Capitola City Council 08/27/2026

a program update. All right. Good evening, mayor and council. This is an item we have discussed before. This evening, we have a representative from PG& to talk specifically about the rule 28 program. The staff presentation is uh much of the presentation we heard last time. So I'll go through it relatively quickly, but please feel free to ask me any questions. Um so what is rule 20A? That is a CPU program administered through PG& here in the city of Capola that gives credits to cities for undergrounding projects. The program expires in 2023. Um all the credits that we have are the credits that we're going to have. They've all been distributed and redistributed and there will be no more acrual of credits. So our approximately $3 million worth of credits is what we've got. Um projects must be within established districts. Those are done by resolution. They have the districts at this point would not be right wise wise to rewrite. Um it will put you at the end of the queue for any kind of project with PG&E. We do have an active district six and any project within a district has a minimum size. Um, just for anyone who's curious, we've had five other districts with successful pro programs under the rule 28 in the past going from 1975 to 1993, including two in the uh village area. Um, the district resolutions require any projects for the utilities to remain underground. um and that in the removal of poles and other overhead facilities associated with them. Um obviously the benefits of undergrounding or improved aesthetics but also some improved reliability for the utility and uh just long-term modernization and the potential to coordinate with other projects. Uh key constraints is there are costs associated with these projects. Um the funds for rule 28 are eligible for undergrounding costs, but there's also easement acquisition, uh road rehabilitation and patching that are things that are not covered by the rule 28 funds. Again, there's also the time constraint of the program sun setting. Um so again, we have approximately $3 million balance available. um some of which has been expended on um 61A which you may recall is the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Bay Avenue. It's approximately $45,000 worth of credits and there is some that continues to acrew since that project is still open. Um typically these credits um not only cover construction but also um expenses of PG&E as uh utility coordination and engineering which is why there's been some funds expended already though there's been no construction project um again there are extra costs to these projects um also including replacement street lighting because often the street lighting is attached to these P geni poles um so the district 6 we're speaking about was established in 2000 and then subdivided into 2019 in 2019 into three districts. Again, that intersection of Capitol Avenue and Bay Avenue and then two other districts, one going down Capitol Avenue and the other one going down Bay into Monterey. Um these have the district 6A1, the X there in the corner, has been developed over multiple years um when the city was considering a roundabout in that intersection. So it has been developed and uh the budget's been more refined than the other two districts. So previously we had planned on doing this undergrounding with a road project. That road project is no longer moving forward. The idea with doing it with the road project is that it would also require some road work and uh sidewalk rehabilitation and potential grout funds to do that road work. So some of those costs would overlap and the impact to the city of just the undergrounding would be reduced. Um so again a lot of that um planning has been completed some engineering the joint transplanning and utility coordination but there are many remaining steps left with that X area undergrounding including confirming other utilities participating in this trench. So taking their utilities off of the pole and getting into the trench of PG& and again the costs are still unknown. Uh the last estimate for this project was done several years ago and construction costs have escalated quite a bit just in the past 24 months. Think I went backwards. There we go. So there is the potential for alternative projects. Again this is these have not been developed in any way. They have just been mapped. Um the 6 A2 which is the one that goes down Monterey into Bay does has been identified as having challenging topography. There is that historic wall there on Monterey that has to be considered. So working around a historic resource always makes a project a bit more expensive and the utility service connections there are a bit more complicated than the other two locations. Uh the 6B alternative which is right here down Capitol Avenue again kind of has that same requirement of new engineering and planning and utility coordination. Um and then also recall that we don't have quite all the credits that we've used um of the three million we have a reduction from development of that other project and there would be credits used to develop this project prior to using the remaining credits to actually do construction and that's a lot to get done before 2033. Um, again, there are some preliminary estimates. These, the one from 61A is a bit more recent than the S6B one, which was presumably done in 2019 when that was split off from the rest of the district. Um, but neither of those are an actual budget, like project estimate, that that it's very likely that there are additional costs. And again, the PG&E rule 2A only covers eligible utility costs. there will always be additional costs to the city for any project because those credits just don't cover everything. Um, so there's several options the council can take uh advancing the 61A which again is that intersection uh undergrounding or initiating a project for a different district. I had expressed to the council last um meeting that PG& could not confirm when they would be able to start work on an alternative district. uh Kathy Pace who runs this program for PG&E who we have is the expert can answer any detailed questions you may have on looking at other alternatives. Of course there's always the option of just discontinuing any rule 28 project. Um and with that there's the district map on the screen and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have questions. >> Okay I just have I think a simple question. Um, we have three districts up there, blue, green, and pink. So, can you do a project with the money that doesn't do the entire district or do you have to have a project that does the entire district? >> So, there is a minimum size. I I actually ask Kathy to come up and answer that question in more detail. It is my understanding that the district 618 is that minimum size. >> Yeah, there's the um rule 28 tariff requires that it be 600 feet or one city block. And generally >> 600 ft is that >> 600 feet or a city block. And generally we would call a city block where there's um a cross street crossing it. So at each you know one cross street on each side would be considered a block. