Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, March 15, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Zoom Teleconference
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Clyde Roberson, Mayor
Dan Albert, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember
Tyller Williamson, Councilmember
City Manager
Hans Uslar
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to California Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(A) and (C) and the Monterey City Council’s resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings of the Monterey City Council and its Boards, Commissions, and Committees are being conducted with virtual (electronic) participation in order to promote social distancing and protect the health and safety of attendees.

Details for public participation in this City Council meeting:
 BEFORE THIS MEETING, members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages will not be read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments received become part of the record.
 DURING THIS MEETING, members of the public may attend and participate online via ZoomGov Webinar live (no time delay):
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, Calif.) or 646-828-7666 (New York, NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.  Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute. o Need more help or seeking guidance on making public comments? Read our ZoomGov Meeting Instructions.

This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay). ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 1st Quarter 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the 3/15/2022 4:00:00 PM
2 City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: Public Comments are taken during the afternoon session and continued at the evening session.

Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.

Approval of Minutes

2. February 23, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

3. March 1, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

4. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,212,000 to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project ***PMSA*** (Project reviewed per NEPA in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Presidio of Monterey Integrated Water Sustainability Concept Plan (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), Nov 2018)

5. Authorize an Appropriation of FY2022/23 Measure S Funds in the Amount of $1,115,104 and Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $959,185 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation, and Authorize an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***Measure S*** Ordinances
ORDINANCES are legislative acts by the Council, are the most permanent and binding type of Council action as they modify the City Code, and may be replaced only by a subsequent ordinance. An ordinance requires legal advertisement when introduced, and two readings at separate Council meetings. An ordinance is considered "passed to print" when approved for a second reading, and is "passed and adopted" when given final approval by the Council.

6. 2nd Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 28-14(d) to Add Services Performed by the State-Recognized Destination Marketing Organization for the Monterey Region as a Sole Source Exception to Competitive Procurement Requirements (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 3/15/2022 4:00:00 PM
3 Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."

7. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Other

9. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City of Monterey Supporting Establishment of a CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

10. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period March 16, 2022 through April 14, 2022 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

11. Amend and Restate Resolution 21-127, the Master Fee Schedule, to Adjust the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Council will adjourn to closed session no later than 5:00 p.m.

RECESS 5:30 p.m.

RECONVENE
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
7:00 - 11:00 p.m.

No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3/15/2022 4:00:00 PM
4 CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: Public Comments are taken during the afternoon session and continued at the evening session.

Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

PRESENTATIONS (EVE)

12. Recognition of March 2022 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

13. Receive a Presentation on the City's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability/Pension Obligation Strategies (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Authorize Letters to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water, Governor of the State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Housing and Community Development, and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Regarding the City’s Water Supply Needs for New Housing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

15. City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)

16. Deny Appeal and Uphold Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variance Application for Fencing Along the Front and Side Property Lines and Fencing for a Trash Enclosure at 301 Casa Verde Way that Exceeds the 4-Foot Height Limit for this Reverse Corner Lot; Applicant Steve Mickel with Mickel Construction Inc; 3/15/2022 4:00:00 PM
5 Property Owner Thomas Cutino; Residential Medium Density Multifamily Dwelling (R-3) Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification or make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter (G.C. 54954.2).

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on his activities or a brief announcement. He may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting This is a separate legal body of the City that oversees the operations of the Ocean View Community Services District desalinization plant.

Ocean View Community Services District CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT ITEMS are those which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a CSD Board Member may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.

17. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article, 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Ocean View Community Services District PUBLIC APPEARANCE PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Chair. The District may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

18. Select a Candidate for the Election of a LAFCO Commissioner – Independent Special District Regular Member and Authorize the Board President to Submit a Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjourn to City Council Meeting

ADJOURNMENT
Members of the public have the right to address the City Council on any item on the Agenda, before or during its consideration [G.C. §54954.3(a)]. The Mayor will formally open the floor for public comment on items such as "Public Appearance" and "Public Hearings." Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours.

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose. 3/15/2022 4:00:00 PM
6 City Council Meetings are cable cast live and recorded for replay on Monterey's Government Access Channel 25 by Access Media Productions (AMP).

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

Voicemail: (831) 646-3799
Fax: (831) 646-3793
Email: [email protected]
WebPage: http://www.monterey.org
INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communicationrelated assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared by: Ashley Sanks, Administrative Clerk
SUBJECT: Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 1st Quarter 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognizes City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements for the first quarter of 2022.

VALUE DRIVER:

Recognizing City employees supports the value driver to “provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high-quality city workforce.” POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Recognizing employees of the City at City Council meetings is consistent with City policy.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

All funding associated with recognizing City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements has been budgeted as part of the FY 2021/22 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 7 DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is fortunate to have many retirees and staff who are career employees and have served the community for decades. The Mayor and City Council will recognize City employees who have retired with 20 years of service or greater, in addition to employees who have reached their work anniversary with 20 or 25 years of service.

RETIREMENTS IN 2022 1st Quarter:

Thomas Enea, Park Maintenance Worker,
Parks and Recreation Department 37 years of service
ANNIVERSARIES IN 2022 1st Quarter:

Whalen Rawlinson, Senior Craftsworker,
Public Works Dept., Building Maintenance 40 years of service Louie Marcuzzo, Park Operation Manager,
Parks and Recreation Department 30 years of service
Kimberly Cole, Community Development
Director, Community Development
Department
25 years of service
Michael Gentry, Senior Streets Maintenance
Worker, Public Works Dept., Streets, Storm
Drains & Sewers
25 years of service
All individuals listed on this agenda report would prefer to be recognized in the report only, not as guests at the Monterey City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 2022.

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
4:00 PM

ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, City Clerk, Administrative Analyst (Housing), Assistant City Attorney This meeting was held with teleconference attendance only, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-015 C.S.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. She called the roll with Councilmember Albert temporarily absent due to computer issues, and he rejoined the meeting at 4:06 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

1. Receive a Report on Rent Registry Programs (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received report, discussed
Housing Analyst Leonard gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with City Manager Uslar, Assistant City Attorney Salameh, and Community Development Director Cole.

Public comment was received from: Jean Rasch, who stated that housing issues are a natural sector for government involvement; Eloise Shim, who said that a rental registry would not hold landlords accountable or balance power between landlords and tenants; Gabriella SchlesingerJames, who expressed hesitation about a rental registry and said that the Council should already understand their constituents' housing-related needs and issues; Robert Evans, who said that the data is worth collecting and asked how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would fit into the picture; Tom Rowley, who saiid that owners would resist registering and that there is no magic solution to housing problems; Esther Malkin, who asserted that a correlation exists between rent issues and homelessness and stated that the rental registry fee was a scare tactic; Scott Dick, who said that property owners take all the risk, and provided thoughts on the City of Salinas' rental registry model and outreach conducted; Berbara Meister, Monterey Bay Aquarium, who spoke about the ripple effect that workers' financial struggles have on the economy; Jeff Davi, who suggested the Council hold meetings about rent control if that is the goal; and Laurie Hambaro, who suggested a regional approach, greater advertising of the Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes February 23, 2022
2 ECHO Housing advocacy program, and referred to details of the City of Pacific Grove's business licensing requirements for landlords.

The Council discussed the concept of a rental registry. On question, Housing Analyst Leonard and Assistant City Attorney Salameh clarified that the data collected could be distributed in aggregated reports that would not disclose any personally identifiable data. On question, Housing Analyst Leonard stated that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could be included if desired by the Council.

It was stated by the Council that one apparent goal of some rental registries was related to code compliance, and the question was posed whether the City has enough code compliance. A concern was shared that once a bureaucracy is put into place, it can become expensive and can be complicated to dismantle, and the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) were cited as examples. As an alternative to a database, it was proposed to determine what the problem is and then focus on solutions to that problem. It was stated that the proposed program could be considered "mission creep." It was stated that sustainable water is a missing piece of the puzzle that would allow the private sector to add more housing units. It was stated that rent control can make rental problems worse.

