00:34:24 | |
those questions and we'll probably find. | 00:34:28 | |
Out and find more questions that we didn't even know. Yeah. | 00:34:33 | |
That's usually the case exactly, yeah. | 00:34:38 | |
And it sounds like that will give us a really robust evaluation process so we better understand what's best for the city. | 00:34:41 | |
And knowing that the evaluation process is going to be robust, I suggest not two days for that little timeline, maybe put a window | 00:34:47 | |
in there so that we are able, first of all, we need to find our own schedules to match with staff schedules and et cetera. | 00:34:54 | |
So maybe give some cushion there. | 00:35:03 | |
Thank you. Understood. | 00:35:04 | |
Anybody with any other discussion points on this topic? I know we'll be bringing it back next month to discuss it more fully to | 00:35:09 | |
get a second review of this. And I'm, I'm guessing too, that that will give us more time to read all the materials that, that | 00:35:15 | |
George so wonderfully put together for us. And if and if in the meantime people have further comments or feedback, I'm always | 00:35:21 | |
available phone calls or e-mail or if you'd like to meet. | 00:35:27 | |
I'm here. | 00:35:34 | |
Right. Because I think if we notice things in the meanwhile based on our discussion today feed that directly to to you that would | 00:35:36 | |
make the most sense and then you would have that information to pull together for the the meeting next month on the agenda, | 00:35:40 | |
correct, Correct. | 00:35:44 | |
That would be great. I know I tried. Thank you for the links too to the other counties and cities. I know I was able to open a | 00:35:50 | |
couple of them. I had trouble with a few opening but I don't know if that was my own Internet or computer not allowing me. So we | 00:35:55 | |
may want to double check the links. | 00:35:59 | |
That were provided. | 00:36:05 | |
Yeah. And I was able, I think I was able to download. I didn't try to count any ones yet. Actually I ran out of time, so. | 00:36:07 | |
OK. So yeah, but I think that that's a good resource and but none of the ones you sent us that you're certain of were non | 00:36:13 | |
conventional plans, correct? | 00:36:18 | |
One of the counties, possibly one of the counties, I believe that the county of Santa Cruz, but I want to double check on that so | 00:36:23 | |
I can look into that and respond to the group. | 00:36:27 | |
With a better answer because I think that would help us to maybe key in because there's so many to read and they're on very many | 00:36:32 | |
pages. So if we knew that, OK, here's a good example of a non conventional. | 00:36:38 | |
That we could at least look to and get an idea for. How does that look different than the conventional? That kind of helps us. | 00:36:44 | |
With our future discussions, I think because we'll have a better perspective of what that looks like. | 00:36:50 | |
Yeah, the comparison piece. Yeah, exactly. | 00:36:55 | |
And I think we had talked at one of our long ago meetings that Carmel may be more similar to us than some of the others because of | 00:36:58 | |
the similar coastal aspects to us. And so I think that one and maybe a non conventional one may be really good starting points for | 00:37:03 | |
us. | 00:37:08 | |
As far as reviewing. | 00:37:14 | |
Sounds great. | 00:37:16 | |
Anything else you feel that we need to cover in our discussion today? | 00:37:18 | |
I don't think so. I think if we kind of all kind of spend the next month to review those documents and regional plans. | 00:37:22 | |
And then we can plan to come back in May and I think we're working on a potential speaker for May, so having a speaker for that | 00:37:30 | |
meeting as a regular meeting. | 00:37:34 | |
And then also to review a second draft, maybe a final draft of the RFP. | 00:37:38 | |
We can move forward like that. | 00:37:44 | |
OK. And kind of on that note, if we don't have anything else on this item, what I can do is close this item and go to item 7, | 00:37:46 | |
which is next meeting. And I don't know if technically we need to take public comment on the next meeting item, but it's an item | 00:37:50 | |
on the agenda, so I would presume that we should. | 00:37:55 | |