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming out tonight and u uh tanning our city council me. Um when you is it and or is it 600 or city block or >> or? >> So it's andor. Okay. >> Or or >> Okay. Um perfect. Thank you. Um and then um a hypothetical if you were designing um more than a city block 800 ft and it came into um you went out to bid and the bids came in and if our number is 3 million, it came in at 3.5 for example, could we have the option of stopping at the 600 foot mark because we have $3 million and so that we didn't have to acrew that additional Yes, >> you can reduce scope to to fall within the available, but when you reduce scope, that means you go back into design. So, you spent, let's pretend you spent $50,000 on the design so far. Now, we're going to add to the cost of that because you're going to go back into a redesign. So, it adds cost and adds schedule. >> So, could we work with you? Um, if we're trying to maximize a dollar, you guys ever do like add alternate? So designed an al maximum project but design it to the 600 R 600T scope and then continue on from there. >> It's yes the answer is yes we can do that but it's the same scenario. We would do the design for the 600 ft and then we would add on to there. >> So you you your suggestion would be go in at 600 if you're under then look at it as an add-on if we wanted to continue or would you >> do a rough estimate on their proposed um footage on your proposed boundary, we would do a rough estimate and that estimate is based on historical data. So, it's not street specific. It's not specific to what's under the streets. So, that's just a really rough ballpark estimate to give you an idea of which what decision you would want to make >> if you want to >> start with the 600 feet and and expand from there. >> Perfect. And then the main intent of this original program was for aesthetic reasons mostly correctly. Right. Perfect. And again, thank you. I know you answer some of my previous questions and again, thank you tonight for coming out and helping us through this process. >> And knowing we knowing that we're not going to be doing the the work in 6A1, what is Pione's opinion on where it should go? Well, can we ask that? >> Um, PG doesn't have an opinion on where you should spend your credits. That would be up to the city to make that decision. I would, even though you didn't ask the question, I feel it's important to provide the information to you. With the CPU mandate this that the program be sunsetted in 2033, pursuing a new design or a new project is going to be a significant challenge. there's significant risk to being able to accomplish a new project before the 2033 sunset. So if you pivot from the existing project, it's increases the risk of our being able to accomplish it. Does that mean we have to be within these three like districts because those are the districts we've already >> Yeah. So right identified the work plan is is um based on the date your resolution is passed. So any other any place inside of those those in that boundary is going to hold you in the same place in line. However, the design is done for the first phase that you're considering pivoting it away from and we're currently so we haven't received approval on the general right case for 2027 through 2030. Because of that, we have to be planning very conservatively. We're concerned about our ability to complete the current project that's already designed before 2033 based on not having, you know, once we get the funding numbers from the CPU, then we can put together a stronger work plan and we'll know more definitively. Right now, we're concerned that we won't be able to finish the project that's designed. If you pivot to a new project, again, the risk is much higher that we won't be able to accomplish it. So, can I ask I don't want to interrupt. Go ahead, Melinda. >> I just had one more other question. It sounds like who who who came up with the estimate of the $4.1 million and does that mean we have to fill in the hole and where would that money come from? I guess I don't know if director Khan or >> yeah the estimate was provided by Pini and it's based on the study that was done beforehand um but also who's going to be in the joint trench what's going on in the street right now so and that's why the project I think I know that later there were issues with the roundabout and decisions being made there but initially the project was paused because there were problems with joint trench participation and the cost and how that additional money was going to be supplied, whether or not the city was going to be able to provide it. Because the credits, as mentioned earlier from Jessica, the credits that you have are all the credits that you have. The CBC's already shut down that program, so there are no new credits coming. So, the city would have to fund the gap for anything above and beyond what's available. Jessica, can you answer can you answer that question about where that million dollar could come from for us, whether through grants or whether so our most readily available funds typically or like reliable funds grant-wise come from road projects. So associating something with a road or a sidewalk project can help de um supplement some of the funds. Otherwise, I'm not sure of any kind of grant program we could receive funds just solely for an undergrounding project. >> We couldn't say like tag this on to a CDBG project to use a million dollars from I don't know. I'm I'm just curious. >> I'm not sure that that's eligible for CDBG. It may it may be. I I don't know the answer. >> Okay. So, um I keep hearing and you know I'm not good at electrical kind of stuff, but that there's problems in our village with the underground utilities that are there because they constantly get flooded um winter storms and those kinds of things. Um, can can those kinds of projects be attached to the the undergrounding so we can improve that whole situation? Or is it just um you're going to pay to take down the poles for aesthetic reasons? >> No, it may not be real clear, but go ahead. >> Let me make sure I understand. Are you asking would it be possible to use the rule 28 credits to repair some undergrounding issues that are going on in other places in the city? >> Yes, where utilities have already been underground. >> It's not allowed per the per the tariff, the CPC tariff, it's not allowed. They're very specific guidelines on what we can do with those credits. >> Thank you. >> I have one followup. Um since we uh PG did the original estimate for whatever for the one for the green X are weurring cost monthly or daily of not making decision on this project since it's been on hold >> yes >> and about how much cost have those been to date you know >> I don't not for the just sitting still I can find out but I didn't come prepared >> you have ballpark >> I don't I know how much money has been spent to date but not just for the sitting still it's for the design it's for anything. I know it's it's minimal, but I but I can't give you a number. >> Well, we are acrewing costs until we make a decision to pivot off the project or pivot to a different project. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Question. >> Just one last question. We I mean there's still an option to move forward with 6A1, bid the project out, see how much it actually costs, and then determine whether we want to move forward or not. Is that right? That is correct. Again, that the answer is yes, that is correct. That is still an option, but I have concerns about the ability for us to get it done in the 20 before the 2033 deadline until we get the rate case approved. Once we get the rate case approved, then we'll be better able to answer the question. But right now, without knowing what our funding is going to be for the next, you know, three years, it's hard to determine how many projects we can can complete. >> I thought you said the 6A1 project is already in the queue. >> It is. It is in the queue. It's in the line. It's very high up in the queue actually. But again, the CPU is going to tell us how much money we have, how much budget we have, what funding we have for rule 28 specifically. And until we have that number, we have a cue, but I don't know how far down the line we can get until we know what that funding is going to be. >> You mean that $3 million is not guaranteed? >> It's not budgeted. The $3 million is notional funding. It's it's discounts. So, it's not real budget or it's not real funding. It's not actual money yet. Um, so >> it's hard for us to make a decision. >> I understand. And it's hard. Yeah. >> And I'm trying to be careful about the way I say it, so I'm trying not to make it more confusing, but we've referenced it in the past as it's almost like frequent flyer miles. So, it's it's yours and it's real. You didn't pay for it. you did it. Nobody's been charged. Rateers have not been charged for that funding. But the CPU tells us, while we have these books out for everybody, we have your balance waiting for you. The CPU tells us how much money we can spend annually. Um, or in this case, the rate case is a three-year rate case. And so they'll tell us how much per year we can spend over the next three years. Until we have that information, we have a very conservative work plan. And based on that very conservative work plan right now, we're not going to get to you before or we don't think we'll get to this project before the 2033 sunset. Okay. I guess um I have