It was noted that two-thirds of residents are affected by and involved in the rental market, and that there was justification for the City's involvement from both an economic point of view as well as from the angle of the Council's adopted value driver, "Quality of Life." It was stated that the driving force behind interest in a registry was not code enforcement, but rather the exploding cost of rent. It was stressed that the data that could be collected would be beneficial, but not at the cost cited by staff to run the program. It was suggested to expand the business license collection process to include data collection, and it was suggested that City staff report back to the Council about what would be involved in changing the number of rental units that would require a business license. It was urged that the Council should refocus its intention on rent stabilization and what the City can do to make rents more affordable and encourage employers to provide housing for their essential workers.

It was urged that the Council address issues identified by the renter community in a timely matter for those residents who have been waiting for so long for solutions. In favor of a registry, the question was posed that without adequate data, the Council would have a difficult time pursuing rent stabilization. Stated benefits of a registry included up-to-date contact information for public safety and code compliance purposes and allowing the City to track its rental stock. It was proposed that the City could provide sample leases on its website. It was suggested that if a registry were adopted, it should track all rental units of every size. It was stressed that noncompliant rental businesses not up to date with their business license fees should incur enforcement action.

City Manager Uslar summarized the Council's requests to staff as follows: to look into the City's business license tax and to what degree the City can retool the process to get data, to look at what other cities are doing with respect to business license tax and the ideal number of units that should require paying the tax, and to look at adding a voluntary questionnaire along with the business license process that can produce an annual snapshot of rent-related information.

He stated that he heard a consensus from the Council that they were not ready to implement a rental registry. It was confirmed by the Council that the City Manager's summary was accurate, and it was added that the Council would like staff to work on identifying problems and whether maintenance and code compliance programs need improvement, including collecting hard data on the number of complaints, to make sure everyone has a safe, livable dwelling.

ADJOURNMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes February 23, 2022
3 The Council adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
4:00 PM 7:00 PM

ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Human Resources Director, Fire Chief, Library Director, City Clerk, Interim Recreation and Community Services Manager
This meeting was held with teleconference attendance only, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-015 C.S. ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. with the full Council present. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually by Zoom teleconference. Public comment on the closed session was not received. *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** The Council adjourned to closed session at 4:06 p.m.

RECESS
The Council recessed at 5:49 p.m.

RECONVENE
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
The Council reconvened at 7:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually by Zoom teleconference. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the full Council present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Lorna Moffat, Tammy Jennings, Morgan Ivens-Duran, Brandon Naylor, and Esther Malkin.

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes March 1, 2022
2 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Klein announced the following:

Item cs1. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote the City Council voted to dismiss a senior parking controls technician
Item cs2 - Not heard; Council to take it up at the end of the evening session.

CONSENT ITEMS
Public comment on the consent items was not received. Councilmember Haffa left the meeting at 7:19 p.m.

On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Councilmember Haffa rejoined the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

1. February 15, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061); Aprobación de Actas - 15 de febrero de 2022 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061) Action: Approved (4-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)
Ordinances

2. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 28-14(d) to Add Services Performed by the State-Recognized Destination Marketing Organization for the Monterey Region as a Sole Source Exception to Competitive Procurement Requirements (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Passed to print
Resolutions

3. Amend and Restate Resolution 22-010 to Establish Hourly Rates for Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Positions and Establishing Hourly Rates (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-016 C.S. (4-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes March 1, 2022
3 4. Adopt Resolution Opposing the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-017 C.S. (4-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) *** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

5. Amend Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget to Increase General Fund Budget Revenues and Appropriations, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Reserve and Various Other Reserve Funds, Authorize Other Non-General Fund Changes, and Update the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-018 C.S. as Amended
City Manager Uslar and Finance Director King gave a comprehensive staff presentation on the mid-year budget update and answered Councilmembers' questions. The presentation included a final slide indicating the following minor corrections and updates to Exhibit A to the Resolution: 1. Allocation of Sports Coordinators to Divisions (Sports Center Salaries Full Time 101-501-5180-0000-4101 $52,551, Recreation Salaries Full Time 101-501-5160-0000-4101 $52,551), 2. Change account number in Fire Department Overtime to 101-250-2530-000R4102, 3. Reclass Fire Reimbursement Revenue from General Fund to Fund 708 Vehicle Replacement.

Public comment was received from: Esther Malkin, who proposed that the City spend some money on a consultant who would help guide the City toward a feasible, fair renter protection policy to put before the Council, and asked to keep fuel reduction plans out of the NCIP program because it was intended for capital improvements; Rick Aldinger, Monterey County Hospitality Association, who spoke in favor of the Monterey Conference Center reserve fund and urged the Council to create a reserve fund for the Monterey Conference Center and fund it at a higher level annually; Steve Hanleigh, Parklands Homeowners Association, who spoke in favor of a sea level rise resiliency reserve fund and stressed the need to maintain the dunes and sand levels near his neighborhood; Johnny Khamis, Parklands Homeowners Association, who complimented City staff in planning for the future and echoed the call for the sea level rise resiliency reserve fund; Mark Watson, Monterey County Hospitality Association, who spoke in favor of establishing the Monterey Conference Center reserve fund; Carol Chorbajian, who echoed Mark Watson's and Rick Aldinger's comments in favor of the Monterey Conference Center reserve fund and spoke about the revenue that conference attendees bring into Monterey and the importance of taking care of the facility; and Rob O'Keefe, who spoke about the needed long term care of the Monterey Conference Center.

The Council recessed at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened at 9:01 p.m.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that infrastructure is important and that the City should not keep kicking the can down the road. It was stated that there are big challenges in the future, including climate change, which will need addressing.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Roberson, and seconded by Councilmember Albert, to adopt Resolution No. 22-018 C.S. to Amend Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Budget to Increase General Fund Budget Revenues and Appropriations, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Reserve and Various Other Reserve Funds, Authorize Other Non-General Fund Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes March 1, 2022
4 Changes, and Update the Position Control List, with the Exhibit amended to include changes highlighted in the Finance Director's final slide.

The Couincil made statements of appreciation to City staff for addressing pension obligations and designating funds for infrastructre and climate/ocean level rise issues, and stated that there are lots of other infrastructure needs that will need attention in the future as well. It was questioned how much of the public's money should be in the economic uncertainty fund. It was noted that the amount of money in the economic uncertainty fund does not run the City for very long, and stated that even 20-21% would be appropriate. It was stated that quality of life and housing are Council priorities, and that housing uncertainty is a detriment to quality of life but it does not appear in this mid-year budget update and the hope was expressed that housing matters will appear in the next fiscal year's budget, which could include legal assistance for tenants, and rental assistance. It was stated that a water project could help the City move toward being able to introduce more housing projects. It was pondered whether a three year projection is more realistic than a five year projection. The importance was stressed of retaining a high-quality staff in an inflationary period.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Albert said that he understands and shares concerns about the impacts of high rents on the Monterey Peninsula. He stated that he would like the staff to look at Assembly Bill 1482 and its loopholes, and would ask them to bring back to Council a discussion of how this bill can impact the City.

Councilmember Williamson reported on Monterey One Water's payment program that will use revenue from the State to alleviate customer arrearages that were due to pandemic economic difficulties. He said that the board authorized its staff to hire a director of microgrid and renewable energy. He asked to adjourn the meeting in honor of fallen City of Salinas Police Officer Alvarado.

Councilmember Haffa reported on a recent event at Colton Hall that he hosted with Councilmember Williamson and former Councilmembers Downey and Selfridge relating to community housing and homelessness issues, and said that he is in favor of exploring rent stabilization as a solution.

Councilmember Smith spoke about the people in Ukraine and neighboring countries who are being impacted by the war, and said he hoped for peace in the region. He reminded residents to be mindful of scams and phishing attempts that take advantage of concern and generosity.