I don't know. I don't think you're welcome to. I don't think we need to. But if you'd like to, OK, I can open it up just in case | 00:38:00 | |
if anybody out there in video land that has a comment regarding next meeting. | 00:38:06 | |
The floor is yours, Lisa. Hi is. Can you hear me? | 00:38:13 | |
'Cause I have, Oh, you can hear me. | 00:38:21 | |
OK, All right. So my, my comments are totally unprepared today because I I wasn't able to just jump on this, but I think it's | 00:38:24 | |
great that you're planning to meet next month. | 00:38:31 | |
One thing considering there's so much that needs to be understood about this is there is the option because we well, our new city | 00:38:39 | |
manager doesn't start until May 6th, but he he has a. | 00:38:48 | |
Bachelor's degree in geography and and with a concentration in environmental planning and analysis. So he he might. | 00:38:57 | |
Have some? | 00:39:11 | |
Good perspective on this and in any case, and he has lots of experience in planning and city management. | 00:39:12 | |
The city allows. | 00:39:22 | |
The city manager to have a I forget what the spending authority something that's under $50,000. It doesn't have to go through City | 00:39:25 | |
Council and so you could you know, there's the option of hiring somebody on a much. | 00:39:35 | |
Smaller scale just on the in the advisory role this friend well and even with the historical consultant for. | 00:39:45 | |
The NOAA building that that that contract is just $16,000. | 00:39:56 | |
So it's possible that you could. | 00:40:03 | |
Get more on board with with what you think you need if you go that route and and I would think that the. | 00:40:07 | |
Planning Director, the CDD director Karen Vaughn. | 00:40:16 | |
Might also be more experienced in in. | 00:40:22 | |
RFPs because. | 00:40:27 | |
Public Works does so many of our RFPs, but they're all for CIP kind of projects, they're all. | 00:40:30 | |
Not for this kind of planning. And in fact they got really bogged down when they tried to do the archaeological resources one. So | 00:40:36 | |
anyway, those are just things that. | 00:40:41 | |
George may already be planning to do or may be aware of, but I thought that would be great. And then. | 00:40:48 | |
Maybe at you would put on the agenda for your next meeting to create a subcommittee, because I mean, you can only have two people. | 00:40:54 | |
But you need to have it on the agenda before. So it's like today, even though you may know you want a subcommittee, you can't do | 00:41:04 | |
it today. But just just some thoughts from my observations from what what's going on. Thank you so much. | 00:41:12 | |
No further hands. | 00:41:24 | |
All right. Well that was very helpful and then any other? | 00:41:27 | |
Any comments on that? | 00:41:33 | |
You know, that actually does make an an interesting point and I'm wondering if. | 00:41:35 | |
So we're we're kind of like going almost big package. I don't do you remember what Rincon's came in As for that just the CI. I | 00:41:43 | |
could have sworn they came back with something else on another bid that we asked them for that ended up being so much larger than | 00:41:48 | |
their initial bid that my concern is that might be the case with climate action, but I don't remember what they're. | 00:41:53 | |
Yeah. So we're already talking way over what we were anticipating. | 00:42:01 | |
Potentially. | 00:42:05 | |
And I think as their bids evolved with different timelines and different things, the cost for the Climate Action and Adaptation | 00:42:06 | |
Planning add-on grew. | 00:42:10 | |
So I think they're the first bit I saw from them was in the $85,000 neighborhood, but then like the second and third bit I saw | 00:42:14 | |
were over 100,000 approaching 150,000. | 00:42:19 | |
OK. Yeah. And so I guess what I'm wondering is as we're talking for the. | 00:42:25 | |
Next meeting agenda and then when that will be? | 00:42:31 | |
Wouldn't make sense to. | 00:42:35 | |
Consider the possibility of getting it as a two stage process, a consultant first and then expanding that into because that was | 00:42:38 | |
sort of my question earlier but it wasn't quite. | 00:42:42 | |
Sure. How to formulate it at the time, since we kind of were talking bigger RFP, does it make sense? | 00:42:48 | |
Part of that process to. | 00:42:53 | |