an question. I don't know if it'd be who it would be more directed at. Um but obviously so undergrounding does work for aesthetics then safety for the utilities and then is there any talk about you know safety for pedestrians traffic things like that when we eliminate more poles especially at an intersection. Yes, for undergrounding those those topics do come up and are relevant. Rule the rule 2A specific undergrounding is very specifically for beautifification and the tariff is very clear about what qualifies. At one point we had recommended that the tariff because it was being ratified anyway. We had made recommendation that maybe um based on municipalities input that maybe wildfire risk could be um one of the reasons that you could use your rule 28 credits. the decision was made not to make that adjustment to the tariff. So, it is still very clearly a beautifification. The only exception to that is when the tariff was updated, it was updated to include wheelchair access or ADA compliant. >> Yeah, I guess that's maybe a followup. um if we're working on safety within our sidewalks and ADA compliance um if there would be funding available that route to back up the if we did get the 3 million if that's something worth like looking into to supplement possibly I'm sorry I I'm latched on to this idea about what you said you said that we are high in the queue But the funding isn't guaranteed and that we may not get to the we might not get funded for this. So how do we get funded for this? I'm I'm kind of confused in terms of your messaging to us. >> Yeah, I apologize for that. >> So do we how do we get to that point where we move forward hopefully be able to utilize these credits? What is our best path forward timelinewise? Now, >> from the options that are um that we've discussed tonight, the the best path forward is to pursue the project that's already designed. It's still not a guarantee, but it is the best path forward. Starting a brand new design I think is there are significant risks associated with trying to start a brand new project while the program is being shut down. It's just not a great time to try and pivot and start a new project. Thank you. Any other follow-ups? Okay. Thank you so much for being here. It really means a lot to us. Yeah. Um, we can go out to public comment on this item. If there's any takers. All right. Seeing one. Seeing one. >> Welcome back. >> I don't have a Sorry, Keith. I don't have a a comment. I have a question. is that didn't get asked when is CPU going to know from the the or when's PG& going to know from CPU um what their allocation is what that what is that date so we can figure out the timeline >> thank you >> they don't give us an actual date but we're expecting it in 2027 late 2027 >> okay we'll go back to council comments Yeah. Um, so thank you. Um, so one thing I just wanted to talk about briefly was um, regarding the I call it the green X6A one. Um, I can't see that anytime that I think a council or city would ever have an extra million dollars to backfill undergrounding holes in one intersection in the city capital. So with the intent of looking and I was trying to understand the whole optics of what this program is is around aesthetics. Um I went to go look at the projects and I just thought it might just be good for a document for our council and council member Mayor Morgan was telling me actually um ask questions or look for deliberation before I make a motion. So I got a little document here. Um I'll like pass this out. And so what I was thought would be very helpful is for us to look at the Monteray intersection. I don't know if staff um is to look at the Monterey Avenue um project and we talk about aesthetics when you come to Capola. Um that is probably one of the most highly visible um uh you know streets that you come into the city. So you would say, "Wow, if we're going to get $3 million to underground, let's roll our dice and see where we're going to spend our money other than at the corner in front of Gales that we intercept. We underground one intersection." So looking at that, I said, "Wow, that's um an intersection." And then I thought, um, what obstacles in the way? And then we say, well, we have a power pole in the middle of the sidewalk that is going to obstruct any pedestrian from accessing down to our village. And I took a picture of the four power poles that are involved in that process. And I looked at trying to measure what the intent of it was. So I looked at what the 28 funds were and it was supposed to be 600 ft or a city block. This is right around 600 ft and a city block. It also met the intentions of um aesthetics which I thought was the biggest thing. we could then if we were going to spend any extra money, it'd be on a sidewalk that goes down to our village where, you know, we try to have the most impact for visitors and stuff. And so I looked at um there might be potential never getting any money. Um but I just wanted to advocate for looking at this. I looked at this as a big reach no matter where we go. But if we're going to reach, let's reach in an area that provides us some um an area that we have some return that there'll probably be some dollar value from the aesthetic value of people coming to town. Like it doesn't look like um there's power lines all running around the top. So that's why I just wanted to provide a little bit of a document on where I was kind of think thinking would be the best use and just look for people's comments back from the or look for council members comments back and if anybody else had some comments regarding that as an area to look at. Well, you know, this this is a difficult question because they say there's these $3 million in credits, but when I heard that, you know, the intersection project would require the city actually, I think it's a million5 from that old estimate and we know costs have not gone down. I mean, whatever estimate they gave us, it's it's going to be more. And so, I, you know, I can't see us coming up with a million5 or $2 million to underground the utility poles at um Bay and Capav. I mean, I just I I don't see I'm not hearing that there's grant funding to do that. But I'm not hearing that um you know there's there's a way to come up with that extra money. So I mean there's a part of me and this sounds absolutely terrible and I never thought I'd say it is maybe you know we we walk a we we walk away if there's not a feasible project for us to do. I mean how much staff time and energy do we want to spend on something that's not going to happen? And I hear Melinda saying, "We'll just go for it and get the real estimates, but still we know that's going to require a huge amount of money from from the city of Capitol." And I I would actually feel bad spending that amount of money on one intersection, taking out a couple power poles unless somebody could really justify doing it. So, you know, my original idea was, you know, try and come up with a project that would work within, you know, our $3 million and I know it will be less because we've spent some of it. I think about 45,000 and we would have to spend some more to you know design that project but come up with something that at least would be financially feasible for us and maybe we don't get it done maybe we do get it done but try for something that has some possibility of working um you know it it it is a hard one and I I do I do I think there's a real thing there. How how much of, you know, we've got a lot going on in our city. We we're running our staff ragged trying to get them to do projects and things. And uh may maybe the time has come to say this is one that just isn't going to work. And I'll look forward to hearing what the rest of you have to say. >> I have another question. Is this lower part of Monterey AB doable in R3 $3 million staff or PG answer? >> I have to see exactly what part you're talking about and I could do a measurement. >> I need to make sure that it qualifies for the tariff. >> Y >> and then I could run a calculator for you and get >> done. It looks like to be like a a lot smaller than the 6A1 area. So, it's just a question I have. >> Yeah, I can't I can't give you a number tonight, but I can give you a number. >> Okay. >> If you'd like me to get you an estimate for that, I will. >> That seemed like Yes, that that