Mayor Roberson reported on recent happenings at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, including an award for water purification facility engineering excellence, the status of the Seaside Basin aquifer, the water purchase agreement that is under consideration, the redistricting process, mid-year budget adjustments, and LAFCO's "no" vote on reconsidering the District's latent powers. He pledged to keep the Council and public updated.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes March 1, 2022
5 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar announced that Colton Hall has been lit at night in Ukraine's national colors to show solidarity to the people of Ukraine. He stated that the demand for COVID-19 vaccinations has gone down at the City-operated clinics. He reported on a recent Kids Heroes Run put on by the Monterey Firefighters Association and My Museum, and the recent kickoff of the Panetta Lecture Series which he said is still being held virtually using the Conference Center's infrastructure.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Public comment was not received on the closed session. The Council adjourned to closed session at 9:42 p.m.

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

2. A. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

1. City of Monterey v. Monterey Peninsula Airport District (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV002445)

2. Bonnie Gawf v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV003232)

3. Discovery Charters, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 19CV001743; Sixth District Court of Appeals Case No. H049770)

4. Pace v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 21 CV003538)

5. City of Monterey v. Flores (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV002512) B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3), Terry Walker Claim dated December 28, 2021 Action: On two separate unanimous roll call votes, the Council gave confidential direction to legal counsel on the Discovery Charters, Inc. matter and the Terry Walker claim; On the other matters no reportable action was taken.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 16 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ryan Stewart, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,212,000 to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project ***PMSA*** (Project reviewed per NEPA in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Presidio of Monterey Integrated Water Sustainability Concept Plan (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), Nov 2018)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project, (“Project”) and granting the Public Works Director, or designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, The Don Chapin Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,212,000 for the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No. 5;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies.

VALUE DRIVER:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City’s policy to provide services to the U.S. Department of the Army through the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) per the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) between the City of Monterey and the Federal Government and supports Councils value driver to support our military installations (U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, Naval Support Activity Monterey, and U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey) as significant economic drivers in the region.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On November 9, 2021, the Finance Department received and opened bids as follows:

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 Bidder Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Alt. No. 3 Alt. No. 4 Alt. No. 5 Grand Total Bid
The Don Chapin
Company, Inc.
$1,170,000 $375,000 $298,000 $41,500 $90,000 $42,000 $2,016,500 Monterey
Peninsula
Engineering
$920,000 $1,031,000 $312,000 $38,000 $160,000 $10,000 $2,471,000 Engineer’s
Estimate
$743,807.95 $519,016.00 $324,791.51 $42,008.59 $82,502 $36,000 $1,748,126.05 Note: The Project specifications identified that the Grand Total Bid (Total Base Bid plus Additive Bid Schedule 1 through 5) would be utilized for the Basis of Award. The Grand totals listed above include the base bid plus five (5) additive bid alternates. The project expenditures listed below follow staff recommendation to award the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5, for a Total Bid amount of $1,212,000.

Estimated Construction Cost:

Base Bid $ 1,170,000
Additive Alternate No.5 $ 42,000
Total Contract Amount $ 1,212,000
Construction Contingency (15%) $ 181,800
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $ 1,393,800 Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 45,000 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $ 1,438,800 Funding Available:

POM-801 WATER TANK REFURBISHMENT (POM18047) $1,649,094.97 As of February 4, 2022, sufficient IJO funding is available in project account number POM18047 for the construction of the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5. The Department of the US Army fully funds the execution of this project through the IGSA.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
“The 200,000-gallon Non-Potable Water Storage Tank Retrofit project was reviewed per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Presidio of Monterey Integrated Water Sustainability Concept Plan (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), Nov 2018. Mitigations and Compliance Measures as given in the PEA, Table ES-1, are required to reduce impacts to less than significant, comply with other environmental laws, and/or installation procedures.” ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose to reject the bids and re-advertise the project; however, that is not recommended as bids received are consistent with similar work. This contract implements PMSA utility work and structural upgrades.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 DISCUSSION:

In 1998, the City began a municipal/military partnership model to establish cost-efficient services that increase installation mission effectiveness. This partnership is currently defined by an Inter-Governmental Support Agreement (IGSA) which provides a structure for both parties and ensures full cost recovery for activities completed by the City of Monterey through the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA). On September 27, 2018, through the IGSA, PMSA was awarded project PMO 18-047 for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project. The primary objective of this work is to establish the first phase of a recycled water utility at the Presidio of Monterey.

In 2019, the Army placed the project on hold to address more time-sensitive/emergency projects, stopping engineering work. Towards the end of 2019, the project again became a priority for the Army. Plans were drafted and completed for review and approval by the Army in May 2020. The Army approved the plans with minor changes. Preparatory site work commenced (i.e., tree trimming, PG&E coordination). The project plans and specifications were completed by City staff and extensively advertised for construction bids and are available for public review in the office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific Street, Room 7).

On November 9, 2021, the City received two (2) bids. The basis of the award to determine the lowest bid was the Grand Total Bid (Base Bid plus Additive Bid Schedules 1 through 5) as the basis of award for this project. The base bid for this project consists of repairing and providing structural upgrades to an existing 200,000-gallon water tank at building 801, directional drilling and installation of pipelines and conduits, valves, controls systems, and safety improvements.

The additive alternative work consisted of five alternatives consisting of 1) The installation of a pump station and chlorination treatment system at the building 801 water tank, 2) Piping connections at building 630, 3) The installation of fiber optic network cable system between multiple buildings, 4) The reconfiguration of the irrigation system at the cemetery building 795 and 5) A pre and post tank flood test.

The lowest responsive bid was submitted by The Don Chapin Company, from Salinas, California, in the amount of $2,016,500. Due to the available funding, staff recommends awarding the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5 to establish the first phase of a recycled water utility in the amount of $1,212,000.

The Don Chapin Company, Inc. has performed and successfully completed this kind of work in the City of Monterey. In addition, they have submitted references for its work product. Staff has checked the firm’s references and are comfortable with the ability of the contractor to perform the work successfully.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project (“Project”) and granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19

3. Awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, The Don Chapin Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,212,000 for the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies.

RS/ah
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Greg Runnalls, The Don Chapin Company
Billy Garcia, IGSA Manager
Joelle Lobo, USAG POM NEPA Program Manager
John Hansen, Senior Administrative Analyst
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 20 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,212,000 TO THE DON CHAPIN COMPANY, INC. FOR THE PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY 200,000 GALLON WATER TANK AND PIPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ***PMSA***
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of November 2021, at 2:00 p.m. in the City of Monterey Council Chambers, the City Finance Director’s designee received two (2) bids for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project (“Project”); WHEREAS, The Don Chapin Company, Inc. of Salinas, CA, and Monterey Peninsula Engineering of Marina, CA submitted responsive bids for the Project; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Grand Total Bid (Base Bid plus Additive Bid Schedules 1 through 5);
WHEREAS, the lowest responsive Grand Total bid was submitted by The Don Chapin Company, from Salinas, California, in the amount of $2,016,500; WHEREAS, due to the available funding, staff recommends award of the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5, for a Total Bid amount of $1,212,000, to establish the first phase of a recycled water utility;
WHEREAS, the project is fully funded by the Department of the Army through the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) and sufficient funding is available in the project account number POM18047; and,
WHEREAS, the 200,000-gallon Non-Potable Water Storage Tank Retrofit project was reviewed per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Presidio of Monterey Integrated Water Sustainability Concept Plan (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), Nov 2018. Mitigations and Compliance Measures as given in the PEA, Table ES-1, are required to reduce impacts to less than significant, comply with other environmental laws, and/or installation procedures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project, (“Project”) and grants the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder The Don Chapin Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,212,000 for the Base Bid plus Additive Bid No.5;
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 21 2 4. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

5. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 22 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Prepared By: Sara South, Engineering Programs Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize an Appropriation of FY2022/23 Measure S Funds in the Amount of $1,115,104 and Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $959,185 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation, and Authorize an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***Measure S***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing and directing the Finance Director, or their designee, to transfer and appropriate FY2022/23 Measure S funds in the amount of $1,115,104 to the Measure S Pavement project account (35c1553);

2. Approving the plans and specifications for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

3. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Awarding a construction contract for the Grand Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $959,185;

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications;

6. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project;

7. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation; and

8. Authorize an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund.

VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 23 Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety initiatives.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns”, Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement”, and Active Mobility – “Maintain and repair core street, roadway, and storm drain infrastructure.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Eight (8) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on November 16, 2021 as follows:

Bidder Grand Total
Precision Grade, Inc., San Juan Batista, CA $959,185.00 McKim Corporation, Gilroy, CA $985,406.62
Granite Rock Company, San Jose, CA $1,007,107.00
Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Marina, CA $1,040,760.00 The Don Chapin Company, Salinas, CA $1,124,525.00
Teichert Construction, Pleasanton, CA $1,169,531.00
Granite Construction Company, Watsonville, CA $1,195,691.28 ASG Builders, Mountain View, CA $1,700,570.00
Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract $959,185
Construction Contingency, 10% $95,919
Total Project Construction Estimate (This Authorization) $1,055,104 Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $ 40,000 Materials Testing $ 20,000
Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $1,115,104 Funding Sources:

Appropriation of FY2022/23 Measure S (This Authorization) $ 1,115,104 Sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 24 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes ADA upgrades along Van Buren from beginning at Jefferson Street and ending at W Franklin. The scope of work involves the removal and replacement of existing concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, storm drainage, signage and striping, isolated street surface repairs, street reconstruction, adjustment of utilities, and hot mix asphalt pavement. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a- Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a - Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project proposes the removal and replacement of concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, storm drainage, signage and striping, isolated street surface repairs, street reconstruction, adjustment of utilities, and hot mix asphalt pavement; therefore, no new expansion will take place.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to the improvements' limited scope and distinct locations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed improvements are at grade and would replace pavement in-kind; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways will occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impacts to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project is located in an archeological sensitive area as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8); however, the proposed project would Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 25 not require digging beyond current improvements. The work would be confined to the public right-of-way; there would be no impacts to any historic structures. The proposed improvements would remove and replace existing pavement sections by grinding 6" (or less) in depth- no digging. Additionally, the project will include archeological monitoring during construction.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for the Project; however, this is not recommended as the Project implements accessibility improvements, maintenance and reconstruction activities that are required to maintain existing public infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

In November 2014, 74% of Monterey voters approved Measure P, effective April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2019, which was a 1% sales tax to address deferred maintenance for streets, sidewalks, potholes, storm drain maintenance, and Disabled Access and Safety Improvements.

In November 2018, 82% of voters supported Measure S, which is a continuation of Measure P, which took effect on April 1, 2019, and will expire on March 31, 2027.

The Project consists of the removal and replacement of non-compliant ADA ramps and deteriorated pavement on various streets throughout the City of Monterey. The scope of this project includes ADA upgrades along Van Buren, beginning at Jefferson Street and ending at West Franklin Street.

The project plans and specifications were developed by Whitson Engineers and extensively advertised for construction bids and are available for public review in the Office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7). On Tuesday, November 16, 2021, the City received eight (8) bids. The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by Precision Grade, Inc. in the amount of $959,185. References have been checked for Precision Grade, Inc., and staff is confident in the contractor’s ability to perform the work successfully.

The scope of the improvements along Van Buren Street offered the potential to partner with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) to ‘bundle’ improvements required by MIIS’ site development plan. The project plans and specifications included additive alternatives that capture MIIS’s required elements. Therefore, the true costs of the work to be performed could be accounted for and thus be reimbursed by MIIS. The specific improvements consist of an improved parking lot entrance and an improved mid-block pedestrian crossing.

MIIS has indicated that it is comfortable with the cost for these items ($247,813) and would like to proceed with the project. Approval of this item will enable the City Manager to execute a cooperative funding agreement to ensure funding reimbursement and any liabilities are addressed for this work. An increase to the revenue account is appropriate to receive the funds from MIIS.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing and directing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate FY2022/23 Measure S funds in the amount of $1,115,104.00 to the Measure S Pavement project account (35c1553);

2. Approving the plans and specifications for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 26 granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

3. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Awarding a construction contract for the Grand Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $959,185;

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications;

6. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project;

7. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation; and

8. Authorize an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Precision Grade, Inc.

All Business Associations
All Neighborhood Associations
President and Fellows of Middlebury College
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AUTHORIZE AN APPROPRIATION OF FY2022/23 MEASURE S FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,115,104 AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $959,185 TO PRECISION GRADE, INC. FOR CITYWIDE ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 3, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN

AGREEMENT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE, A

VERMONT DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN FY22 REVENUE AND APPROPRIATION OF $247,813 TO THE MEASURE S FUND ***MEASURE S***
WHEREAS, on the 16th day of November 2021, at 2:00 pm in the City of Monterey Council Chambers, the City Finance Director’s designee received eight (8) bids for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 (“Project”);
WHEREAS, Precision Grade, Inc., McKim Corporation, Granite Rock Company, Monterey Peninsula Engineering, The Don Chapin Company, Granite Construction Company, Teichert Construction, and ASG Builders submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project; WHEREAS, Precision Grade, Inc. submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible Grand Total Bid in the amount of $959,185;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) agreed to work cooperatively to design the proposed improvements, the City of Monterey proposed to enter into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in Measure P Fund Balance to complete the work;
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for the project were available for review prior to approval in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7); and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes ADA upgrades along Van Buren from beginning at Jefferson Street and ending at W Franklin. The scope of work involves the removal and replacement of existing concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, storm drainage, signage and striping, isolated street surface repairs, street reconstruction, adjustment of utilities, and hot mix asphalt pavement. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a- Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 28 2 adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a - Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project is located in an archeological sensitive area as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8); however, the proposed project would not require digging beyond current improvements. The work would be confined to the public right-of-way; there would be no impacts to any historic structures. The proposed improvements would remove and replace existing pavement sections by grinding 6" (or less) in depth- no digging. Additionally, the project will include archeological monitoring during construction.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Authorizes and directs the Finance Director, or their designee, to transfer and appropriate FY2022/23 Measure S funds in the amount of $1,115,104.00 to the Measure S Pavement project account (35c1553);

2. Approves the plans and specifications for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

3. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 29 3 4. Awards a construction contract for the Grand Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $959,185.00;

5. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications;

6. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project;

7. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation; and

8. Authorizes an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 30 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 28-14(d) TO ADD SERVICES PERFORMED

BY THE STATE RECOGNIZED DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION FOR THE

MONTEREY REGION AS A SOLE SOURCE EXCEPTION TO COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, City purchasing rules are set forth in Chapter 28 of the City Code, with the goal of establishing efficient procedures for the purchase of equipment, supplies, materials, and services for the City at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, exercising positive financial control over purchases, and clearly defining authority for the purchasing function;
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code (MCC) section 28-14 sets forth the categories of purchases that are exempt from competitive procurement requirements. These include purchases through cooperative procurement contracts previously negotiated by another governmental agency or cooperative purchasing agency, emergency procurements, and sole source procurements;
WHEREAS, the California Office of Tourism manages the Statewide Tourism Assessment Program and collects the funds for Visit California’s global marketing efforts. Visit California is the nonprofit tourism marketing board for the State of California and works with the destination marketing organizations (DMO) for the various regions in the State to run cooperative marketing campaigns and public relations initiatives; WHEREAS, Visit California recognizes the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, doing business as the Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) as the DMO for Monterey County and the jurisdictions within it; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey contracts with the MCCVB to provide destination marketing for leisure travel as well as group sales services related to the Monterey Conference Center and being able to directly contract with the recognized DMO for this region under MCC section 28-14’s sole source contract provisions will increase efficiency and allow staff greater time to focus on further promoting business and leisure travel to Monterey; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 31 2 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: Monterey City Code, Chapter 28, Section 14(d)(7) is hereby added to read as follows:
“7. By the destination marketing organization (DMO) for the Monterey County region that is recognized by the tourism marketing board for the State of California.” SECTION 3: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 32 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Max Rieser, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 for the Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1. This is a property-based district in which liability for the assessment is premised upon a person’s property ownership.