Do it as a two stage process. Start with the consulting and then add in for the consulting. Are we less likely to get bids that | 00:42:56 | |
way would you think? | 00:42:59 | |
I don't feel prepared to answer that question. It's not something that I've explored in depth. | 00:43:05 | |
Yeah, no worries. I just kind of wanted to throw it out there as kind of a thinking point because it will be relevant for the | 00:43:10 | |
meeting for next month. | 00:43:14 | |
And so. | 00:43:19 | |
I'm not sure how that would work as far as writing an RFP specifically though. Yeah, my suggestion is I think. | 00:43:20 | |
More or less like all of these plans, Like I've looked at quite a few of them more as they look similar. It doesn't like there's | 00:43:25 | |
not rocket science to like develop something incredibly different. | 00:43:30 | |
My suggestion is, I think it's a great suggestion from Mr. Gianni that the city manager is here. I think it's important for us to, | 00:43:36 | |
at least in the time window that he's here between 6th and 16th or whatever, just at least have a chat with him to see what his | 00:43:42 | |
views are and perhaps we can invite him to this call. | 00:43:47 | |
So that he can attend and he can provide his views. | 00:43:53 | |
And that way we can be directed as to what what we need to do next. And he's part of Marina, he's already knows the Marina kind of | 00:43:56 | |
climate action, etc. That'll be helpful. Indeed. There's a limit 40,000. She's correct. So there's a limit 40,000 up to 40,000. | 00:44:03 | |
So 39999.99. | 00:44:12 | |
That he's authorized to. | 00:44:14 | |
Provide money for. | 00:44:17 | |
I think with the series of steps that we have taken, I think we're at a good point already. | 00:44:19 | |
And if we're doing as George is suggesting, we should be able to get there. But I think taking Matt's opinion doesn't hurt. And so | 00:44:24 | |
let us do that and maybe we can come prepared for the May 16th and invite him to my suggestion. So. | 00:44:31 | |
Yeah, that makes a lot of. | 00:44:39 | |
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I think that that might give us more insight into whether it makes sense to do it as | 00:44:42 | |
sort of a tiered approach to doing the consulting first, decide which direction we want to go and then solicit an RFP that more | 00:44:46 | |
directly addresses on the direction that makes sense for us. But I again, I don't know how that would impact applicants for an RFP | 00:44:51 | |
so. | 00:44:55 | |
I know that probably doesn't give you great guidance on, I understand the question. I just, I don't have a well thought out answer | 00:45:02 | |
for you. Yeah, no, no, I wouldn't expect that on the spot. More just kind of like us thinking and like trying to think about like | 00:45:09 | |
what are good next steps. So maybe even a way to address both options that might like, I don't know if you could do the RFP as | 00:45:15 | |
like 2 parts, one for the consulting phase and then the second-half as the development phase type thing. So. | 00:45:22 | |
OK, yeah, I was thinking more like an informal thing. So I'm going to connect with Matt at some point, I think. So I'm pretty sure | 00:46:03 | |
George is definitely going to connect. So I think we'll have some feedback before the May 16 meeting. I don't think we need to | 00:46:08 | |
wait till May 16th to get this done. | 00:46:14 | |
So it can be an informal call or chat. | 00:46:21 | |
What do you think? | 00:46:25 | |
Like you said, I definitely plan to include the CDD director and the new city manager in the this discussion and I I think it'll | 00:46:27 | |
start informally, definitely. | 00:46:31 | |
OK. So hopefully we've given you enough guidance on our thoughts and the direction we think would be useful to kind of put that | 00:46:37 | |
together as if it needs any modifications or or what the new city manager might recommend if that should be A2 staged approach or | 00:46:41 | |
something like that. | 00:46:45 | |
I think so. I think so. I agree. | 00:46:51 | |
OK, great. | 00:46:54 | |
Well, that being done, then I would move for adjournment. | 00:46:56 | |
And thank you very much. | 00:47:00 | |
And see you guys on May 16th, 2024 at 4:00 PM. | 00:47:03 | |
Thank you everyone. | 00:47:08 |