would be great. >> Can I keep this? >> Yes. >> That's the only question I had. Thanks. >> I provided the poll numbers on that too for you. >> Thank you. Yeah, this is a this is a tough one. I would I you know I I I see what you're getting at. I'm just worried about timeline. You know, if we are going to continue with something, starting a new project, what the timeline would be, what the feasibility would be. It's kind of not sounding great to restart design. um the intersection since we do have the design. Um how much do we know what the staff time would be if we move forward with go the forward motion steps for 6A1? how much staff time that would be or is that mainly going to be on PG&E until we get the actual integration of all the other people and cost analysis and if we make it in the queue if we start this other sorry now my brain's just going if we start the other Monterey project does that affect our Q position >> um if it can be contained inside of the existing boundary which looks like it It maintains your position based on the date of the resolution. Um, I've already addressed that with with my manager, made sure that if we if you pivoted, we could hold that position. But it's almost theoretical when I say you're holding your position because right now holding the position with a complete design puts you here. Holding the position with a brand new project, which essentially that would be, >> is a different place. It's a different team that we have to get it into design. It's it's a different >> It's a complete different animal. Yeah. And I I think um I don't know the poll number, but there is one at the intersection of uh of Bay and Capola that that sort of restricts visibility for drivers um at the corner heading down to Monterey um for pedestrians where you know we've talked a lot about safety in these areas. So that that is something that I would advocate um for to to enhance that already kind of gnarly intersection. Um so that's why you know I I have my site set on the 6A1. I just don't know. I mean if if we're if it's already designed and we're going to maybe look at another section, but why wouldn't we just move forward with where we're already at? I guess that's what my brain >> I think it's the million dollars extra that it's going to cost is that >> Yeah, but we don't even know that. Can I make my comment too? Sorry. Um I I 100% agree. I I think just based on the conversation today, the information you have been able to provide usage provide us which has been really really insightful is that really the feasible path forward now is the project we've been working on. And yes, it could mean we have this funding gap, but you know, like our mayor said, you know, maybe we couple it with with a um sidewalk enhancement accessibility grant because it's true. We were just talking about how, you know, the seniors are having issues getting their walkers on on the on the sidewalk, right? If a big pole is there, it's also blocking their access to the sidewalk. Um, and just w getting rid of the poles would widening widen the sidewalk so they can access the the street so they don't have I mean the sidewalk so they don't have to be on the street with their wheelchairs and their their walkers. I support moving forward with 6A1 and seeing what that number the bidding just doing the next step to see what it costs and whether we can whether director Khan can work her magic finding grants for us which she has done successfully for a number of years. >> I have a I have a question. Yeah. Um what's the um first of all I guess question staff on a new area. What staff uh what staff time does it take for us to work on a P Gen estimate for a new area if it's only undergrounding? So not knowing having not developed this new project at all I will say on the existing project there's a number of easements right and those are easements that the city would have to purchase or negotiate from people and that is a heavy step lift. I would assume that there may be something similar on any other project. I would say that is one of the more time inensive pieces of this for city staff. >> I'm sorry, my qu um my question wasn't clear then. um to for P Gen to provide an estimate like you have right now for the first intersection at $4.5 million at Bay and Capola for us to if we wanted to say um have another project looked at is it really a crew staff's time for P Gen do an estimate on replacing four power poles underground? >> Uh the estimate that Cathy authored does not impact staff time. No. Okay. So if Okay. So it's it's the estimate is is when we're concerned about staff's time and estimate. I'm saying it's not staff's time. It's P gen time and that's what we get build for out of the $3 million. Is that correct? >> The the estimate that we're talking about for a new section. >> That's just me doing the estimate for you. It's not an actual design estimate. >> Correct. >> And that doesn't cost the city anything. It doesn't I don't even build when we do the actual design that is P Gen staff time and that does fill it in and it does and it's mostly P gen but but city staff has to support they provide documentation they answer questions they work with us so it does I don't know how much it costs but it does cost ahead it it seems to me that we have we have we have two things on the table that we're talking about. Um, and what I'm hearing is that we we we have a cost estimate right now for Bay and CAP. Let's just go with the $4.5 million. And what you're saying is that to give us a cost estimate on this section of Monterey Avenue, that's something that you just do and you provide that to us. And it's really just a general estimate. It's not actual numbers, just like the 4.5 numbers, not a real actual number. uh about how long would it take you to give us an estimate on that section this new section on Monteray. >> So the estimate that I would give to you for the new section I can do next week. >> Um and that is what is called a class 5 estimate. It's it's just like you said it's based only on historical information of similar projects in the Pen Territory that have been done over the years. It doesn't take into consideration what's in the street. It doesn't have those kind of details. So, it's not the same kind of estimate as the one that we have. I can turn it around very quickly next week, but that number will be if you chose to pursue that project. It will for sure be refined as we go through the life >> because I I would really like to have that number before we decide. I just feel like by the time we get that number, nothing's going to happen on either project because we're just inching closer and closer. >> But she's saying she can do it. I mean, we could have it for our next meeting. >> Yeah. I I just say the reason why I brought up this I was just trying to get to a point that I as a council I can't see us myself ever voting spend a million and a half dollars to put an intersection underground when we have our warf that we need to invest money in. We have we just talked about what we're going to have to money we have to put forward to our trestle. We have road conditions. We have potholes. We have street maintenance. So, all I was trying to look at is how can we use your $3 million and I was trying to come up with a small project, smaller size project that would fit within that window that we would get aesthetics to meet PG Genie, keep within one city block and then be cost effective and have our city benefit other than going forward with a project that we're going to say well and I think your estimate when you were at 4.5 that was three years ago. Is that correct? I think I think it's about that. >> Yeah. So that 4.5 has to be $5 million state. So we're on our hooks already for two plus million dollars for one intersection in our city. And so I was just trying to come up and hopefully I wasn't trying to confuse anybody on what my idea was. I was just trying to come up way to spend money of PGs without spending money out of our general fund or looking for additional grants and wasting staff's time on a project that um would be very cost prohibitive. So that was my full intent. >> Okay. So it sounds like to make a decision majority of the council would like to receive more information on the sorry I'm looking at the wrong paper the