No Bookmarks Exist.
Is May 16th, 2024. It's 4:00 PM, so we are calling to order the Climate Action and Adaptation Ground Act Committee. 00:00:00
Crossing out the sub and noting that all committee members are currently present. 00:00:13
So. 00:00:21
Oh, we train them off. 00:00:24
If you want them on, if we can turn them down, that'd be awesome. It was so bright. 00:00:26
They were like. 00:00:30
Council members Colletti and I don't know if you want to switch your name tags. 00:00:34
And I think the audience won't get confused. 00:00:39
All right. So we are now called to order and if I could please get an approval of the agenda. 00:00:45
Or I said all were present. Is that OK? Is that that's adequate to say all the present? Yeah. 00:00:54
Works for me. 00:00:59
Anyone like to move to, I make a motion to approve the agenda. 00:01:01
Right. And all in favor, Aye. Any opposed? All right. So unanimous 60. 00:01:05
Approval of the agenda and next we have subcommittee and staff announcements. Staff, would you like to start? Any announcements? 00:01:15
Thank you, Chairman. Tom, I'd just like to start by thanking the council members for approving the three C Prime upgrade that we 00:01:24
first discussed at this committee and got passed last night at City Council. So I'll be working with the finance team to make that 00:01:29
change probably next week. So thank you for pushing that forward. I appreciate it. And other than that, no announcements. Thank 00:01:35
you. 00:01:40
OK, great. And thank you for bringing that forward for us. Any committee announcements? 00:01:46
OK. 00:01:54
OK. Yeah. 00:01:55
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to follow up on on that item. I also was able to through our administrative service director was able 00:01:57
to get three years of records from all all of our PG&E meters that are smart meters. They're the ones that you know telemetry the 00:02:04
data every 15 minutes and we have like 68 meters, 68 accounts for the city and 44 of those accounts have smart meters associated 00:02:12
with them. 00:02:19
So then what we can do is once we've got that data and it's high resolution data, relatively speaking, we can kind of get an 00:02:27
energy profile of when different uses buildings are using their energy and then maybe drive some. 00:02:34
Like maybe we need automated timers or something like this. So we'll, I'm going to start looking at that data and I'm planning on 00:02:42
bringing it to the committee within a couple months. Wonderful. So. 00:02:48
Yeah. Thank you. 00:02:55
All right. And now we'll go ahead and open to general public comment if there is any online, since there are none in. 00:02:57
The audience. 00:03:04
We have three members of the public online, but no hands raised for public comment. 00:03:11
I move to approve the Minutes. 00:03:29
I second. 00:03:34
Aye. 00:03:40
Moving on to our first regular agenda item. 00:03:46
Oh, thank you. So moving, yes. 00:03:54
Can we open up public comment again so we can maybe have the city manager introduce himself? 00:03:58
Great idea. 00:04:04
Thank you. Nice to meet everybody who I haven't yet. Matt Mogensen, I'm the new Assistant Seat Management Assist. I'm the new 00:04:11
Assistant City Manager. It's hard to get that out of here and you've seen that for a long time. 00:04:16
Good to meet you. Sorry I'm a couple minutes late. Just coming down to see the good work you guys are doing. I've heard a lot 00:04:23
about it, so I want to know a little bit more. Any questions or anything of me, feel free to e-mail me and be nice to talk to 00:04:28
everybody. 00:04:32
Thanks. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. 00:04:38
And thank you for the suggestion. All right, so on to the regular agenda. Item 6A is Climate Action and Adaptation Planning RFP 00:04:42
Review. 00:04:47
And so I will hand that over to you. Thank you, Chairman. And this short report will look strikingly similar to last month's 00:04:54
report. 00:04:59
But. 00:05:05
We have a just a. 00:05:06
Request for proposal update, but we looked at the first draft last month and got some pretty minor up you know suggestions from 00:05:09
you guys and we'll go over those at the end of this little report ways I was able to incorporate that and then kind of looming 00:05:15
questions before this gets finalized. 00:05:21
And just a reminder that while we've had this month to review the draft, we've also had this time to look at civic Groves, climate 00:05:29
action and adaptation planning related documents that have been posted on the climate committee website along with some a sampling 00:05:35
of regional climate action and adaptation plans. And we've updated that list to add since this last meeting. A few couple things 00:05:41
the. 00:05:47
City of Pacific Grove Urban Tree Cannabis Canopy Assessment. 00:05:54
And also the City of Pacific Grove Public Tree Inventory report, the request of a committee member. 00:05:58
And then also we've shared some other documents online that. 00:06:06
I think an aid in our kind of progress. 00:06:13
So the the kind of thought on these last couple meetings was to put together an RFP to the solicitor consultant to support the 00:06:17
development and adoption of Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. And the committee requested the opportunity to review the draft, 00:06:23
provide feedback and then review the draft again in the following month. So here we are. 00:06:29
Please switch over to a copy of the draft. 00:06:38
On my share this screen and I know it'll be hard to read, but I just want to quickly go over the highlighted areas on here that 00:06:48
are the very minor changes. So if you were looking at the old draft, I don't think it's substantially different than this. But 00:06:55
where we had access for dates, now we have kind of proposed dates. So assuming that we're kind of we have consensus towards 00:07:03
putting this out, I'm hoping to put this out in June 3rd and with an ultimate submittal deadline of July 25th. 00:07:10
That's another spot highlighted there where the date is updated. 00:07:20
And there was discussion at the last meeting about including some language that would encourage proposed applicants through their 00:07:25
and through the selection criteria to express their kind of experience and preference and any kind of guidance they could give on 00:07:31
whether or not they're used to working with sequel qualified plans or non sequel qualified qualified plans. So there is a section 00:07:38
in here. 00:07:44
In the. 00:07:52
Submission and evaluation. 00:07:55
Part that asks while we're when we're asking the closers to detail their previous experience or on similar work, there's an added 00:07:58
sentence from last month to detailed previous experience with sequel qualified and or not sequel qualified climate action plans. 00:08:05
So I'm hoping that with the inclusion of that language it'll. 00:08:12
Accomplish that goal. 00:08:20
And then also as discussed, instead of having the RFP say city staff, I've added the language have it say that submittals will be 00:08:24
evaluated by a review panel consisting of city staff and climate action and adaptation planning committee members. And with the 00:08:32
next agenda item tonight is to have the committee select two or three members to serve on that evaluation panel. 00:08:40
And then these dates for the tentative proposal evaluation schedule have been refined with the RFP. Like I mentioned, the RFP 00:08:48
being released June 3rd, a series of dates for the proposers to submit questions for the city to respond to questions. 00:08:57
For proposals to be due and then ultimately hopefully, to recommend City Council to award on September 4th. 00:09:06
And that is really the summary of changes from when we last considered this last month. So if anyone has further thoughts from 00:09:14
your own review or things you'd like to questions you have or things you'd like to talk about? 00:09:21
I'd be happy to hear them. 00:09:28
Yes. First, we'll open to public comment should there be any. 00:09:35
We have two Andrews. We'll start with Lisa Chiani. 00:09:45
I thank you. Thank you for doing this. Thank you, George. 00:09:51
And I I have not read this as carefully as I wanted to, but I did want to ask whether this this committee that would be. 00:09:58
Evaluating the the responses. 00:10:13
Consisting of staff and. 00:10:18
Members of the of your of your committee. 00:10:21
I wondered if also. 00:10:27
They might. 00:10:31
Continue after the consultant has been selected. 00:10:33
To. 00:10:39
Just kind of stay on top of. 00:10:42
Of steps along the way and I'm just saying that because in a recent RFP. 00:10:47
It's not the the. 00:10:57
Well, it was a council subcommittee that that reviewed the responses and and selected or helped select with staff the consultant 00:11:01
but then. 00:11:09
After that, they weren't involved and there were some hiccups. And so anyway, I'm I'm just suggesting that that would be. 00:11:18
Maybe a very fine thing to do. OK, but thank you in any case for all your work on this. 00:11:30
We got a second hand raised by Anthony Johnny. 00:11:42
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking this project on and. 00:11:48
Sorry, I wasn't here a month ago to comment on it. 00:11:51
First of all, the list of past work, That's sort of his background information. 00:11:58
You may want to update. 00:12:07
To include your review of it and knowledge of it. 00:12:10
But also for the. 00:12:15
Candidate applicants, and that is the 2015 Sixteen Vulnerability Report. 00:12:19
For Pacific Grove Vulnerability Assessment was updated in 2022. 00:12:29
In the Monterey County Multi Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that was approved by FEMA. 00:12:38
On September 14th. 00:12:47
2022. 00:12:49
And as it says, that plan is an update for the 2016 plan. The reason I bring that up is there's a. 00:12:52
Pacific Growth specific. 00:13:01
Section that's 23 pages long. 00:13:05
That addresses all of this stuff. 00:13:10
Already. 00:13:14
That's a fairly recent plan that included surveys of the the public as to their attitudes and perceptions about what was important 00:13:16
for second class. 00:13:22
There were issues about. 00:13:31
What the community wanted to see done, what could be done, what has been done and what hasn't been done. 00:13:33
In short, it seems to me like if you looked at that carefully. 00:13:42
You would say, Gee, a lot of this work has already been done and maybe what we should be doing is hiring a consultant to carry out 00:13:50
the action plan. 00:13:55
Or plans that's recommended in that fairly recent report that involved. 00:14:02
All of the stakeholders and all of the community. 00:14:12
To make recommendations about what the concerns were, what the issues were. 00:14:16