VALUE DRIVER:

This action supports the Council’s value drivers of “working to improve the quality of life of our residents” and “ensuring a level of economic vitality sufficient to support our quality of life and municipal infrastructure requirements” by maintaining Alvarado Street at a high standard conducive to commerce and public enjoyment of the downtown area.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with previous City Council actions. It will begin establishing an annual assessment to repair and maintain improvements and add these improvements as necessary to meet the intent of the District’s formation.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

A meeting with representatives of the District will be held to discuss the special benefits conferred and an appropriate assessment rate for 2022-2023. This information will be used to generate the report. The assessment pays for all aspects of the work program for 2022-2023.

The City has historically contributed funds to the District. If the assessment calculation utilizes the same factors, the expected amount would be approximately $48,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 33 the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could decide not to proceed with the reestablishment of this District. However, the assessment pays for maintenance of improvements that add to the character of the downtown and support commerce.

DISCUSSION:

The Alvarado Street Maintenance District (District) was established in 1985 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal. The boundaries of the District include the entire length of Alvarado Street. Staff will meet with representatives of the District to determine an acceptable rate for the next fiscal year. The current assessment is $1.48/lineal foot/month.

Staff recommends that the City Council order the preparation of the Engineer’s Report. The report will evaluate the costs and determine the appropriate allocation for each beneficiary of the proposed improvements. The Engineer’s Report separates the general benefits to the public at large from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive. Property-based assessments may only be used to pay for the special benefits provided by the improvements and activities of a district and may not be used to pay for general benefits (California Constitution Art XIIID §4(a).) Therefore, the Engineer’s Report must separate and quantify the special and general benefits and assess property owners only for the portion of the cost representing special benefits.

At a future Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to receive the report and set a time for a public hearing regarding the report’s contents. After the public hearing, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution confirming the assessment and the district boundaries. The resolution will be filed with the County Auditor’s office before the August 1, 2022 deadline established by the County Auditor.

MR/ah
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA) Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
ORDER ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 85-1
WHEREAS, the Alvarado Street Maintenance District (District) was established in 1985 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal on Alvarado Street; WHEREAS, the District has been renewed annually and has remained in effect since the establishment of the District;
WHEREAS, the District funds maintenance which contributes to a clean and safe environment conducive to commerce;
WHEREAS, all parcels that receive a special benefit are included in the District, and the cost of the benefits are reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels according to special benefits;
WHEREAS, general benefits available to the public at large are not paid from special assessments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby orders the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 for the Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 to analyze and separate the general benefits to the public at large from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 35 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 36 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Steve Wittry, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Max Rieser, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 for the Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1. This is a property based district in which liability for the assessment is premised upon a person’s property ownership.

VALUE DRIVERS:

This action supports the Council’s value drivers of “working to improve the quality of life of our residents,” and “ensuring a level of economic vitality sufficient to support our quality of life and municipal infrastructure requirements” by maintaining Calle Principal at a high standard conducive to commerce and public enjoyment of the downtown area.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with previous City Council actions and will begin the process for establishing an annual assessment to repair and maintain improvements, and to add these improvements as necessary to meet the intent of the District’s formation.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

If the assessment calculation utilizes the same factors, the expected amount would be approximately $25,000.

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

DISCUSSION:

The Calle Principal Maintenance District (District) was established in 2000 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct and maintain landscaping, lighting and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal. The boundaries of the District include the entire length of Calle Principal. Staff will meet with representatives of the District to determine an acceptable rate for the next fiscal year. The current assessment is $0.74/lineal foot/month.

Staff is recommending that the City Council order the preparation of the Engineer’s Report. The report will evaluate the costs and determine the appropriate allocation for each beneficiary of the proposed improvements. The Engineer’s Report separates the general benefits to the public at large from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive. Property based assessments may only be used to pay for the special benefits provided by the improvements and activities of a district, and may not be used to pay for general benefits (California Constitution Art XIIID §4(a).) Therefore, the Engineer’s Report must separate and quantify the special and general benefits, and assess property owners only for the portion of the cost representing special benefits.

At a future Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to receive the report and set a time for a public hearing regarding the contents of the report. After the public hearing, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution confirming the assessment and the district boundaries. The resolution would be filed with the County Auditor’s office prior to the August 1, 2022 deadline established by the County Auditor.

MR/ah
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 e: Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA) Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
ORDER ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 00-1
WHEREAS, the Calle Principal Maintenance District (District) was established in 2000 under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) which authorizes the assessment to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal; WHEREAS, the District has been renewed annually and has remained in effect since the establishment of the District;
WHEREAS, all parcels that receive a special benefit are included in the District and the cost of the benefits are reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels according to special benefits;
WHEREAS, general benefits available to the public at large are not paid from special assessments;
WHEREAS, the District funds maintenance which contributes to a clean and safe environment conducive to commerce; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby orders the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for 2022-2023 for the Calle Principal Maintenance District No. 00-1.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 40 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 41 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City of Monterey Supporting Establishment of a CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City of Monterey supporting the establishment of a California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) Veterans Home in Monterey County.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Supporting a CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County would provide local Veterans with much-needed services, including combined skilled nursing and memory care services.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with the City Council authorizing the Mayor to sign this advocacy letter. Costs to establish a Veterans Home in Monterey County would be funded by County, State, and/or Federal government. If approved, the land for the Veterans Home would be provided by the County of Monterey, and the facility would be constructed by the State of California with 65% reimbursement from the U.S. Government.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 42 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to support this letter.

DISCUSSION:

The Veterans Homes of California, operated by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet), offer affordable long-term care to aged and disabled veterans and their eligible spouses and domestic partners. With eight facilities across the state, the Veterans Homes offer services ranging from independent living programs with minimal support to 24/7 skilled nursing care for veterans with significant clinical needs. The Veterans Homes are nationally recognized for the premier care and services to California’s veterans.

Currently, there are extended wait times to access the established Veterans Homes in the State for much-needed services. If Veterans cannot access home services promptly, they will have to seek other options, potentially out of the State of California, or even risk becoming homeless.

Veterans in need of Skilled Nursing and Memory Care must wait years before they get admitted.

The construction of a new Veterans Home in Monterey County would help to alleviate the long wait times and keep our Veterans in the State. Current wait times and distance from Monterey for these services are:
· Yountville (164 miles from Monterey): 5 years wait time for admittance. · West Los Angeles (307 miles from Monterey): 2 years wait time for admittance. · Fresno (145 miles from Monterey): 4 years wait time for admittance. · Redding (336 miles from Monterey): 5 years wait time for admittance.

Homes are available to Disabled and Aged Veterans as well as spouses. The Veterans Home would provide much-needed care to our State’s heroes and decrease the risk of these veterans becoming homeless. In addition, a location in Monterey County would provide an attractive geographical area with a rich military history and current military presence. Residents of the Veterans Home would have easy access to the Major General William H. Gourley VA-DoD Outpatient Clinic, commissaries, military exchanges, gymnasiums, and other amenities.

This letter would be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council and addressed to members of the State legislature who represent Monterey County: Senators Anna Caballero and John Laird; and Assemblymembers Robert Rivas and Mark Stone.

Attachment: 1. Draft Letter of Support
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 43 Attachment 1
March 15, 2021
The Honorable Anna Caballero
12th Senate District
1021 O Street, Rm 7620
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable John Laird
17th Senate District
1021 O Street, Rm 8720
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Robert Rivas
30th Assembly District
1021 O Street, Rm 5110
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Mark Stone
29th Assembly District
1021 O Street, Rm 5740
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for a CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County Dear Members of the California State Legislature:

On behalf of the City of Monterey, I write to express our support for Monterey County’s request for authorizing legislation allowing a Veteran’s Home to be built in the region.

Currently, there are extended wait times to access the established Veterans Homes in the State for much needed services. If Veterans cannot access Veteran Home services timely, they will have to seek other options, potentially out of the State of California, or even risk becoming homeless. Veterans in need of Skilled Nursing and Memory Care must wait years before they are admitted.

The construction of a new Veterans Home in Monterey County would help to alleviate the long wait times and keep our Veterans in the State. Current wait times and distances from Monterey for these services are:
 Yountville (164 miles from Monterey): 5 years wait time for admittance.  West Los Angeles (307 miles from Monterey): 2 years wait time for admittance.  Fresno (145 miles from Monterey): 4 years wait time for admittance.  Redding (336 miles from Monterey): 5 years wait time for admittance.