segment from yeah like fanmar down towards the village >> to cherry >> and and to clarify this is just a rough estimate we have a closer closer more accurate estimate on 6A1 because we've done some of the work the engineering preliminary engineering ing. Is that correct? >> Significantly more. >> So, so even if we get an estimate from you on this segment next week, we can confidently increase that by a certain percentage. So, >> or or adjust it. I can't say. I mean, based on the world, I would say increase it, but all I can >> All right. Well, in the long run, two weeks won't make a huge difference. So, if we want the information to come back within two weeks, if you think that that's I'm not trying to put all this on your plate, hey, come back. Um, but >> make it easier to make our decision. That's for sure. >> Okay, let's >> Could you also um look at any cost estimate PG's done that are 3 years old and what has been the escalation? So, it's escalation running with PG from estimates 3 years ago that you see a 23% increase. And so, we can just take that 23% on top of the 4.5 and now say it's 5.6. We're adjusting our tool, the calculator that I referenced that I would use. Um, that tool is adjust based on whenever a project is finished, >> then the calculator is adjusted. >> So when you come back in two weeks, whenever it is, you can tell us hypothetically what this could be and this would be a very preliminary estimate and then the the real estimate would be you could show us what the escalation figures have been. No, I would be able to tell you this is the estimate based on the the information that you provided to me and this is a class 5 estimate which means it can be up to 100% more or up to 50% less. It's a very broad >> Yeah. I I'm sorry, but the 4.5 >> was from three years ago. Has that been refreshed? >> Um, it hasn't been refreshed lately. the project has been sitting stagnant because of some issues that needed to be resolved. So, it hasn't been updated and that that number has been updated since the calculator definitely the calculator or I keep saying calculator. The tool that we use at the initial at this conversation where you just kind of circle something on a map and I put together a number that's just the jumping off point. Okay, you have $3 million. Looks like this is going to be 3.2. Do you want to keep going? >> Sure. Could you just would it be too much to ask just would you look to the 4.5 and just see how realistic that number is when you send us the other new numbers just so we have so we could kind of compare escalation. We hate to have one that you say could go 100 and then the 4.5 if that's off by a year and copper cost I mean or underground labor cost. I think I'm okay if she just comes back with a number for the for the Monterey one and then we'll talk about that number compared to the number that we currently have for >> that's three years old. >> It is three years old. I understand that. But and I think that everyone up here is smart enough to know that a three-year-old number is probably going to be more than that threey old number was. But >> is that >> I would like to make a motion to continue this item to our next city council meeting for additional information. >> Thank you for coming. >> Yeah. Can we second that? Okay. All those in favor I >> Thanks guys. >> Thank you for being here. You were very helpful. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item 7E, Bay Avenue corridor safety improvements. Director Con, you are busy. >> That's when I All right. >> All right. So, this is also I believe a continued item from last meeting. Came back with a little more information for you. Again, please feel that free to ask any questions. So, obviously, we're not building any roundabouts. Um in July, so our last meeting, um we brought to get uh staff presented, um some alternative safety improvements along the Bay Avenue corridor. Um and council gave direction to move forward with some of those improvements, specifically the uh lighting on Bay and Hill and then return of more traffic information for the proposed center street crossing, which is what I have for you to receive this evening. Um just a reminder that the lighting we are talking about here is solar lighting so not associated with PG& um it avoids doing a new service vice trenching and underground. Um there were example lighting uh included in your agenda packet. Unfortunately I could not get a response regarding any kind of test light prior to this meeting and the nearest light that I found over multiple vendors was in South Monterey County. So not particularly close. Um I did provide these nighttime images. It's kind of hard to see in there that there is indeed a solar panel attached to these. Um, so it's angled based on the way the sun comes in and there's experts who do that kind of thing, but this is the proposed light. Um, so the Center Street crossing, what is proposed? Center Street is right past uh the Knob Hill uh complex is a raised crossing across Bay Avenue, marked crossing across Center Street, and then ADA improvements to facilitate that. Um includes flashing pedestrian beacons, so the blinking lights again, solar lighting, and then this the proposal is to remove that channelized uh free right turn onto Center Street from Bay Avenue. So this is the same image that uh staff has provided before um with this on the north side of the intersection. Um again that race crossing there's some striping modifications to facilitate kind of getting uh traffic across that intersection with an installed raised median that acts as a refuge. So you could like stop, take a break, make sure there's no traffic coming and then continue across the street. Um very similar. This is not a race crossing, but this is a similar layout um in in the real world of what's being proposed. Um so some questions were asked about traffic volumes. The traffic volume across Bay Avenue is approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. That is going in both directions with a peak hour at about 855 vehicles. Center Street has a much, as you would imagine, a much lower volume of cars, about 900 total per day with a peak hour about 57 vehicles. um it it does not qualify for a stop warrant with so it does not qualify to have an all-way controlled stop sign at this intersection. There just isn't the large volume of cars coming in or out of center street to merit that with the MUTCD. Um so it was asked to kind of evaluate putting this crossing on the other side of the intersection. So this is a mockup. This is not engineered in any way. I created this but this is more of a visual. Um the other one was significantly more engineered, but this does um show us the points of kind of the differences between putting this on the other side of the intersection. So it would remove uh diff more parking spots because there is parking on that opposite side of the street. Um it would require to do that bulb out and the lighting on uh adjacent to a residential property still in the public right of way but adjacent to residential versus a commercial property. you do keep that free right turn lane in that uh median there um to have a raised pedestrian refuge for the safety of the crossers. That means that you are eliminating that left turn from the center aisle. So anyone turning going towards the freeway wanting to turn left on the center street will have to be within the lane and wait for the cross traffic to stop prior to um turning left. Additionally, this it um requires people crossing from the top of the screen to get to the uh Knobill complex to cross the street both at bay and then again at Center Street. So, crossing the street twice rather than once. Um this is the similar mockup of the proposed uh what staff had proposed previously. Um you get to keep that center turn aisle. it potentially doesn't affect any parking spots or at maximum one parking spot. Um, you do lose again that free right turn. It shortens that uh merge area. One benefit of this is that someone making a right turn onto center street has to slow down significantly because you're making a much sharper right turn. Um, so though these are the same points I just made. um preserving two parking spots avoids eliminating that storage area behind somebody making a left turn um minimizing the