And all of the data. 00:14:22
I suggest you take a look at that. 00:14:25
At the very least, incorporated here as part of the background information, but. 00:14:28
Seriously consider what is this going to do? 00:14:33
Where's the action in this plan? I don't see it. Where are the specifics? I don't see them. Hate to be critical, but that's how I 00:14:38
see it. Thank you for your time. 00:14:43
Novograms raised on the virtual audience. 00:14:55
All right. Thank you so much. And now we'll open up to committee member comments. 00:14:59
OK. 00:15:08
Thank you. George, do you have any comments on Mr. Giannis mentioning or description of this county wide assessment? 00:15:10
Vulnerability assessment. I don't believe I've ever seen it. 00:15:18
And I don't know, did has BNRC perhaps ever seen it? 00:15:22
And and this kind of drives to a larger point, at least as far as I'm concerned in our kind of figuring out where we want to go, 00:15:28
where we want to go climate action or we want to go adaptation and. 00:15:34
It may be the first question then Mr. First is, do you view this RFP in helping in whoever we hire to help answer that question 00:15:42
for us or are you thinking like perhaps maybe what I've been thinking all along is that we need to answer that question first 00:15:49
before we go out for the RFP? 00:15:55
Council Member Jerry Oh, sorry, glady. 00:16:05
There's an eye at the end. 00:16:11
OK. 00:16:13
I do understand that question and I've had similar concerns myself. 00:16:17
And I I am familiar with the County of Monterey's Multi Jurisdictional Hazardous Hazard Mitigation Plan. I hadn't seen it in the 00:16:23
light as a full on replacement of the 2015, you know Pacific Grove Specific Vulnerability Assessment. 00:16:30
But I think there's always these these types of questions when you have overlap. You know the city could you know when if we're 00:16:39
putting together an ordinance, a lot of times the state has a similar bill that covers the same ordinance or the county might have 00:16:46
done the same thing and on top of each other. So I think that that raises a good question on what role we're trying to play here 00:16:54
and how that might have already been addressed at a state level or a county level. It's a great question. 00:17:01
My own opinion is that we might want to focus a little more on adaptation. I think that's where we can. 00:17:10
It's very in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, it's very difficult for a small jurisdiction like us, but even incremental changes 00:17:18
are great like we we we did last night at council based on the recommendations of this committee. 00:17:25
But I I think we need to know where we want where we want to focus our efforts and I thought we we were might we're going to we're 00:17:33
going to get some input from Mr. Ravel. I mean he's kind of a leading adaptation expert and he's we've worked with him in the 00:17:40
past. Yes, there was a request to invite him to to speak and after reaching out to him several times I have made contact with him 00:17:47
but not in a timeline that would allow for him to be here tonight. I don't want to hold anything up but. 00:17:54
Umm, maybe in the scope of work for this RFP it should be. 00:18:02
For the the first question, first milestone in the scope of work might be to help the city determine where they want to focus 00:18:09
their efforts, whether it's adaptation or or action. 00:18:15
I think we can get more bang for the buck by going with adaptation. 00:18:24
But that's just my opinion, so. 00:18:29
So I'll have. 00:18:32
Thank you, Chair. 00:18:39
George, I think this looks good to go. I I think in in light of the comments, I would say that since we are maintaining an active 00:18:41
website for CAP what this committee is doing, I think it'll be helpful for whoever's responding to understand what this committee 00:18:48
has been up to as well. So maybe some references to any documents. 00:18:55
Would would help with the just as background information we could include those links or otherwise. My question really is around 00:19:03
the timeline. 00:19:07
And just from a process perspective, once we receive the proposals and we're recommending to the City Council like there's a. 00:19:13
But rough looks like a month and a half something. Is it expected to come back to this committee? 00:19:22
For approval. 00:19:30
Councilmember, that's another good question that I don't necessarily have an answer for. I think, you know, the tentative proposal 00:19:35
was kind of mirrored off of similar RFP processes that the city has carried out. And that isn't a question that I, you know, I 00:19:42
know that we had considered having people from this committee on the evaluation committee, but I hadn't thought about whether this 00:19:49
would return here before going to council or not. So I think that. 00:19:56
I'd be happy to hear your guys's preference for that and maybe we could incorporate that. 00:20:04
OK. And I was just wondering like the. 00:20:09
Seems like we have a committee to evaluate. 00:20:12
It makes sense for the committee to kind of bring back the evaluation back to this committee for further like an input before we 00:20:16
finally select somebody. 00:20:20
That's my approach but I'm open to suggestions. But I do think that since we are as a body are blessing this we as a body should 00:20:26
bless the consultant too. So that's where my thoughts are and and in in order for that to work we need to make sure we have a 00:20:32
meeting scheduled in the August time frame which all those all that good stuff so. 00:20:39
It'll factor into the proceedings because if we're meeting in the August time frame, then will the City Council meeting gel with 00:20:48
the September 4th? 00:20:52
Just letting you know. 00:20:58
So anyway, I think it's valid. We can probably discuss it right now or maybe as part of the next kind of agenda item. 00:21:00
But we do need to account for all of us looking at the proposals. 00:21:07
So I agree. And we we talked about an August meeting anyway. 00:21:12
Which would be the third Thursday. 00:21:17
OK. 00:21:26
So maybe you can also add that in like formally. 00:21:30
To say that the and that will also give an indicator to whoever's reading this that. 00:21:34
This committee is doing work. 00:21:40
Understood, Councilmember. So yeah, by default, on the normal schedule of these this climate committee meetings, it would be 00:21:44
August 15th, the 3rd Thursday. That's. 00:21:48
4:00. 00:21:53
Yeah, I think that timeline would work really well and. 00:21:58
And I and I think that is a good idea. I guess I kind of assumed it would come back to us first. So thanks for posing the question 00:22:02
because I think that does make sense so that the whole body has a chance to review what makes sense. And and to remember Clady's 00:22:10
point, we want to to make sure we're going in the direction that we expect is you know what the committee is, is agreeing to 00:22:18
although we haven't quite done that yet. So but that will be informed by what we find out I think from what the consultant poses. 00:22:25
But that brings me back also to what Mr. Chaney said, which is so a lot of the RFP included things like public outreach, and so 00:22:34
I'm wondering. 00:22:39
Is 2022 recent enough that we wouldn't need further input? Has enough changed in the climate action environment that even though 00:22:47
that was done two years ago, it would still be worth having a consultant do that? Currently it's in the RFP, so it would mean 00:22:54
removing it if we wanted to just use the 22 report. That said, I would definitely think we should use the 22 report in conjunction 00:23:01
if we go forward with a full new set of public outreach, but I can. I can see the value of. 00:23:08
Tides shifting, maybe even in the last two years. 00:23:17
And two years was when it was published. So I'm assuming the research was done a bit before that. So there could be enough 00:23:20
difference in what the public thinks now that it is still worth having that assessment done and that outreach done would would 00:23:25
everyone on the committee agree? 00:23:29
Yeah, I thought a little thing, but no, no, that's. I think that does make sense to consider how valuable the 22 data is, if it's 00:23:35
still relevant. 00:23:38
But maybe it's also looking at specifically what data is not included in that 22 that maybe could be the focus of the RFP or 00:23:43
looking at some of our more outdated data like the tree survey, which is from a decade ago, Things like that maybe we could focus 00:23:51
on and they could subcontract out for that rather than look to do a tree inventory or canopy inventory at a later date or another 00:23:58
contractor. Maybe there's a way to look at the the facts that are not in the 22. 00:24:05
Future council goals for example as what we need to do to further advance our climate action as a city. So I would also second 00:24:47
that. I think really focusing on those areas would would probably be valuable. So I I would probably go along the same lines of 00:24:54
keep that in the RFP currently, but definitely have them utilize the new information in the 20221 as informative to the process of 00:25:02
what's maybe been done recently enough and what we need to focus more effort on. Does that make sense? 00:25:10
Going forward? 00:25:18
Yeah, I only have one comment. There's there's never enough of public outreach that's good, so. 00:25:19
Just go on with the Yeah, and I still think even 2 years could make a difference because even things like now people having to use 00:25:26
the system where your your, your table scraps for example, go in a different bin. So a lot has changed even since that survey 00:25:32
would have been done that may make people maybe be thinking differently about and we've had more big storms, more hot weather and 00:25:38
so that also could change people's opinions and interests. 00:25:44
Well, this is another example of that. The AMBAG data was from 2020 or 2021 or something when nobody was going anywhere and doing 00:25:53
anything. So that really affected the data. 00:25:59
In terms of. 00:26:06
If you're looking at the changes right, we also have the housing element now. 00:26:08
What are you going to do about the next 10 years and all the units that are coming in so there's stuff going on? 00:26:12
Yeah, that's a really good point too. So I think. 00:26:18
No. 00:26:21
Thank you, Chair. Well, I also want to let the committee know that we're a. 00:26:27
As part of our budget workshop back in February. 00:26:31
It was maybe February earlier this year we had a budget workshop and council was given opportunity to say, hey, this is what I'd 00:26:35
like to see added to the budget as far as either a program or staffing whatever and. 00:26:43