California is losing veterans at an alarming rate – much faster than the following two largest veteran population states (Texas and Florida). We owe all we have to the veterans of this Nation, and it is our obligation to care for those who have served our country. Currently, California Veterans receive more than 8 Billion in Federal VA Compensation and Pension Payments. In addition, many receive Post 9/11 GI Bill, Chapter 33 Education Benefits, and DoD Retirements. If Veterans leave the state, so will the need for Veteran Serving organizations that create high-paying jobs with the Federal VA, State, Counties, Private Sector, and Non-Profits that serve our Veterans. Veterans positively impact the California Ecosystem.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 44

Page 2 ends

The construction of a new Veterans Home will lower or eliminate wait times for admittance into the CalVET Veterans Homes for services, including combined skilled nursing and memory care services. An additional Veterans Home location would increase the number of homes to nine (9) in the state. Homes are available to disabled and aging Veterans as well as spouses. This home will provide much needed care to our state’s heroes and decrease the risk of these veterans becoming homeless. In addition, the location in Monterey County would provide an attractive geographical location with a rich military history and current military presence.

Residents of the Veterans Home would have easy access to the Major General William H.

Gourley VA-DoD Outpatient Clinic, commissaries, post exchanges, military gyms, and other facilities.

Additionally, Monterey County is interested in contributing land for a new CalVET Veterans Home, and Federal Grants are available for 65% of construction costs of the new Veteran Home.

For these reasons, the City of Monterey supports Monterey County’s request for State authorization allowing a Veterans Home to be built in the region. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Monterey County Veterans Issues Advisory Committee’s Monterey representative, Assistant City Manager Nat Rojanasathira, at (831) 646- 3760.

Sincerely,
Mayor Clyde Roberson
City of Monterey
cc: Monterey City Council
The Honorable Anna Caballero, 12th Senate District
The Honorable Robert Rivas, 30th Assembly District
The Honorable John Laird, 17th Senate District
The Honorable Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 45 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period March 16, 2022 through April 14, 2022, Pursuant to AB 361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider the state of the COVID-19 emergency and adopt a resolution to authorize remote teleconference attendance for all public meetings of City of Monterey legislative bodies under emergency-specific Brown Act provisions for the period of March 16, 2022 through April 14, 2022. This action is required to comply with the Brown Act.

VALUE DRIVERS:

This action aligns with the City’s Value Driver to: “in collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.”
Furthermore, it is consistent with the City’s Strategic Priority to “ensure the health and wellness of the community including the COVID-19 pandemic response through emergency operations, clear communication with the public, delivering vaccinations, supporting testing efforts, issuing emergency orders, managing social distancing regulations, adopting eviction protections, hosting blood drives, and providing food security.”
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The recommendations in this report are consistent with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 through 54963). The City’s policy is to ensure the public’s health, safety, and welfare of its employees, residents, and visitors. Continuing to authorize remote attendance of public meetings will help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Government Code section 549853(e)(3) requires the city to make certain findings to continue with the emergency teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act: to consider the circumstances of the state of emergency and any of the following circumstances must exist (1) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person and (2) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no new or additional cost associated with offering free and secure teleconferencing participation in the City’s public meetings through toll-free telephone and internet-based ZoomGov webinars and free live-streamed meeting observation on cable access television and/or on the internet via YouTube when possible. The City currently pays $5,500 annually for Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 the ZoomGov webinar accounts and toll-free phone access used for public meetings. Live streaming of public meetings on Comcast Channel 25 is provided under an ongoing public, educational, and government (“PEG”) cable access agreement with Access Monterey Peninsula, Inc. In 2021, the City contributed around $240,000 towards Access Monterey Peninsula.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Upon consideration of the state of emergency, the Council may choose not to authorize emergency teleconference attendance of meetings. This would mean that meetings held after March 17, 2022 (the expiration date of Resolution No. 22-015 C.S.) would be subject to Government Code section 54953(b)(3) pre-COVID-19 Brown Act noticing and quorum requirements for teleconference attendance at public meetings by elected and appointed officials of the City’s legislative bodies.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Ralph M. Brown Act requires local government business to be conducted at open and public meetings with few exceptions. The COVID-19 pandemic presented significant health and safety concerns that made public gatherings unsafe. This resulted in the City of Monterey and many other public agencies holding public meetings with remote attendance methods authorized in Governor Newsom’s emergency executive orders to protect attendees' health and safety.

In September 2021, the Brown Act was amended by Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), authorizing the city and other public agencies to continue to allow teleconference attendance at public meetings if the legislative body makes certain findings. Accordingly, the City Council has adopted resolutions with the required findings at least every 30 days from October 5, 2021, to February 15, 2022. During this period, attendance was primarily conducted in a hybrid format, allowing both in-person and teleconference attendance. (Omicron presented a brief exception beginning mid-January 2022.) This flexibility has ensured transparent, healthy, and safe public access to the city’s meetings and meetings of its legislative bodies. The current authorization, which authorizes teleconferencing is effective through March 17, 2022. Findings regarding the Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 COVID-19 state of emergency will continue to be agendized for Council consideration at least every 30 days as required by State law as long as the state of emergency is in place and until the Council determines conditions are safe to return to non-pandemic Brown Act provisions for the city’s public meetings.

The ZoomGov platform currently used by the City for teleconference meeting attendance allows for participation that is free, broadly accessible, safe, and secure. The Council and public are able to attend meetings remotely using any internet-accessible device or by dialing toll-free on the telephone and remain socially distanced while engaging in important public discourse.

Current Findings
Facts supporting continued authorization for teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code section 54954(e)(3)(B)(i) are:
 The Omicron variant of the virus was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the CDC on December 1, 2021, and three lineages of the Omicron variant currently constitute 99.9% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as reported by the CDC on February 19, 2022.
 According to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Weekly Update for the Week of March 7, 2022, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 11.4 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 4.3% and 25 people hospitalized.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the current state of the COVID-19 emergency and, in order to protect the health and safety of public meeting attendees, adopt the attached resolution to authorize emergency teleconference attendance of public meetings through April 14, 2022.

CBK
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
cc: All City boards, commissions, and committees
Neighborhood Associations
Business Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 48 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZE REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 16 THROUGH APRIL 14, 2022
PURSUANT TO AB 361 RALPH M. BROWN ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered to take actions necessary to protect and has an important governmental interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of those who participate in meetings of the City Council and its legislative bodies subject to California Government Code sections 54950-54963 (the Ralph M. Brown Act, or “Brown Act”); WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 7, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, and February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted resolutions authorizing teleconference attendance of public meetings for the City Council and Boards, Commissions and Committees due to the imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees relating to in-person meeting attendance;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of the COVID-19 emergency;
WHEREAS, the Omicron variant of the virus was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the CDC on December 1, 2021, and three lineages of the Omicron variant currently constitute 99.9% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as reported by the CDC on February 19, 2022;
WHEREAS, according to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Weekly Update for the Week of March 7, 2022, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 11.4 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 4.3% and 25 people hospitalized; WHEREAS, the Monterey County Health Department continues to recommend that physical and social distancing strategies be practiced in Monterey County, which includes remote meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies, to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 49 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2 Pursuant to Government Code section 59453(e)(3)(B)(i), the City Council has reviewed the circumstances of the continued state of emergency posed by the spread of COVID-19 and finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the public and members of City legislative bodies to meet safely in person, and holding meetings exclusively in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

3. Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3)(B)(ii), the Monterey County Health Department continues to promote social distancing.

4. The City Council authorizes remote teleconferencing public meetings of the City Council and city boards, commissions, and committees pursuant to Government Code section 59453(e)(1). This Resolution expires on April 14, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this __ day of ______, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 50 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared by: Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager; and
Andrea Willer, Sports Center Manager
SUBJECT: Amend and Restate Resolution 21-127, the Master Fee Schedule, to Adjust the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve revisions to the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule to increase fees for residents and non-residents, approximately 5%, effective April 1, 2022.