crossing distance and uh placing more of that infrastructure on adjacent to a commercial property is why staff recommends the uh originally proposed location. Um additionally a question was asked about large vehicles turning out of center street onto Bay Avenue as part of the previous analysis. This is a turning um table for a firet truck. So, a fire truck can successfully uh get around that uh hard crossing median and back onto Bay Avenue. I don't think there's a ton of trips from fire trucks that do that, but they could. Um, and then we anticipate the kind of peak hour to be around 29 vehicles based on the full volume of cars coming in and out of that intersection. And some of those vehicles would would be turning right. Um, so our fiscal impact here, again, we have that 20 $250,000 um, sponsored by Congressman Ben Panetta. We are still waiting for it to get through the whole federal process, but that is guaranteed to the city. We have approximately $350,000 left in our programmed artif funding. Uh, some of that will need to match that federal panetta grant. Um, we do have a grant pending for safe streets for all. We expect to hear about that in the fall. So if we get that grant, we are able to stretch our RTIP money further. If we don't get that grant, we can use all the RTIP money on this center street crossing. And the estimated cost for both of these this and uh the Bay Hill that we had discussed at the last meeting is between 345 and $410,000. And with that, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thanks so much. Do we have any questions? Okay. All right. Let's go. Oh, you do >> not a question. Just I just want to thank Jessica for the extra work you went through. Um we heard from the community before on a suggested different option and I think when you walked us through that and you um pointed out how it could back up traffic, people turning left onto center was very helpful. So I appreciate that we went through that extra step to kind of illustrate how that could work. And then also the emphasis on how cars are going to have to now turn right onto um center and slowing down and then showing that a senior um like I said before just talking to the seniors just recently having them talk about how nice the sidewalk I mean the crosswalk would work coming across center but then they'd have to cross another one. So I just appreciate you taking time to go through that and also saving the city money and um you know um you doing your illustrations. Um so thank you. >> You're so hightech. Thank you. Let's go to uh public comment on this item. >> Hi, welcome. My name is Cheryl and um I have a clarifying question more than anything and looking at the traffic um report that I really appreciated when it was asked for to find out what would happen for Center Street specifically. looking at the report then when it was done the freeway off-ramp was closed for part of that time. So the way the traffic would really flow has been impeded in terms of people coming from Cedar Street leaving. They're not going to necessarily be doing the same behaviors or coming off the freeway. So, I question the validity of these numbers uh on Center Street specifically. And on the report, it talks about it didn't even look at the angrious and and leaving coming and going right and left. Um it was kind of lumped together. So, that's on page uh 559 of uh 7E. And I don't know if me makes any difference to anything we're trying to decide tonight, but I just thought it was important information and I'm not sure it's accurate because of the uh ramp closure um onto Bay Avenue during the time that the study was done. That's what I'm trying to say. >> Thank you. >> It was it was my understanding that those traffic numbers were prior traffic numbers that you'd had. They're not involved during the time when the ramp closure has been in place. >> Great. >> No, what I what I asked for was historical traffic numbers, which I think were traffic counts that were done when the ramp was open. >> Historic. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Anybody else wish to speak? All right, seeing none, we can bring it back to councel. Comments, deliberation. You want to start? >> I just want to start because I think Jessica has done an amazing job. You've absolutely convinced me that you're right. This is one project I feel like I have every ounce of information I need to have to make a decision and I appreciate that. And um I think their recommendation of having the crosswalk on what I call the knobill side of the intersection makes the most sense because um having it on the other side and blocking that traffic lane when people would be turning uh I agree would be a real detriment. So thank you for all your work and I think we have a project that we're all looking forward to seeing be built. I will just proceed to move the recommended action. Great. I think we can all give some great gratitude for this. Uh it's been a long time coming and I'm really excited >> to see these improvements. Yeah. Uh first in a second, may we have a roll call, please. >> Council member Clark. >> Hi. >> Council Orbach. >> Hi. >> Council Westman. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Jensen. >> Hi. >> And Mayor Morgan. >> Hi. Thank you. Passes unanimously. All right. We will come to 7F regarding our residency requirements for elective office. And our attorney is presenting this evening. Uh thank you, Madame Mayor, city council members. So we're here on um just an overview of residency requirements. I did not provide any illustrations. Uh I do apologize for that. Um so I'm just going to zoom out and address this preeemption issue. There's a lot of state law that comes into play when we talk about residency. So, residency itself is defined by state law. Um, two elements. One is an objective one. Where where does a person physically reside? Two, subjective. What do they intend to serve as their home? Um, so that's defined by state law. There's no durational requirement um that's included in that and the city is preempted from redefining it or um modifying that. Also, candidates and office holders are required to submit residency information under penalty of perjury. That's also required by state law. The citations are in in the staff report. And the right to run for and hold office is a is an important right and state law prevents the city from unduly burdening that right. And so with all of those concepts in mind, if the city council were to explore any type of residency um verification type program, the legally defensible route to go would be to require um voluntary participation in that. And that type of program might ask individuals to verify their residency on a regular basis, perhaps annually through the submission of lease agreements, utility bills, things like that. Um, but as noted in the staff report, the city would have to be flexible on those points. Um so for example if somebody um refused to provide one type of evidence um the city would have to accept a substitute something like that. So that's kind of a very high level summary of where state law is on this issue and a um one option the city council could consider if it wanted to address residency on a local level. That concludes my staff report and I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions? So, >> I heard you say that we can make this a voluntary step that we would ask a candidate or someone on the council to to prove they live there by utility bill or or such. >> Yes, a voluntary verification would be defensible. >> Thank you. on the flip side. So if we have a requirement that the candidates submit evidence beyond the the the minimal requirement to run for office, we may be liable if they sued us. Yes, there there could be some exposure related to that because that would be viewed as again the city placing a burden on the right to run for and hold public office. And when state law already gives us a definition of what constitutes residency and also imposes various obstacles that candidates and office holders um must clear. it would be and viewed as a preeemption issue and also us burdening that right to run for office run for and hold office. >> But if if we have a voluntary program that once a year, you know, council members reverify their residency, this is where they're living, that wouldn't create a legal risk for us. No, >> that if if we're flexible on what we will accept as far as documentation. Yes, that is the most defensible local program. >> I'm sorry, I just heard two things. So, Council Member Orbach's question was if it's a voluntary basis, would that open us up to >> No, it was required. >> Required. Okay. So, voluntary is open. Sorry. >> Uh, so my only other question right now before we hear from the public. So when when we set this up, we will set it up so that it applies when district elections take effect so it we don't have to come back and and redo it again. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I do have another question in terms of like who so we have this voluntary voluntary optional submitt. Um, it now is staff responsible for making sure, okay, it's good. Let's tell it to the like I I'm just worried that this may burden staff and who's responsible when someone doesn't turn it in. Are we going to like publicly shame that person? Like what is what does that look like? >> The public shaming is optional and I I don't want to volunteer the city clerk. Um, but I imagine there would be a process where um under this voluntary policy we say okay submit paperwork by January 1 every year and it does go to um custo records whoever that may be and it remains on file it would be a public record and um in private information would be redacted if requested. We don't want to um release people's personal information. So there would be a folder, an electronic folder of some sort where all these files are stored if that's um the council's intent to proceed with this program. >> Go ahead. >> Um so just take a step back for a second. Right now we all we know we've had concerns in the past in capital wherever they were. Um we could read the newspaper and talk about Stockton right now. Could you just give a brief over overview of what Stockton's going through and then incorporate into that um you know the roles responsibility of enforcement and I think it it's very clear that council has the enforcement process um compared to um city staff um enforcement. So can you go over those? >> Yes. So starting with Stockton, a the Sanwaqin County DA's office has filed charges against a city Stockton city council candidate. Um and there's I think various felonies and perjury charges related to falsification of um residency related filings. So apparently when this person allegedly pulled their papers, they provided addresses that didn't check out um the DA's office investigated and um again brought charges against the individual. >> So that's would that been that would have been recommended by the city council to the DA or from the city staff? >> So the the DA has its has their own prosecutorial authority on that. Um >> it would have to be referred to them, right? Somehow I just I think it's really council that has the obligation to uphold this. Isn't that true? Is not the city manager, the city clerk doesn't go enforce this. Correct. >> Yes. So what you what you might see in other jurisdictions um where there are concerns about residency is the city council might investigate might provide direction to staff to investigate. You know, please hire a you know private investigator. we're going to put money towards that contract. This person's going to furnish a report and based on the findings of that report, the city council might then ask staff to apply for leave to sue in quo Warrento, which means um reaching out to the attorney general's office um to prosecute and see whether this person is unlawfully holding public office. And usually with that process, the attorney general's office will assign a um a deputy attorney general to the city and likely work with outside counsel to again prosecute. It's sort of treated like a trial. Evidence will be furnished. Um things like that. And at the conclusion of that, a a judge will say, "Yes, this person um is unlawfully holding office and um they are, you know, stripped of their their title." That's how that you that process usually plays out. Thank you. >> No. >> Sorry. Any public comment on this item? >> Hi, welcome. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, council members Heidi Kellison. I'm a full-time resident of Capola. As I often speak about process, this item is the very beginning of it. What qualifies candidates to run for office? Residency is pretty basic. Good government is only possible through ethical adherence to the law, not just the letter of the law. You're required to look at the law's intent. Residency, being here, is nothing to shade. hearing from your constituents regularly by physically participating in the community at the grocery store, the coffee shop, the concert series, and so on. It's essential for this job. That's why I'm asking the city council to adopt the strongest safeguards available under the law. And I'm asking those who are running or who might consider running in the future to be honest with yourself and with us about where you actually live. Serve from the perspective of servantthood, not other motivators. Further, if anyone tells you this job entails a couple of meetings, a month, a month, and maybe a committee or two, they are not being truthful or they simply don't know about the demands of the job. Our city endured something serious, which was personal to me when my home address was improperly listed as belonging to a former candidate. I cannot speak to how or why this occurred, but I do know the listings helped legitimize that individual's capital of presence to voters, and it hurt me. What we ultimately went through as a city was painful, divisive, and unnecessary. So, while the city council is considering tightening loopholes, it is incumbent on those seeking office now or in the future to do better. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening again. Um here, here, Heidi. Here, here. Good job. Um when you apply for a job, you have to show identification. There's W2s. There's all these wonderful things that you have to fill out when running for city council and being on council. That's a job. You're getting paid for it. I would assume you file your 700s. These are requirements that are done and are necessary. Signing an affidavit to me is very important. It's a moral obligation. It's a a sworn statement that you're stating, whatever that is that you're stating. Some people don't hold it as high a regard maybe as I do, but I hold it very high and very serious. I think in asking whether it's voluntary or required that you could give three options. You can provide us with a driver's license. You can provide us with a utility bill, etc. When you go in front of a notary, it's required. you have to show your driver's license or passport when you get a job. Again, it's required. Um, I don't really see the differential here. If you're taking it in that context, I do understand that there's legality possibly. I don't I don't know how far that can go. Um, I would definitely question that and would want to research it more, but the fact that this is a job, I think that needs to be in that context and that needs to be taken. Thank you. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Uh TJ Welch again and this city just recently went through a process where a former council person purged himself and uh I got to tell you I'm extremely disappointed in how this city responded to those allegations and how the process came out. They almost came to the points of defending them instead of looking at really what the facts were. So, um this is personal to me because I was involved in that, but um I have my documentation here voluntarily. I tried submitting it during my application to run for city council and it was denied given back to me. So, I believe and I think when this districting happens, it's going to be even more contentious or the possibility of having a problem. Uh the city of Fairfield, they had a I don't know if you heard about this one, but they had a city person who they felt like had moved. it wasn't living up to the requirement. The city council themselves hired an independent contractor to do the research and find out and the person was uh has left the council. So, I would hope that at some point our city could live to that standard where we let we look and hold people accountable to the jobs that they apply for. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? All right, we'll bring it back to council. Yeah, I I believe we do have to have something just a little bit more than than what we have now. So, I I think um when you sign up for junior guards or for u school, you have to show um utility bill and it's not total proof of what you are, but it's just something extra. I think that's that's what we need to do. >> I'm fine with a voluntary option if this council decides that's the way to go. Right. I I think I think the voluntary option would work well. It's it will be available to the people of Capola to to see because it, you know, it will be a public record here at city hall. Uh I'd like to see people have to verify once a year. I don't think that's too much of a burden. And I think the people of Capola really expect that someone who's going to sit up here is a full-time resident in our community. I mean, that's that's why that's why you're here and that's why you're working for the community. So, I like the idea of a volunteer program and I agree with Council Member Clark. I think it's going to become extremely important when we go to district elections because they're going to be much smaller areas. Thank you. I agree with all those comments. Um just wanted just a bit of clarification. The enforcement part if somebody doesn't do this does not fall on who what happens if somebody doesn't do it. It's we're just notified and then it gets into a a a public forum on how it gets handled. I mean like it's a voluntary basis so they don't do it. Are we going to be notified like every January these forms are turn are submitted and the files submitted and it's up on the website by the end of the month. I you and then who who does the enforcement part if somebody does a I know it's voluntary so it's not there's no enforcement to it but I I'm just really confused on how the voluntary I support it but how does the voluntary process work and then we're informed that somebody voluntarily didn't do it. I I think there are a lot of people in our community are going to be checking and seeing what the council members turn in. And I think very quickly, you know, if a council member decides not to do it, then it's the community that's going to get upset and come to us and say, "You guys need to investigate this because we we think this person's not a full-time resident in Capola or, you know, living where they live." So, uh, I think that's the beauty of a voluntary program. I think that's a beauty of an active community that's, you know, not going to let someone get away with not being a full-time resident here. >> I agree with that. I would just like to have some um dates establish what that is, end of the calendar year, beginning of the calendar year, fiscal year, whenever those forms are due or submitted and if they want to run conjunction with the 700 form or whatever. But I think there should be some timeline around it and so everybody clearly knows when to look for those. So, it this I I assume this item's coming back to us that we're really just providing guidance to our city attorney tonight on what kind of program we want to have him set up. And um >> I like that idea. >> So, and I said I said I'd like to have it annually done. Uh you know, I'm willing to have the city attorney say you should do it in January and here's the reason why or you should do it in October because people do this in October. I mean, I'm I'm willing to just waiting to get a little more information on that. I don't think we should decide that yet. >> Thank you. >> I just wanted to say it's it would be a good idea since you already have to go do the extra steps when you're file filing your 700 forms would be a good time to do it then. >> Sure. >> Is that enough direction? >> Yes, direction received. Thank you. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, all right. We will jump back to the consent item D that was pulled earlier this evening, the Ben Noble planning contract. >> Yeah, I just uh based on the the public comment, I wanted to have the city staff be able to tell the history and why we can justify the contract with Benble. >> Great, Director Harley. Welcome. Thank you. Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, so before you tonight is a contract, a two-year contract for Ben Noble Planning. Ben Noble has done a variety of work for the city over the years. Um, more recently, well, um, back in I think it was like 2015 to about 2020, he worked on the, um, the updates to our zoning code, which was a long process and took many years. following that um more recently he's been doing all the housing element implementation which we're not done with yet. So um that is the reason for um as we go into this next contract. It's more housing element implementation. We should be done with that this year. If the council would like that um contract to go out to bid, I I would you're welcome to make it a shorter contract this evening and I would suggest one year at $40,000 so we can finish up our housing element implementation and I could then post an RFP and um start and go out to bid on that so or out for other proposals. But the reason for the continued work is that we're actually in process right now and not completed with our housing element updates. So be happy to post an RFP in the coming year >> question. And the funding for that contract comes out of our um general plan fund because we are implementing our general plan through these updates. It's not a separate it's not a general fund. So, um I'm just curious, um are you impressed with Ben Noble and his work? Has he been a good partner in this effort? He has. You know, he knows our city very well. He worked on our general plan when we updated the general plan. He's um just attended a lot of our community meetings and the public outreach. He's really tuned in to our city and it's extremely helpful as we move through the process of implementation. and him having a good idea of what would work for the city of Capola. So, it sounds like you continuing to work with him because he has so much knowledge of our like housing element already is a probably a good idea because if you do an RFP, you'll have a brand new planner who you'll have to then get up to speed with what is going on. >> Correct. He's got years of experience with Capola. He's also um he owns his own business. He's a one-man business, a oneperson business. And with that comes a lot of flexibility and being able to respond to us quickly and turn things around. Um and it's familiarity is a key part of that, too. And being able to deliver things quickly, which we've been under a lot of pressure the past three years. Never in my life did I think I would ever bring as many ordinance updates to a planning commissioner, city council, but with the directive by the state, that's what we've been spending a lot of our time on. So, it's really nice to have someone that's that familiar with our city. >> Yeah, I I'm very comfortable with having Ben Noble continue. I think that we absolutely need to go through the process to finish out implementating our housing element and this would not be the time to change. Um uh I I would be quite happy with saying that we do a one-year contract for $40,000 which will get us through the housing element stage and um then look at what's going to happen in the second year. So I'd like to make that motion. I'll second that. >> Let's go to public comment. >> I know >> Peter Wilk real quick. Um I'm not a real big consultant fan. There's a lot of consultants I think we can cut back on, but Ben Noble is not one of them. We have two former planning commissioners on the dis here. I'm worked with them. You both know Ben Noble well. He does great work and if there's any consultant that's worth his worth the dollars, it's Ben. >> Great. Thank you. Motion still stands. Sorry. Any other comments? I don't see any uh motions and a second still stand. May we uh have a roll call, please. >> Council member Clark. >> Hi. >> Council member Warbach. >> Hi. >> Council member Westman. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Johnson. >> And Mayor Morgan. >> Hi. Thank you so much everybody. Last item of the night, item 8 adjournment. Thank you so much. Take care of yourself and others.