I made a recommendation, Laurie seconded it is to bring on a full time forester. It's great to have this urban forest management 00:26:52
plan, but if you don't have a forest managing the urban forest management plan. 00:26:58
It's so and if we're going to tie that in and I think that's where the committee is thinking is as far as managing the forest as a 00:27:05
carbon sink. 00:27:10
We need to really have a forester on there to do that work, Agreed. Agreed. Yeah, because that the committee might consider. 00:27:15
Drafting. We're an advisory group. We're free to offer, advice is to and this isn't on the agenda. I guess I don't know if I'm 00:27:27
speaking out of turn, but. 00:27:33
We might consider. 00:27:40
Developing a letter. 00:27:42
A recommendation, and we can all certainly come to the budget meeting individually and speak on our on our own behalves. 00:27:44
Making that recommendation and tying it into climate action. 00:27:54
I think that's going to be really important going forward. 00:27:59
Agreed. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's a great point because that's where we, since we're focusing on this, even though we've 00:28:03
unfortunately had very few meetings just by the nature of the committee, we are the ones who've been looking at it. So anything we 00:28:09
can do you know to inform that. And the former interim city manager has supported the idea of the Forester too. So I think making 00:28:16
sure we make movement on that in support of climate action. So and that's obviously not going to be in the RFP itself, but. 00:28:23
Bigger picture of Pacific Grove as far as how that benefits this project so. 00:29:39
All right. So if there are no more comments, what we can do is this is actually just a review and provide feedback. So is there 00:29:45
anything else that you need from the committee, Mr. First? 00:29:50
Chairman McDonald, I think just general sense if you guys are, you know have consensus that we're ready to move forward with this. 00:29:57
Yes, there is. 00:30:08
And yeah. 00:30:11
I would recommend that we move forward. I think it looks good. 00:30:15
If you guys want to just take an. 00:30:22
So. 00:30:29
I do not have a report prepared for this agenda item, but. 00:30:49
I can give a quick overview just to select two or three committee members to serve on a review panel for evaluation of RFP 00:30:53
submittals, and I'll leave it to the chair to decide. Kind of the format to select members. 00:31:00
I think so. 00:31:09
So yeah, I would say that we should go to public comment like we would for any agenda items, so. 00:31:11
In the in the audience. 00:31:17
Soon take it back, two hands raised. We'll start with Inga, Lawrence and Dahmer. 00:31:20
Thank you. And mine is a usual comment here. You're not speaking into your microphones, certain couple of certain members are, but 00:31:29
others are, I guess in different places than they usually said it or not speaking in and speaking out. I've even had trouble 00:31:38
hearing George some of the time, Mr. First some of the time. So please, I'd like to hear this meeting. Thank you. 00:31:47
And we also have a hand raised by Lisa Ciani. 00:31:59
I'll echo that the microphones are not picking up all of what you say and it is tricky moving the volume control as high as I can 00:32:04
and still not getting it. But that aside, I think that my earlier comment actually belonged on this part of the agenda and and. 00:32:15
And my feeling is that the the committee or subcommittee or whatever it is that. 00:32:28
That selects the consultant's. 00:32:36
They should follow that on through. 00:32:42
George is an excellent responsible. 00:32:46
Staff member that'll be shepherding this but. 00:32:52
I think it's also good to have. 00:32:56
Committee members input to going going forward. 00:33:00
In the other case, the. 00:33:06
The staff member was not was not really connected with with what was going on, so it it's nice to have a little collaboration. 00:33:09
To to make sure everything is going well. 00:33:24
Thank you. 00:33:27
We have a final hand, raised Anthony Gianni. 00:33:35
Just want to make it a consensus that you should have. For continuity purposes, you should have. 00:33:42
Two or three members of the committee who've been involved from the beginning to follow this all the way through to the end and 00:33:51
that will help the City Council as well. Thank you. 00:33:56
No further hand raised in the virtual audience. 00:34:05
All right. Thank you. So I'll open up to committee comments. 00:34:10
Well, first I'll say I've served on several or No2 RFPs committee subcommittees and I'm not interested in serving on the 3rd. 00:34:18
But I Speaking of the process and I think Lisa was Lisa, Johnny was trying to describe that. 00:34:28
Is that this we appoint the subcommittee subcommittee comes back to this committee, and then the committee makes the 00:34:36
recommendation to council. 00:34:40
That's that shouldn't be a problem. 00:34:45
And. 00:34:48
This particular subcommittee she was talking about was. 00:34:50
It went on for a little longer than it probably should have as far as being able to actually approve the actual person that we 00:34:55
wanted to hire to do the RFP so. 00:35:00
I don't see that happening here. I don't think that's going to be a problem. 00:35:08
So, but I think it is, I think it is an important function and I we didn't, we didn't. I've never really seen it done on council 00:35:11
before. I think it's really good to have some people focus on receiving the RFP's and being involved with staff. That normally 00:35:19
doesn't happen. It's just typically given to staff and then they come back and make the recommendation so. 00:35:26
It's going to be an important work to participate in. 00:35:35
I'm just not interested in doing it. 00:35:39
But I'm interested in hearing the results, obviously. 00:35:44
And I am not going to be able to do it within the timeline between now and the August meeting. I won't be able to attend the 00:35:49
August meeting. However, to the extent that any of the work carries forward from that, I would be very interested in being 00:35:55
involved. 00:36:02
Do we want to make nominations? Can I can we make some nominations? Or do people feel free to make to nominate themselves as well? 00:36:18
I suppose. How do you want to do it? 00:36:23
I'd be inclined to hope that people would nominate them sexually, but that said, obviously we can nominate each other as well. Is 00:36:29
there anybody who would like to serve on the subcommittee? 00:36:34
Anybody who has time, I was going to say it's a time factor more than I mean it would be. I'd be happy to do it. Do we know with 00:36:41
this? 00:36:44
Yeah, I don't because, you know, working it would be difficult to fit it in during the work day. I'm guessing weekends are not an 00:36:50
option to review. Do we know how many hours it may take? That's actually a really good point. Do we have a guesstimate of how long 00:36:55
since staff does these regularly? Do you have an idea of how long this process normally takes and what subcommittee involvement 00:37:00
would be? 00:37:05
To be honest here, McConnell, this will be my first evaluation for an RFP, so maybe a committee member that has been through one 00:37:11
of these before could comment on that. 00:37:16
But I was just going to say it depends on how many applicants we get because essentially you're doing a screening process and. 00:37:22
I will serve on it but. 00:37:31
I'm hoping. 00:37:33
Some others, because it is interesting, you know, you get FaceTime with them and you get to understand exactly, you know, and make 00:37:34
the evaluation on. It's like doing a job interview and and doing it in a public forum. It's a little different when you're 00:37:41
actually doing it in a subcommittee format. I think you get a little better idea of who you're dealing with and it's not so much 00:37:47
the dog and pony show, so. 00:37:53
I'm glad we're doing it. 00:38:00
And I would just say that if nobody's taking it, I'm happy to do it. It's the process is actually think of it this way, on the 00:38:03
August meeting you have to review proposals. You're going to do it beforehand. Let me just that. That's more or less that. But you 00:38:09
are going to be meeting with the participants to decide who looks like credible and and what which application stands out from the 00:38:16
others. So it'll be a learning process and it'll be a helpful learning process if any of you are interested my my original thought 00:38:22
was. 00:38:28
Being RC has been steadfast in climate action and all these elements. 00:38:35
Potentially be an RC may want to scrutinize these applications in particular and whoever is submitting the applications to make 00:38:39
sense from a BNRC to be on it, but I'm happy to do it if that's of interest. 00:38:46
So it sounds like you would you, if you were on the committee, you received them, you'd be reviewing them initially in your own 00:38:55
time, right before you met. Is that how it would work? So then you could come and have a more succinct review? 00:39:01
If if the meetings can be at 4:00, I can do it. 00:39:08
You know, that's a really important point. So for people to know what they're getting themselves into, do you foresee a structure 00:39:15
for doing this? So if we'd come back with the decision for this committee in August to then take to council in September. 00:39:22
Meeting times does to accommodate because I think all of us have the same challenges is during the day is is challenging with 00:39:31
work, but we recognize that your work hours are during the day. As for generally a good time that could maybe accommodate the 00:39:36
needs of everyone. 00:39:41
Chairman Tunnel that you know that that is a challenge I think and I think that will also be a challenge for the applicants, for 00:39:48
the proposers. I think you know in general most of those, you know consultants operate in business hours and are accustomed to 00:39:52
that. 00:39:57
Do do committee members that have have experience with this have anything to note on the general time of day is usually a business 00:40:02
hours type of evaluation or is that have past accommodations been made for after hours and weekends? 00:40:08
UH, chair the UH. It's typically up to the the consultant who kind of drives the schedule. 00:40:15
I'm not hearing a lot of interest, so I I will, I will say I will be happy to sit on it. 00:40:58
Are you interested, Kathy? 00:41:06
Yes, but I'm going to be traveling some this summer, so that's my concern. Gotcha. But not. 00:41:10
The entire summer, so. 00:41:16
We really depend on. 00:41:18
How fast will you receive the applications and? 00:41:20
How many? 00:41:25
Right. So the what is the go ahead July 27th I think it was yeah it was ended July. So remember and just to point out Chair 00:41:26