The attached resolution amends only the City’s Parks and Recreation fee schedule; it does not alter any other fees previously adopted by the City Council.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed fee schedule is consistent with Council policy that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviews existing fees and recommends adjustments to the City Council for approval and implementation.

The existing policy is for the City’s General Fund to support 25% of Sports Center operation costs and for fees to cover 75% of the cost.

This action is also consistent with the City policy and practice to recover costs reasonably borne to provide regulations, products, or services as set forth in 19-102. “Costs reasonably borne” include direct and indirect costs, including but not limited to maintenance, contracted services, salaries and supplies.

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 51 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Based on an average of the four fiscal years before the pandemic (FY16 through FY19), the proposed increases in fees would generate approximately $275,000 annually to support the Parks and Recreation Department’s annual expenditures of $12.5 million during a time when operational expenses, minimum wage, utility costs, and facility maintenance expenses have been rising sharply.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to approve the recommendation; however, the Parks and Recreation Commission and Department staff do not recommend this alternative. Parks and Recreation fees and charges, as well as other City revenue streams, have not kept pace with operating costs such as minimum wage, utilities, supplies, and maintenance. Adjusting the fees helps preserve the quality standards of parks and recreation programs.

Another option is Council could recommend a different percentage for the fee increase. Staff does not recommend this option since a lower percentage of fees would not yield sufficient revenue needed, and a higher fee could make programs cost-prohibitive for some users.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Monterey supports healthy parks and recreation system to make Monterey a better place to live, work, and visit. Residents and visitors of all ages and abilities are encouraged to enjoy the wide variety of high-quality park and recreation facilities, programs, services, and opportunities provided by the City of Monterey.

City parks and recreation facilities, programs, and services are supported by a blend of taxpayer (General Fund) funding and participant fees. Due to the prolonged pandemic, General Fund revenue (primarily Transient Occupancy Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax) funding for Parks and Recreation has not kept up with the rising cost of operations. Furthermore, the City’s $32 million revenue loss due to the fiscal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant reduction of staff throughout the City, including the Sports Center and Recreation Division.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 52 Fee increases are necessary to reinvent and reinstate programs, activities, and services temporarily halted.

Fees and Costs
The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommends annual Parks and Recreation Department fee increases to the City Council during the first quarter of each calendar year.

These fee increases account for the increased cost in staffing, utilities, and services. IAfter five years of no fee adjustments in 2019, the Department raised fees by 10% In 2020, Veteran’s Memorial Park Campground fees were raised as well.

The Recreation Division and Monterey Sports Center depend on over 300 part-time staff to deliver services. A key factor impacting Department costs are part-time staff wages, with minimum wage increasing from $8.00 per hour in 2014 to $15.00 per hour in 2022, an 88% increase. In addition, the part-time labor market is extremely competitive, with the public and private sectors struggling to attract and maintain a part-time workforce.

Vendor costs, including purchases of services and supplies such as food and craft supplies for camps, have also increased. The Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased 24% since 2014, or an average of approximately 3.4% per year. The Parks and Recreation Department’s past fee adjustments have not kept pace with these increased costs. Since 2014, Recreation and Sports Center fees have increased 15%, with 5% of fees dedicated to facility maintenance and improvements.

In FY21, the annual General Fund budget for the Parks and Recreation Department is approximately $11.95 million to include the Monterey Sports Center, community centers, sports facilities, special programs, campgrounds, and park operations (including urban forestry).

Utility costs for the Parks and Recreation Department, which are included in the operational budget, have risen 39% since January 2020 for a total of approximately $900,000 per year ($47,000 for community centers, $368,000 for the Sports Center, and $484,000 for parks). In addition to the cost of operation, the City contributes approximately $545,000 per year towards the repayment of the MSC’s debt service, which runs through May 1, 2032. Combined, operational expenses and debt service repayment total approximately $12.5 million annually for the Department.

These annual expenses do not include significant renovation or capital improvement costs. For example, the pool slide at the Monterey Sports Center, artificial turf replacement at Sollecito ballpark, updates and renovations for the Jacks and Sollecito ballparks, the El Estero and Hilltop Park (Community) Centers, and ongoing park and playground equipment replacement are not accounted for with the proposed fee increases. The City will need to continue to address these fiscal challenges by reviewing its programs and services, participant fees, grants, fundraising, and contributions from the Capital Improvement Program, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program, or potential revenue sources.

Proposed Fees
Staff is proposing to increase Parks and Recreation fees by approximately 5%. Given the described overall increases, staff feels that a 5% increase is not only very reasonable, but also very fair. The proposed fee adjustments will allow residents to afford using our services as these indirectly and directly contribute to Monterey’s exceptional quality of life and happiness.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 53 Our fees consist out of a resident rate and a non-resident rate. The non-resident rate considers that Monterey residents contribute to the City’s General Fund through a percentage of their property tax contributions (either directly as property owners or indirectly as renters). It is common for public agencies offering parks and recreation services to charge residents less for program and service fees than non-residents, which has been the case for the City of Monterey.

Each proposed fee adjustment has been reviewed independently to account for the cost of providing the service, enrollment, and surveys of fees for similar services offered in other communities. In the proposed fee adjustment worksheet (Attachment 2), the first and third columns indicate the current fee rate for FY22, the second and fourth columns show the proposed adjusted rate effective April 1, 2022.

Increasing fees at the Monterey Sports Center and Recreation Division would help the City continue providing quality programs, services, and safe, clean, and modern facilities for residents, members, program participants, and the public.

Fees for the Parks and Recreation Commission Appeal Process, Cemetery El Encinal, Parks Division RV Storage Lot, and Urban Forestry Division are excluded from this fee increase since they generate revenue differently through the Parks Division and/or are increased annually per CPI.

Staff recommends simplifying Monterey Sports Center membership options to be more consistent and competitive with local fitness facilities and improve the online shopping experience. Currently, MSC offers 25 membership options. These options include different time commitments (six months, six months, 12 months), age-restricted categories (youth, adult, senior, family), and residency requirements. Commercial fitness facilities such as In-Shape Health Club, Gold’s Gym, and Montage Wellness Center only have one option regardless of age or residency with a monthly auto-pay membership. Some non-profits such as YMCA offer age restricted categories, but also only on a monthly auto-pay basis.

Staff recommends eliminating the three month and six month memberships, retaining the annual membership, and establishing a monthly auto-pay option.

Staff also recommends changing the youth membership age restrictions. Currently, the youth membership is defined as 9-17 years of age. However, 9 to 12 year-olds only have access to the pool and gymnasium, while 13 to 17 year-olds have access to the entire facility, fitness equipment, and group exercise classes. Therefore, staff recommends changing the youth membership to 9-12 years of age and then adding a teen category from 13-17 years of age and adjusting the fee accordingly. (Attachment 2)
Potential Revenue
Due to a reduction in programs, activities, and services, as well as attendance restrictions required by the pandemic or staffing levels, the revenue projections for the Parks and Recreation Department, in general, are lower than in years past. The annual revenue predictions for FY22 in the Recreation Division and MSC are approximately $839,000 and $1.3 million, respectively, for a total of about $2.1 million. At current FY22 projections, 5% of total revenue would be approximately $105,000 for FY22. If the new fees are implemented starting April 1, 2022, this will result in approximately $26,250 for the General Fund for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 54 Conclusion of Staff Recommendations

Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (at its meeting on March 9, 2022), recommend the City Council approve revisions to the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule, to include fee increases effective on April 1, 2022.