McConnell, you know we we created this schedule we're not tied to it if if that's going to be a hiccup for the committee members. 00:41:34
We're afraid to change the schedule. 00:41:44
And give our give ourselves more time to accommodate different schedules and. 00:41:49
And I know you know, staff works generally 7:00 to 4:00 or 7:30 to 4:00 or 7:00 or 8:00 to 5:00. 00:41:54
But that's not to say that we can't be flexible, but I can't speak for the consultants coming on the recommendation if this is 00:42:02
really, I wasn't expecting this to be so. 00:42:07
So if if required, I mean the the proposals are due July 25th, we have a meeting on August 15th, let's meet August 15th and decide 00:42:14
how we want to take this through. Because by that time we will know how many proposals are there and so technically beginning, 00:42:21
even review the proposals of August 15th as a team if you like, just just so that it makes sense. So I like that. 00:42:28
That's a great idea question. Do we need, does it have to be a subcommittee of the full committee that does this or could we just 00:42:37
have a meeting where we meet together one of our meetings? And the other question I would have is can that be done in an open 00:42:43
forum because we're reviewing proposals from vendors. So, so I'm asking because if that's the case, would that then need to be 00:42:50
more of a closed session type meeting or would it need to be a subcommittee so it's not an open session? 00:42:57
And competitors do not want to share each other's information as much so including price. So, so something I mean all that I'm 00:43:36
saying is we have a meaning on calendar August 15th, we can, we can just meet internally. 00:43:43
So. 00:43:50
It's probably not a bad idea though to do your first cut and maybe scoring. 00:45:01
Off the dyess and not you know on the dice because it could be a very long lengthy process otherwise. But I haven't seen the RFP 00:45:05
but often you'll have a scoring sheet as an example is there if we include one we did we did not no that might because then the 00:45:11
the people who are going to respond already know what you're scoring them on. So you can all you know see your yourself as well 00:45:16
when you get the proposals back that you know 15 points for you know this information that they submitted and you can kind of 00:45:22
screen that way as well. 00:45:28
So I guess what I'm trying to say is you could probably if you wanted to do your screening and. 00:45:34
Two hours time at home. 00:45:39
You probably could so, and if you wanted to bring it all together and discuss, that's one way to possibly do it. 00:45:42
Then I guess the next question would be and and it may be another question for City Manager is, is it then recommended that we 00:46:26
discuss that in a closed session format first or if we've all reviewed and scored at home, can we just come back on the dyess to 00:46:31
to then discuss? 00:46:36
You know we. 00:46:43
I don't know if these are necessarily close messenger discussions. We probably should check in with city attorney, you know in 00:46:45
terms of that format. But I guess like individually if you all scored and they came together and discussed your scores, I. 00:46:50
Of the the true regulations behind that. So maybe if we could could ask to get some feedback from the city attorney on that. 00:47:32
OK. 00:47:42
I also. 00:47:43
And then that would refine the group down, which would then move on to possible interviews. Is that what I'm understanding? 00:48:17
Yeah, I would think that there's an outlier or something, right. Right. Yeah, probably depending upon what comes back. 00:48:25
Because it lets them be really clear on the objectives. They're not wasting their time not knowing what target they're trying to 00:49:02
hit, and we're likely to get better proposals as a result of that, I think. 00:49:08
Chair Yeah, so concerning the scoring sheet, who's going to devise that? And, you know, is there anyone on city staff that would 00:49:15
have experience in doing that besides our city manager? 00:49:21
Maybe has something else on his plate right now. 00:49:31
I mean, I think it would be a key thing. So I mean, I don't want to just assume that we can actually. 00:49:35
Committee member wouldn't I don't have personal experience, but I've filled out scoring sheets for other RFPs. I know that there's 00:49:41
some experience within the city and I'm I'm. I don't doubt that we can make that happen, OK? 00:49:47
Great. 00:49:53
Thank you. Do Do do we want to see that scoring sheet before it goes out? No. OK. 00:49:59
So just to summarize, so that so are we all on the same page that we don't actually feel in the end that we need a subcommittee of 00:50:07
the committee. We will utilize A scoring sheet that staff can prepare to narrow the field down. We can individually assess at home 00:50:14
and then that scoring will determine who we bring in for interviews and then with the entire committee and tend to then meet with 00:50:20
the interviewees. 00:50:26
Yeah. Or at that time, a subcommittee could be formed for the interviews. 00:50:33
By then too. So that would give us a better idea of our individual availabilities also. 00:51:11
But my comment was I I I do think that there's value in having the subcommittee. 00:51:19
I I think it streamlines things. I think it's it's it's easily easier for the applicants and it's easier to get stuff moving. 00:51:28
And I actually wish I could do it and just you know, but I I can't between now and August, so between now and September actually. 00:51:40
So it sounds like we'd want it all them all to come to us and then based on that we wouldn't have narrowed it down to the final 00:51:47
two or three or whatever and then that subcommittee based on individuals time would I think that makes sense. 00:51:55
We all score them. Then we have a subcommittee form to facilitate that process to do the actual interviews. Make the 00:52:06
recommendation based on the interviews to the rest of the committee. 00:52:10
I think that makes a lot of sense too. And and the other advantages of that is that you can then set that up outside of regular 00:52:16
business hours. It wouldn't be dependent on having to be able to use the facility here. There was a question posed by Miss Gianni 00:52:22
about would that involve staff on the committee? Normally staff are not necessarily on committees, but is this something where we 00:52:28
feel that that would be a valuable thing to include and would you like to be part of that? 00:52:34
I think it's pretty explicit in the boards and commissions handbook that staff is not to be on subcommittees or committees 00:52:42
technically, but I think to be on the not to say that they couldn't be on the review panel, you know. So I think ultimately when 00:52:48
we go into interviews, I would expect staff to be part of that review panel and what to aid and you know be there for continuity 00:52:54
through those negotiations. So I don't think that I would say staff would be on the subcommittee, but I would expect staff to be 00:53:00
on the review panel. 00:53:06
OK. And I was thinking of that with some other subcommittees that we have the same thing. We're collaborating closely with staff. 00:53:12
They're not part of the subcommittee, but everything is done in conjunction. So it sounds like that would be something that would 00:53:18
be very valuable and necessary here as well. Yes. And I think it comes down to semantics, if you want to call it a subcommittee or 00:53:23
if you just want to call it representatives to the evaluate, you know. 00:53:28
To the evaluation panel. 00:53:35
Yeah. You know, I don't know if there's a legal requirement for us to meet outside of the Brown Act full committee. Do you need to 00:53:38
call it a subcommittee or is representatives fine? I I think, as far as I know, you can call whatever you want. It's as long as 00:53:43
you stay under a quorum. 00:53:48
Yes, OK. 00:53:54
Yep, that else is that. It seems like everybody's nodding their heads and is in agreement. Is that enough guidance for you? Do you 00:53:57
need any other direction? 00:54:01
I think that's I think I understand the the, the general direction that you're giving and I think that they might stretch out the 00:54:06
timeline a little bit. 00:54:10
But if we're OK with that, we'll plan on developing A rubric or scoring sheet and having the hard drafts of the proposals 00:54:14
distributed to the committee for scoring. 00:54:20
Chairman Donald, I don't see this interfering with the General Plan. I, you know, I think how this will integrate with the General 00:54:59
Plan is kind of very much to be determined. 00:55:04
And I think you know we're going to be working potentially with the same consultant, but very like very potentially not with the 00:55:09
same consultant. So how those get integrated is very much up in the air. 00:55:15
I was just going to mention, and we talked about this early on on the committee is that it's not necessary that the Climate Action 00:55:22
and Adaptation plan be an element of the general plan. It could be. 00:55:29
It sets, it sets a different much then you have to have the compliance components and you got to be a lot more thoughtful about 00:55:36
because you've got to make findings you know for development based on you know your adopted general plan. So I I'd always assume 00:55:44
that this would stand apart from the general plan, but we we talked about that early on and I guess that's going to be dependent 00:55:52
on where we kind of choose to go on this as well is whether we're going climate action more or more adaptation. 00:56:00
And and one final, maybe a request could we get, maybe you could send the scoring sheet out to the members once you've developed 00:56:08
it, just so we have a idea what it looks like. 00:56:13
Councilmember Gladia, Absolutely. 00:56:19
But in the in the RFP, it is not contemplated that this will be an element of the general plan, is that right based on what you 00:56:25
just said? 00:56:28
If you give me a moment I think I'll confine the language, but I don't. 00:56:32
Think that I don't think it mentions the general plan specifically. I think it mentions. 00:56:36
Referencing city documents that if I don't think it specifies specifically that this will be part of the general plan, no. 00:56:45
Right. So if nobody else has any comments and staff feels like they have enough guidance. 00:56:56
I believe that brings us to the end of the meeting. I will double check the agenda just to be sure that is it. So the the next 00:57:01
item is just that our next meeting is planned for August 15th, 2024 at 4:00 PM. 00:57:06
And with that we will adjourn. 00:57:13
Thank you. Thank you. 00:57:15
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
Is May 16th, 2024. It's 4:00 PM, so we are calling to order the Climate Action and Adaptation Ground Act Committee. 00:00:00
Crossing out the sub and noting that all committee members are currently present. 00:00:13
So. 00:00:21
Oh, we train them off. 00:00:24
If you want them on, if we can turn them down, that'd be awesome. It was so bright. 00:00:26
They were like. 00:00:30
Council members Colletti and I don't know if you want to switch your name tags. 00:00:34
And I think the audience won't get confused. 00:00:39
All right. So we are now called to order and if I could please get an approval of the agenda. 00:00:45
Or I said all were present. Is that OK? Is that that's adequate to say all the present? Yeah. 00:00:54
Works for me. 00:00:59
Anyone like to move to, I make a motion to approve the agenda. 00:01:01
Right. And all in favor, Aye. Any opposed? All right. So unanimous 60. 00:01:05
Approval of the agenda and next we have subcommittee and staff announcements. Staff, would you like to start? Any announcements? 00:01:15
Thank you, Chairman. Tom, I'd just like to start by thanking the council members for approving the three C Prime upgrade that we 00:01:24
first discussed at this committee and got passed last night at City Council. So I'll be working with the finance team to make that 00:01:29
change probably next week. So thank you for pushing that forward. I appreciate it. And other than that, no announcements. Thank 00:01:35
you. 00:01:40
OK, great. And thank you for bringing that forward for us. Any committee announcements? 00:01:46
OK. 00:01:54
OK. Yeah. 00:01:55
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to follow up on on that item. I also was able to through our administrative service director was able 00:01:57
to get three years of records from all all of our PG&E meters that are smart meters. They're the ones that you know telemetry the 00:02:04
data every 15 minutes and we have like 68 meters, 68 accounts for the city and 44 of those accounts have smart meters associated 00:02:12
with them. 00:02:19
So then what we can do is once we've got that data and it's high resolution data, relatively speaking, we can kind of get an 00:02:27
energy profile of when different uses buildings are using their energy and then maybe drive some. 00:02:34
Like maybe we need automated timers or something like this. So we'll, I'm going to start looking at that data and I'm planning on 00:02:42
bringing it to the committee within a couple months. Wonderful. So. 00:02:48
Yeah. Thank you. 00:02:55
All right. And now we'll go ahead and open to general public comment if there is any online, since there are none in. 00:02:57
The audience. 00:03:04
We have three members of the public online, but no hands raised for public comment. 00:03:11
I move to approve the Minutes. 00:03:29
I second. 00:03:34
Aye. 00:03:40
Moving on to our first regular agenda item. 00:03:46
Oh, thank you. So moving, yes. 00:03:54
Can we open up public comment again so we can maybe have the city manager introduce himself? 00:03:58
Great idea. 00:04:04
Thank you. Nice to meet everybody who I haven't yet. Matt Mogensen, I'm the new Assistant Seat Management Assist. I'm the new 00:04:11
Assistant City Manager. It's hard to get that out of here and you've seen that for a long time. 00:04:16
Good to meet you. Sorry I'm a couple minutes late. Just coming down to see the good work you guys are doing. I've heard a lot 00:04:23
about it, so I want to know a little bit more. Any questions or anything of me, feel free to e-mail me and be nice to talk to 00:04:28
everybody. 00:04:32
Thanks. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. 00:04:38
And thank you for the suggestion. All right, so on to the regular agenda. Item 6A is Climate Action and Adaptation Planning RFP 00:04:42
Review. 00:04:47
And so I will hand that over to you. Thank you, Chairman. And this short report will look strikingly similar to last month's 00:04:54
report. 00:04:59
But. 00:05:05
We have a just a. 00:05:06
Request for proposal update, but we looked at the first draft last month and got some pretty minor up you know suggestions from 00:05:09
you guys and we'll go over those at the end of this little report ways I was able to incorporate that and then kind of looming 00:05:15
questions before this gets finalized. 00:05:21
And just a reminder that while we've had this month to review the draft, we've also had this time to look at civic Groves, climate 00:05:29
action and adaptation planning related documents that have been posted on the climate committee website along with some a sampling 00:05:35
of regional climate action and adaptation plans. And we've updated that list to add since this last meeting. A few couple things 00:05:41
the. 00:05:47
City of Pacific Grove Urban Tree Cannabis Canopy Assessment. 00:05:54
And also the City of Pacific Grove Public Tree Inventory report, the request of a committee member. 00:05:58
And then also we've shared some other documents online that. 00:06:06
I think an aid in our kind of progress. 00:06:13
So the the kind of thought on these last couple meetings was to put together an RFP to the solicitor consultant to support the 00:06:17
development and adoption of Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. And the committee requested the opportunity to review the draft, 00:06:23
provide feedback and then review the draft again in the following month. So here we are. 00:06:29
Please switch over to a copy of the draft. 00:06:38
On my share this screen and I know it'll be hard to read, but I just want to quickly go over the highlighted areas on here that 00:06:48
are the very minor changes. So if you were looking at the old draft, I don't think it's substantially different than this. But 00:06:55
where we had access for dates, now we have kind of proposed dates. So assuming that we're kind of we have consensus towards 00:07:03
putting this out, I'm hoping to put this out in June 3rd and with an ultimate submittal deadline of July 25th. 00:07:10
That's another spot highlighted there where the date is updated. 00:07:20
And there was discussion at the last meeting about including some language that would encourage proposed applicants through their 00:07:25
and through the selection criteria to express their kind of experience and preference and any kind of guidance they could give on 00:07:31
whether or not they're used to working with sequel qualified plans or non sequel qualified qualified plans. So there is a section 00:07:38
in here. 00:07:44
In the. 00:07:52
Submission and evaluation. 00:07:55
Part that asks while we're when we're asking the closers to detail their previous experience or on similar work, there's an added 00:07:58
sentence from last month to detailed previous experience with sequel qualified and or not sequel qualified climate action plans. 00:08:05
So I'm hoping that with the inclusion of that language it'll. 00:08:12
Accomplish that goal. 00:08:20
And then also as discussed, instead of having the RFP say city staff, I've added the language have it say that submittals will be 00:08:24
evaluated by a review panel consisting of city staff and climate action and adaptation planning committee members. And with the 00:08:32
next agenda item tonight is to have the committee select two or three members to serve on that evaluation panel. 00:08:40
And then these dates for the tentative proposal evaluation schedule have been refined with the RFP. Like I mentioned, the RFP 00:08:48
being released June 3rd, a series of dates for the proposers to submit questions for the city to respond to questions. 00:08:57
For proposals to be due and then ultimately hopefully, to recommend City Council to award on September 4th. 00:09:06
And that is really the summary of changes from when we last considered this last month. So if anyone has further thoughts from 00:09:14
your own review or things you'd like to questions you have or things you'd like to talk about? 00:09:21
I'd be happy to hear them. 00:09:28
Yes. First, we'll open to public comment should there be any. 00:09:35
We have two Andrews. We'll start with Lisa Chiani. 00:09:45
I thank you. Thank you for doing this. Thank you, George. 00:09:51
And I I have not read this as carefully as I wanted to, but I did want to ask whether this this committee that would be. 00:09:58
Evaluating the the responses. 00:10:13
Consisting of staff and. 00:10:18
Members of the of your of your committee. 00:10:21
I wondered if also. 00:10:27
They might. 00:10:31
Continue after the consultant has been selected. 00:10:33
To. 00:10:39
Just kind of stay on top of. 00:10:42
Of steps along the way and I'm just saying that because in a recent RFP. 00:10:47
It's not the the. 00:10:57
Well, it was a council subcommittee that that reviewed the responses and and selected or helped select with staff the consultant 00:11:01
but then. 00:11:09
After that, they weren't involved and there were some hiccups. And so anyway, I'm I'm just suggesting that that would be. 00:11:18
Maybe a very fine thing to do. OK, but thank you in any case for all your work on this. 00:11:30
We got a second hand raised by Anthony Johnny. 00:11:42
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking this project on and. 00:11:48
Sorry, I wasn't here a month ago to comment on it. 00:11:51
First of all, the list of past work, That's sort of his background information. 00:11:58
You may want to update. 00:12:07
To include your review of it and knowledge of it. 00:12:10
But also for the. 00:12:15
Candidate applicants, and that is the 2015 Sixteen Vulnerability Report. 00:12:19
For Pacific Grove Vulnerability Assessment was updated in 2022. 00:12:29
In the Monterey County Multi Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that was approved by FEMA. 00:12:38
On September 14th. 00:12:47
2022. 00:12:49
And as it says, that plan is an update for the 2016 plan. The reason I bring that up is there's a. 00:12:52
Pacific Growth specific. 00:13:01
Section that's 23 pages long. 00:13:05
That addresses all of this stuff. 00:13:10
Already. 00:13:14
That's a fairly recent plan that included surveys of the the public as to their attitudes and perceptions about what was important 00:13:16
for second class. 00:13:22
There were issues about. 00:13:31
What the community wanted to see done, what could be done, what has been done and what hasn't been done. 00:13:33
In short, it seems to me like if you looked at that carefully. 00:13:42
You would say, Gee, a lot of this work has already been done and maybe what we should be doing is hiring a consultant to carry out 00:13:50
the action plan. 00:13:55
Or plans that's recommended in that fairly recent report that involved. 00:14:02
All of the stakeholders and all of the community. 00:14:12
To make recommendations about what the concerns were, what the issues were. 00:14:16
And all of the data. 00:14:22
I suggest you take a look at that. 00:14:25
At the very least, incorporated here as part of the background information, but. 00:14:28
Seriously consider what is this going to do? 00:14:33
Where's the action in this plan? I don't see it. Where are the specifics? I don't see them. Hate to be critical, but that's how I 00:14:38
see it. Thank you for your time. 00:14:43
Novograms raised on the virtual audience. 00:14:55
All right. Thank you so much. And now we'll open up to committee member comments. 00:14:59
OK. 00:15:08
Thank you. George, do you have any comments on Mr. Giannis mentioning or description of this county wide assessment? 00:15:10
Vulnerability assessment. I don't believe I've ever seen it. 00:15:18
And I don't know, did has BNRC perhaps ever seen it? 00:15:22
And and this kind of drives to a larger point, at least as far as I'm concerned in our kind of figuring out where we want to go, 00:15:28
where we want to go climate action or we want to go adaptation and. 00:15:34
It may be the first question then Mr. First is, do you view this RFP in helping in whoever we hire to help answer that question 00:15:42
for us or are you thinking like perhaps maybe what I've been thinking all along is that we need to answer that question first 00:15:49
before we go out for the RFP? 00:15:55
Council Member Jerry Oh, sorry, glady. 00:16:05
There's an eye at the end. 00:16:11
OK. 00:16:13
I do understand that question and I've had similar concerns myself. 00:16:17
And I I am familiar with the County of Monterey's Multi Jurisdictional Hazardous Hazard Mitigation Plan. I hadn't seen it in the 00:16:23
light as a full on replacement of the 2015, you know Pacific Grove Specific Vulnerability Assessment. 00:16:30
But I think there's always these these types of questions when you have overlap. You know the city could you know when if we're 00:16:39
putting together an ordinance, a lot of times the state has a similar bill that covers the same ordinance or the county might have 00:16:46
done the same thing and on top of each other. So I think that that raises a good question on what role we're trying to play here 00:16:54
and how that might have already been addressed at a state level or a county level. It's a great question. 00:17:01
My own opinion is that we might want to focus a little more on adaptation. I think that's where we can. 00:17:10
It's very in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, it's very difficult for a small jurisdiction like us, but even incremental changes 00:17:18
are great like we we we did last night at council based on the recommendations of this committee. 00:17:25
But I I think we need to know where we want where we want to focus our efforts and I thought we we were might we're going to we're 00:17:33
going to get some input from Mr. Ravel. I mean he's kind of a leading adaptation expert and he's we've worked with him in the 00:17:40
past. Yes, there was a request to invite him to to speak and after reaching out to him several times I have made contact with him 00:17:47
but not in a timeline that would allow for him to be here tonight. I don't want to hold anything up but. 00:17:54
Umm, maybe in the scope of work for this RFP it should be. 00:18:02
For the the first question, first milestone in the scope of work might be to help the city determine where they want to focus 00:18:09
their efforts, whether it's adaptation or or action. 00:18:15
I think we can get more bang for the buck by going with adaptation. 00:18:24
But that's just my opinion, so. 00:18:29
So I'll have. 00:18:32
Thank you, Chair. 00:18:39
George, I think this looks good to go. I I think in in light of the comments, I would say that since we are maintaining an active 00:18:41
website for CAP what this committee is doing, I think it'll be helpful for whoever's responding to understand what this committee 00:18:48
has been up to as well. So maybe some references to any documents. 00:18:55
Would would help with the just as background information we could include those links or otherwise. My question really is around 00:19:03
the timeline. 00:19:07
And just from a process perspective, once we receive the proposals and we're recommending to the City Council like there's a. 00:19:13
But rough looks like a month and a half something. Is it expected to come back to this committee? 00:19:22
For approval. 00:19:30
Councilmember, that's another good question that I don't necessarily have an answer for. I think, you know, the tentative proposal 00:19:35
was kind of mirrored off of similar RFP processes that the city has carried out. And that isn't a question that I, you know, I 00:19:42
know that we had considered having people from this committee on the evaluation committee, but I hadn't thought about whether this 00:19:49
would return here before going to council or not. So I think that. 00:19:56
I'd be happy to hear your guys's preference for that and maybe we could incorporate that. 00:20:04
OK. And I was just wondering like the. 00:20:09
Seems like we have a committee to evaluate. 00:20:12
It makes sense for the committee to kind of bring back the evaluation back to this committee for further like an input before we 00:20:16
finally select somebody. 00:20:20
That's my approach but I'm open to suggestions. But I do think that since we are as a body are blessing this we as a body should 00:20:26
bless the consultant too. So that's where my thoughts are and and in in order for that to work we need to make sure we have a 00:20:32
meeting scheduled in the August time frame which all those all that good stuff so. 00:20:39
It'll factor into the proceedings because if we're meeting in the August time frame, then will the City Council meeting gel with 00:20:48
the September 4th? 00:20:52
Just letting you know. 00:20:58
So anyway, I think it's valid. We can probably discuss it right now or maybe as part of the next kind of agenda item. 00:21:00
But we do need to account for all of us looking at the proposals. 00:21:07
So I agree. And we we talked about an August meeting anyway. 00:21:12
Which would be the third Thursday. 00:21:17
OK. 00:21:26
So maybe you can also add that in like formally. 00:21:30
To say that the and that will also give an indicator to whoever's reading this that. 00:21:34
This committee is doing work. 00:21:40
Understood, Councilmember. So yeah, by default, on the normal schedule of these this climate committee meetings, it would be 00:21:44
August 15th, the 3rd Thursday. That's. 00:21:48
4:00. 00:21:53
Yeah, I think that timeline would work really well and. 00:21:58
And I and I think that is a good idea. I guess I kind of assumed it would come back to us first. So thanks for posing the question 00:22:02
because I think that does make sense so that the whole body has a chance to review what makes sense. And and to remember Clady's 00:22:10
point, we want to to make sure we're going in the direction that we expect is you know what the committee is, is agreeing to 00:22:18
although we haven't quite done that yet. So but that will be informed by what we find out I think from what the consultant poses. 00:22:25
But that brings me back also to what Mr. Chaney said, which is so a lot of the RFP included things like public outreach, and so 00:22:34
I'm wondering. 00:22:39
Is 2022 recent enough that we wouldn't need further input? Has enough changed in the climate action environment that even though 00:22:47
that was done two years ago, it would still be worth having a consultant do that? Currently it's in the RFP, so it would mean 00:22:54
removing it if we wanted to just use the 22 report. That said, I would definitely think we should use the 22 report in conjunction 00:23:01
if we go forward with a full new set of public outreach, but I can. I can see the value of. 00:23:08
Tides shifting, maybe even in the last two years. 00:23:17
And two years was when it was published. So I'm assuming the research was done a bit before that. So there could be enough 00:23:20
difference in what the public thinks now that it is still worth having that assessment done and that outreach done would would 00:23:25
everyone on the committee agree? 00:23:29
Yeah, I thought a little thing, but no, no, that's. I think that does make sense to consider how valuable the 22 data is, if it's 00:23:35
still relevant. 00:23:38
But maybe it's also looking at specifically what data is not included in that 22 that maybe could be the focus of the RFP or 00:23:43
looking at some of our more outdated data like the tree survey, which is from a decade ago, Things like that maybe we could focus 00:23:51
on and they could subcontract out for that rather than look to do a tree inventory or canopy inventory at a later date or another 00:23:58
contractor. Maybe there's a way to look at the the facts that are not in the 22. 00:24:05
Future council goals for example as what we need to do to further advance our climate action as a city. So I would also second 00:24:47
that. I think really focusing on those areas would would probably be valuable. So I I would probably go along the same lines of 00:24:54
keep that in the RFP currently, but definitely have them utilize the new information in the 20221 as informative to the process of 00:25:02
what's maybe been done recently enough and what we need to focus more effort on. Does that make sense? 00:25:10
Going forward? 00:25:18
Yeah, I only have one comment. There's there's never enough of public outreach that's good, so. 00:25:19
Just go on with the Yeah, and I still think even 2 years could make a difference because even things like now people having to use 00:25:26
the system where your your, your table scraps for example, go in a different bin. So a lot has changed even since that survey 00:25:32
would have been done that may make people maybe be thinking differently about and we've had more big storms, more hot weather and 00:25:38
so that also could change people's opinions and interests. 00:25:44
Well, this is another example of that. The AMBAG data was from 2020 or 2021 or something when nobody was going anywhere and doing 00:25:53
anything. So that really affected the data. 00:25:59
In terms of. 00:26:06
If you're looking at the changes right, we also have the housing element now. 00:26:08
What are you going to do about the next 10 years and all the units that are coming in so there's stuff going on? 00:26:12
Yeah, that's a really good point too. So I think. 00:26:18
No. 00:26:21
Thank you, Chair. Well, I also want to let the committee know that we're a. 00:26:27
As part of our budget workshop back in February. 00:26:31
It was maybe February earlier this year we had a budget workshop and council was given opportunity to say, hey, this is what I'd 00:26:35
like to see added to the budget as far as either a program or staffing whatever and. 00:26:43
I made a recommendation, Laurie seconded it is to bring on a full time forester. It's great to have this urban forest management 00:26:52
plan, but if you don't have a forest managing the urban forest management plan. 00:26:58
It's so and if we're going to tie that in and I think that's where the committee is thinking is as far as managing the forest as a 00:27:05
carbon sink. 00:27:10
We need to really have a forester on there to do that work, Agreed. Agreed. Yeah, because that the committee might consider. 00:27:15
Drafting. We're an advisory group. We're free to offer, advice is to and this isn't on the agenda. I guess I don't know if I'm 00:27:27
speaking out of turn, but. 00:27:33
We might consider. 00:27:40
Developing a letter. 00:27:42
A recommendation, and we can all certainly come to the budget meeting individually and speak on our on our own behalves. 00:27:44
Making that recommendation and tying it into climate action. 00:27:54
I think that's going to be really important going forward. 00:27:59
Agreed. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's a great point because that's where we, since we're focusing on this, even though we've 00:28:03
unfortunately had very few meetings just by the nature of the committee, we are the ones who've been looking at it. So anything we 00:28:09
can do you know to inform that. And the former interim city manager has supported the idea of the Forester too. So I think making 00:28:16
sure we make movement on that in support of climate action. So and that's obviously not going to be in the RFP itself, but. 00:28:23
Bigger picture of Pacific Grove as far as how that benefits this project so. 00:29:39
All right. So if there are no more comments, what we can do is this is actually just a review and provide feedback. So is there 00:29:45
anything else that you need from the committee, Mr. First? 00:29:50
Chairman McDonald, I think just general sense if you guys are, you know have consensus that we're ready to move forward with this. 00:29:57
Yes, there is. 00:30:08
And yeah. 00:30:11
I would recommend that we move forward. I think it looks good. 00:30:15
If you guys want to just take an. 00:30:22
So. 00:30:29
I do not have a report prepared for this agenda item, but. 00:30:49
I can give a quick overview just to select two or three committee members to serve on a review panel for evaluation of RFP 00:30:53
submittals, and I'll leave it to the chair to decide. Kind of the format to select members. 00:31:00
I think so. 00:31:09
So yeah, I would say that we should go to public comment like we would for any agenda items, so. 00:31:11
In the in the audience. 00:31:17
Soon take it back, two hands raised. We'll start with Inga, Lawrence and Dahmer. 00:31:20
Thank you. And mine is a usual comment here. You're not speaking into your microphones, certain couple of certain members are, but 00:31:29
others are, I guess in different places than they usually said it or not speaking in and speaking out. I've even had trouble 00:31:38
hearing George some of the time, Mr. First some of the time. So please, I'd like to hear this meeting. Thank you. 00:31:47
And we also have a hand raised by Lisa Ciani. 00:31:59
I'll echo that the microphones are not picking up all of what you say and it is tricky moving the volume control as high as I can 00:32:04
and still not getting it. But that aside, I think that my earlier comment actually belonged on this part of the agenda and and. 00:32:15
And my feeling is that the the committee or subcommittee or whatever it is that. 00:32:28
That selects the consultant's. 00:32:36
They should follow that on through. 00:32:42
George is an excellent responsible. 00:32:46
Staff member that'll be shepherding this but. 00:32:52
I think it's also good to have. 00:32:56
Committee members input to going going forward. 00:33:00
In the other case, the. 00:33:06
The staff member was not was not really connected with with what was going on, so it it's nice to have a little collaboration. 00:33:09
To to make sure everything is going well. 00:33:24
Thank you. 00:33:27
We have a final hand, raised Anthony Gianni. 00:33:35
Just want to make it a consensus that you should have. For continuity purposes, you should have. 00:33:42
Two or three members of the committee who've been involved from the beginning to follow this all the way through to the end and 00:33:51
that will help the City Council as well. Thank you. 00:33:56
No further hand raised in the virtual audience. 00:34:05
All right. Thank you. So I'll open up to committee comments. 00:34:10
Well, first I'll say I've served on several or No2 RFPs committee subcommittees and I'm not interested in serving on the 3rd. 00:34:18
But I Speaking of the process and I think Lisa was Lisa, Johnny was trying to describe that. 00:34:28
Is that this we appoint the subcommittee subcommittee comes back to this committee, and then the committee makes the 00:34:36
recommendation to council. 00:34:40
That's that shouldn't be a problem. 00:34:45
And. 00:34:48
This particular subcommittee she was talking about was. 00:34:50
It went on for a little longer than it probably should have as far as being able to actually approve the actual person that we 00:34:55
wanted to hire to do the RFP so. 00:35:00
I don't see that happening here. I don't think that's going to be a problem. 00:35:08
So, but I think it is, I think it is an important function and I we didn't, we didn't. I've never really seen it done on council 00:35:11
before. I think it's really good to have some people focus on receiving the RFP's and being involved with staff. That normally 00:35:19
doesn't happen. It's just typically given to staff and then they come back and make the recommendation so. 00:35:26
It's going to be an important work to participate in. 00:35:35
I'm just not interested in doing it. 00:35:39
But I'm interested in hearing the results, obviously. 00:35:44
And I am not going to be able to do it within the timeline between now and the August meeting. I won't be able to attend the 00:35:49
August meeting. However, to the extent that any of the work carries forward from that, I would be very interested in being 00:35:55
involved. 00:36:02
Do we want to make nominations? Can I can we make some nominations? Or do people feel free to make to nominate themselves as well? 00:36:18
I suppose. How do you want to do it? 00:36:23
I'd be inclined to hope that people would nominate them sexually, but that said, obviously we can nominate each other as well. Is 00:36:29
there anybody who would like to serve on the subcommittee? 00:36:34
Anybody who has time, I was going to say it's a time factor more than I mean it would be. I'd be happy to do it. Do we know with 00:36:41
this? 00:36:44
Yeah, I don't because, you know, working it would be difficult to fit it in during the work day. I'm guessing weekends are not an 00:36:50
option to review. Do we know how many hours it may take? That's actually a really good point. Do we have a guesstimate of how long 00:36:55
since staff does these regularly? Do you have an idea of how long this process normally takes and what subcommittee involvement 00:37:00
would be? 00:37:05
To be honest here, McConnell, this will be my first evaluation for an RFP, so maybe a committee member that has been through one 00:37:11
of these before could comment on that. 00:37:16
But I was just going to say it depends on how many applicants we get because essentially you're doing a screening process and. 00:37:22
I will serve on it but. 00:37:31
I'm hoping. 00:37:33
Some others, because it is interesting, you know, you get FaceTime with them and you get to understand exactly, you know, and make 00:37:34
the evaluation on. It's like doing a job interview and and doing it in a public forum. It's a little different when you're 00:37:41
actually doing it in a subcommittee format. I think you get a little better idea of who you're dealing with and it's not so much 00:37:47
the dog and pony show, so. 00:37:53
I'm glad we're doing it. 00:38:00
And I would just say that if nobody's taking it, I'm happy to do it. It's the process is actually think of it this way, on the 00:38:03
August meeting you have to review proposals. You're going to do it beforehand. Let me just that. That's more or less that. But you 00:38:09
are going to be meeting with the participants to decide who looks like credible and and what which application stands out from the 00:38:16
others. So it'll be a learning process and it'll be a helpful learning process if any of you are interested my my original thought 00:38:22
was. 00:38:28
Being RC has been steadfast in climate action and all these elements. 00:38:35
Potentially be an RC may want to scrutinize these applications in particular and whoever is submitting the applications to make 00:38:39
sense from a BNRC to be on it, but I'm happy to do it if that's of interest. 00:38:46
So it sounds like you would you, if you were on the committee, you received them, you'd be reviewing them initially in your own 00:38:55
time, right before you met. Is that how it would work? So then you could come and have a more succinct review? 00:39:01
If if the meetings can be at 4:00, I can do it. 00:39:08
You know, that's a really important point. So for people to know what they're getting themselves into, do you foresee a structure 00:39:15
for doing this? So if we'd come back with the decision for this committee in August to then take to council in September. 00:39:22
Meeting times does to accommodate because I think all of us have the same challenges is during the day is is challenging with 00:39:31
work, but we recognize that your work hours are during the day. As for generally a good time that could maybe accommodate the 00:39:36
needs of everyone. 00:39:41
Chairman Tunnel that you know that that is a challenge I think and I think that will also be a challenge for the applicants, for 00:39:48
the proposers. I think you know in general most of those, you know consultants operate in business hours and are accustomed to 00:39:52
that. 00:39:57
Do do committee members that have have experience with this have anything to note on the general time of day is usually a business 00:40:02
hours type of evaluation or is that have past accommodations been made for after hours and weekends? 00:40:08
UH, chair the UH. It's typically up to the the consultant who kind of drives the schedule. 00:40:15
I'm not hearing a lot of interest, so I I will, I will say I will be happy to sit on it. 00:40:58
Are you interested, Kathy? 00:41:06
Yes, but I'm going to be traveling some this summer, so that's my concern. Gotcha. But not. 00:41:10
The entire summer, so. 00:41:16
We really depend on. 00:41:18
How fast will you receive the applications and? 00:41:20
How many? 00:41:25
Right. So the what is the go ahead July 27th I think it was yeah it was ended July. So remember and just to point out Chair 00:41:26
McConnell, you know we we created this schedule we're not tied to it if if that's going to be a hiccup for the committee members. 00:41:34
We're afraid to change the schedule. 00:41:44
And give our give ourselves more time to accommodate different schedules and. 00:41:49
And I know you know, staff works generally 7:00 to 4:00 or 7:30 to 4:00 or 7:00 or 8:00 to 5:00. 00:41:54
But that's not to say that we can't be flexible, but I can't speak for the consultants coming on the recommendation if this is 00:42:02
really, I wasn't expecting this to be so. 00:42:07
So if if required, I mean the the proposals are due July 25th, we have a meeting on August 15th, let's meet August 15th and decide 00:42:14
how we want to take this through. Because by that time we will know how many proposals are there and so technically beginning, 00:42:21
even review the proposals of August 15th as a team if you like, just just so that it makes sense. So I like that. 00:42:28
That's a great idea question. Do we need, does it have to be a subcommittee of the full committee that does this or could we just 00:42:37
have a meeting where we meet together one of our meetings? And the other question I would have is can that be done in an open 00:42:43
forum because we're reviewing proposals from vendors. So, so I'm asking because if that's the case, would that then need to be 00:42:50
more of a closed session type meeting or would it need to be a subcommittee so it's not an open session? 00:42:57
And competitors do not want to share each other's information as much so including price. So, so something I mean all that I'm 00:43:36
saying is we have a meaning on calendar August 15th, we can, we can just meet internally. 00:43:43
So. 00:43:50
It's probably not a bad idea though to do your first cut and maybe scoring. 00:45:01
Off the dyess and not you know on the dice because it could be a very long lengthy process otherwise. But I haven't seen the RFP 00:45:05
but often you'll have a scoring sheet as an example is there if we include one we did we did not no that might because then the 00:45:11
the people who are going to respond already know what you're scoring them on. So you can all you know see your yourself as well 00:45:16
when you get the proposals back that you know 15 points for you know this information that they submitted and you can kind of 00:45:22
screen that way as well. 00:45:28
So I guess what I'm trying to say is you could probably if you wanted to do your screening and. 00:45:34
Two hours time at home. 00:45:39
You probably could so, and if you wanted to bring it all together and discuss, that's one way to possibly do it. 00:45:42
Then I guess the next question would be and and it may be another question for City Manager is, is it then recommended that we 00:46:26
discuss that in a closed session format first or if we've all reviewed and scored at home, can we just come back on the dyess to 00:46:31
to then discuss? 00:46:36
You know we. 00:46:43
I don't know if these are necessarily close messenger discussions. We probably should check in with city attorney, you know in 00:46:45
terms of that format. But I guess like individually if you all scored and they came together and discussed your scores, I. 00:46:50
Of the the true regulations behind that. So maybe if we could could ask to get some feedback from the city attorney on that. 00:47:32
OK. 00:47:42
I also. 00:47:43
And then that would refine the group down, which would then move on to possible interviews. Is that what I'm understanding? 00:48:17
Yeah, I would think that there's an outlier or something, right. Right. Yeah, probably depending upon what comes back. 00:48:25
Because it lets them be really clear on the objectives. They're not wasting their time not knowing what target they're trying to 00:49:02
hit, and we're likely to get better proposals as a result of that, I think. 00:49:08
Chair Yeah, so concerning the scoring sheet, who's going to devise that? And, you know, is there anyone on city staff that would 00:49:15
have experience in doing that besides our city manager? 00:49:21
Maybe has something else on his plate right now. 00:49:31
I mean, I think it would be a key thing. So I mean, I don't want to just assume that we can actually. 00:49:35
Committee member wouldn't I don't have personal experience, but I've filled out scoring sheets for other RFPs. I know that there's 00:49:41
some experience within the city and I'm I'm. I don't doubt that we can make that happen, OK? 00:49:47
Great. 00:49:53
Thank you. Do Do do we want to see that scoring sheet before it goes out? No. OK. 00:49:59
So just to summarize, so that so are we all on the same page that we don't actually feel in the end that we need a subcommittee of 00:50:07
the committee. We will utilize A scoring sheet that staff can prepare to narrow the field down. We can individually assess at home 00:50:14
and then that scoring will determine who we bring in for interviews and then with the entire committee and tend to then meet with 00:50:20
the interviewees. 00:50:26
Yeah. Or at that time, a subcommittee could be formed for the interviews. 00:50:33
By then too. So that would give us a better idea of our individual availabilities also. 00:51:11
But my comment was I I I do think that there's value in having the subcommittee. 00:51:19
I I think it streamlines things. I think it's it's it's easily easier for the applicants and it's easier to get stuff moving. 00:51:28
And I actually wish I could do it and just you know, but I I can't between now and August, so between now and September actually. 00:51:40
So it sounds like we'd want it all them all to come to us and then based on that we wouldn't have narrowed it down to the final 00:51:47
two or three or whatever and then that subcommittee based on individuals time would I think that makes sense. 00:51:55
We all score them. Then we have a subcommittee form to facilitate that process to do the actual interviews. Make the 00:52:06
recommendation based on the interviews to the rest of the committee. 00:52:10
I think that makes a lot of sense too. And and the other advantages of that is that you can then set that up outside of regular 00:52:16
business hours. It wouldn't be dependent on having to be able to use the facility here. There was a question posed by Miss Gianni 00:52:22
about would that involve staff on the committee? Normally staff are not necessarily on committees, but is this something where we 00:52:28
feel that that would be a valuable thing to include and would you like to be part of that? 00:52:34
I think it's pretty explicit in the boards and commissions handbook that staff is not to be on subcommittees or committees 00:52:42
technically, but I think to be on the not to say that they couldn't be on the review panel, you know. So I think ultimately when 00:52:48
we go into interviews, I would expect staff to be part of that review panel and what to aid and you know be there for continuity 00:52:54
through those negotiations. So I don't think that I would say staff would be on the subcommittee, but I would expect staff to be 00:53:00
on the review panel. 00:53:06
OK. And I was thinking of that with some other subcommittees that we have the same thing. We're collaborating closely with staff. 00:53:12
They're not part of the subcommittee, but everything is done in conjunction. So it sounds like that would be something that would 00:53:18
be very valuable and necessary here as well. Yes. And I think it comes down to semantics, if you want to call it a subcommittee or 00:53:23
if you just want to call it representatives to the evaluate, you know. 00:53:28
To the evaluation panel. 00:53:35
Yeah. You know, I don't know if there's a legal requirement for us to meet outside of the Brown Act full committee. Do you need to 00:53:38
call it a subcommittee or is representatives fine? I I think, as far as I know, you can call whatever you want. It's as long as 00:53:43
you stay under a quorum. 00:53:48
Yes, OK. 00:53:54
Yep, that else is that. It seems like everybody's nodding their heads and is in agreement. Is that enough guidance for you? Do you 00:53:57
need any other direction? 00:54:01
I think that's I think I understand the the, the general direction that you're giving and I think that they might stretch out the 00:54:06
timeline a little bit. 00:54:10
But if we're OK with that, we'll plan on developing A rubric or scoring sheet and having the hard drafts of the proposals 00:54:14
distributed to the committee for scoring. 00:54:20
Chairman Donald, I don't see this interfering with the General Plan. I, you know, I think how this will integrate with the General 00:54:59
Plan is kind of very much to be determined. 00:55:04
And I think you know we're going to be working potentially with the same consultant, but very like very potentially not with the 00:55:09
same consultant. So how those get integrated is very much up in the air. 00:55:15
I was just going to mention, and we talked about this early on on the committee is that it's not necessary that the Climate Action 00:55:22
and Adaptation plan be an element of the general plan. It could be. 00:55:29
It sets, it sets a different much then you have to have the compliance components and you got to be a lot more thoughtful about 00:55:36
because you've got to make findings you know for development based on you know your adopted general plan. So I I'd always assume 00:55:44
that this would stand apart from the general plan, but we we talked about that early on and I guess that's going to be dependent 00:55:52
on where we kind of choose to go on this as well is whether we're going climate action more or more adaptation. 00:56:00
And and one final, maybe a request could we get, maybe you could send the scoring sheet out to the members once you've developed 00:56:08
it, just so we have a idea what it looks like. 00:56:13
Councilmember Gladia, Absolutely. 00:56:19
But in the in the RFP, it is not contemplated that this will be an element of the general plan, is that right based on what you 00:56:25
just said? 00:56:28
If you give me a moment I think I'll confine the language, but I don't. 00:56:32
Think that I don't think it mentions the general plan specifically. I think it mentions. 00:56:36
Referencing city documents that if I don't think it specifies specifically that this will be part of the general plan, no. 00:56:45
Right. So if nobody else has any comments and staff feels like they have enough guidance. 00:56:56
I believe that brings us to the end of the meeting. I will double check the agenda just to be sure that is it. So the the next 00:57:01
item is just that our next meeting is planned for August 15th, 2024 at 4:00 PM. 00:57:06
And with that we will adjourn. 00:57:13
Thank you. Thank you. 00:57:15
scroll up