KL/sml

Attachments: 1. Resolution with Exhibit A, Combined Master Fee Schedule

2. Proposed Fee Adjustment Worksheet
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Jordan Cupps, Assistant Finance Director
Carol Hewitt, Finance Analyst
Stella Sandoval, Senior Accountant
Louie Marcuzzo, Park Operations Manager
Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Andrea Willer, Sports Center Manager
All Business Associations
All Neighborhood Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 55 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12
AMEND AND RESTATE RESOLUTION 21-127, THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, TO

ADJUST THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 14-132 to establish a Master Fee Schedule;
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 15-215, which amended and restated Resolution 14-132;
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 21-127, which amended and restated Resolution 15-215;
WHEREAS, the City Code calls for a full analysis of costs reasonably borne not less than every five years. Staff conduct cost of services studies to review and calculate the City’s expenditures linked to a particular activity in order to determine the fee amount and cost recovery level. Therefore, from time to time, the Master Fee Schedule has been amended to reflect changes or adjustments to fees as necessary to recover costs pursuant to that policy; WHEREAS, this resolution amends only the City’s Park and Recreation fee schedule; it does not alter any other fees previously adopted by the City Council and those are restated along with the amended Park and Recreation fees in Exhibit A to this Resolution; WHEREAS, the City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community, individuals, or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees or recreational activities, the City has recovers partially or fully the cost of providing these services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund; WHEREAS, where required by law, the amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable cost of the governmental activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to the payer’s burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity;
WHEREAS, certain fees in the fee schedule are for government services provided directly to the payor that are not provide to those not charged. Where required by law, the amount of these fees do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services.

Consequently, pursuant to California Constitution, Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2), such fees are not a tax;
WHEREAS, Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people; Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 56 2 WHEREAS, Proposition 26 contains a requirement that the local government “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section 1); WHEREAS, certain types of fees, such as charges imposed for entrance to or use of, as well as the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property, are expressly exempted from Proposition 26 and not required to be based on actual costs of providing service. Instead, these types of fees are more typically governed by local market rates, reasonableness, etc.

Other fees for services such as lessons and classes, where participation is voluntary and there are meaningful private sector alternatives, may also be exempt from Prop 26’s limitations as they are not “imposed” by government. Consequently, these fees are not bound to certain cost recovery levels. However, the City’s Recreation and Park fees fall below 75% of the cost to provide the service, in other words, the City is subsidizing at least 25% of the cost of providing the service;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the current fees and determined that adjustments are required to ensure that the Monterey Sports Center continues to meet its 75% cost recovery guideline established in Resolution 92-061, and to keep pace with rising wages and costs for services and supplies;
WHEREAS, the City’s infrastructure, including community centers, parks and the Monterey Sports Center, continues to age with limited funding for facility maintenance and improvement;
WHEREAS, the City’s cost of offering Parks and Recreation programs and services continues to rise due to increases in minimum wage, supplies, materials, vendor costs and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic;
WHEREAS, an increase in Parks and Recreation fees will help to address ongoing fiscal challenges and allow the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain its contribution to the General Fund while continuing to keep Recreation programs affordable as a service to the community;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) have reviewed the current fees and the costs of programs, services, utilities and facility maintenance, and determined that an approximate increase of 5% of user fees is necessary to address ongoing fiscal challenges and allow the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain its contribution to the General Fund while continuing to keep Recreation programs affordable as a service to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 57 3 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends and restates Resolution 21-127 the City Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. The increased fees shall be effective April 1, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 58 Master Fee Schedule
Fiscal Year 2022
Administrative Services
Community Development - Permits & Inspections
Community Development - Planning
Community Development & Public Works - General
Library
Monterey Conference Center
Museums & Cultural Arts
Parking
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation - Cemetery
Public Safety - Fire
Public Safety - Police
Public Works - Harbor & Marina
Public Works - Sewer
updated (04/01/2022 effective date)
Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility Appeals Fees

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 9, Packet Page 59 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
General
Agenda and Minutes Mailing Service1 $39.00 per year
Agenda Packet Subscription Service -
Council, Planning Commission,
Arch. Review Committee1 $215.50 per year
Agenda Packet Subscription Service -
All other Boards and Commissions $60 per year
Certification of Documents $1.00 per document
Notary Service (per signature) IAW GC 8211 - $15.00
Transparency Reproduction $1.50 each
Fax Service - Send $4 first page, $3 each add'l page
Fax Service - Receive $2 first page, $1 each add'l page CD/DVD Duplication Direct cost (currently $1.00 each)
Publication of optional Candidate Statement in the
Voter Guide
100% of the amount determined by the Monterey
County Elections Department, to be paid by an
advance deposit of the estimated total, and to be
trued up following the County’s issuance of the actual
cost following the election.

Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
initial application (up to 30 days) $25
Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
First Renewal (30 to 60 days) $50
Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
Second (final) Renewal (60 to 90 days) $10 per day
Duplicate Business License Fee $5
Returned check Processing $10
PW Engineering Maps and Documents $3 per square foot
Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, EIRs, Budgets $20
Photocopying Services - Conference Center $.25 per page Photocopying Services - Public Works $.18 per page (11x17) Photocopying or Printing Services -
All others including Public Records $.10 per page (8.5x11)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 10, Packet Page 60 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
(2 pages)
Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 20-
foot space, per month.1 $63.00
Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 25-
foot space, per month.1 $79.00
Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 30-
foot space, per month.1 $94.50
Appeal of Marina Decisions to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Appeal of East Anchorage Decisions to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Appeal of Yellow Boat Permits to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Weed Abatement Fee Appeal to be set by resolution
Tobacco Retail License Fee $297
Council Chamber room (includes kitchen, furniture,
projection screen) $100 per session
Basic Sound System (includes 7 mics at dais and 1
lectern mic) $50 per session
Extra microphones (3 table mics 2 handheld mics
available) $20 each per session
Television Broadcast cameras and equipment
(requires Access Monterey Peninsula (AMP)
personnel be separately contracted/retained to
operate equip) $150 per session
Presentation Desk (includes projector, document
camera, and connections for a laptop computer) $100 per session Internet Connection $25 per session
Deposit required to hold the room
(will be applied to final invoice) $50 per reservation
Monterey City Council Chamber Rental Fees - Per Session 8am-6pm or 6pm-12am 1 Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cent (0.50)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 11, Packet Page 61 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Bid Protest
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding or requests for proposals $100
Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals $250
Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million $500 Public Works Projects $5 million and over $1,000
Bidder Responsibility Appeals
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding –appeals without a hearing $100
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding - appeals with a hearing $500
Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals without a hearing $250 Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals with a hearing $750 Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals without a hearing $500
Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals with a hearing $1,000
Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals without a hearing $1,000 Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals with a hearing $1,500

BID PROTEST & BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY APPEALS FEES

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 12, Packet Page 62 P/C-Bldg Only
Low Range High Range Incrmt Result Extra
$0.00 $4,000 1000 $91.51 $0.00
$4,000.01 $5,000 1000 $95.56 $0.00
$5,000.01 $25,000 1000 $95.56 $20.16
$25,000.01 $50,000 1000 $498.86 $14.56
$50,000.01 $100,000 1000 $862.91 $10.09
$100,000.01 $500,000 1000 $1,367.71 $8.07
$500,000.01 $1,000,000 1000 $4,592.03 $6.86
$1,000,000.01 $99,999,999,999,999 1000 $8,021.16 $4.54
P/C- All Work
Low Range High Range Result Extra
$0.00 $2,000 1000 $91.51 $0.00
$2,000.01 $3,000 1000 $100.12 $0.00
$3,000.01 $25,000 1000 $100.12 $28.23
$25,000.01 $50,000 1000 $721.08 $20.37
$50,000.01 $100,000 1000 $1,230.50 $14.10
$100,000.01 $500,000 1000 $1,936.15 $11.30
$500,000.01 $1,000,000 1000 $6,455.49 $9.58
$1,000,000.01 $99,999,999,999,999 1000 $11,245.70 $6.36 Bldg Only
Low Range High Range Result Extra
$0.00 $2,000.00 1000 $91.51 $0.00
$2,000.01 $25,000.00 1000 $91.51 $31.03
$25,000.01 $50,000.00 1000 $805.15 $22.40
$50,000.01 $100,000.00 1000 $1,364.77 $15.52
$100,000.01 $500,000.00 1000 $2,140.46 $12.41
$500,000.01 $1,000,000.00 1000 $7,103.79 $10.54
$1,000,000.01 $9,999,999,999.99 1000 $12,369.75 $6.98
Bldg All Work
Low Range High Range Result Extra
$0.00 $1,000.00 1000 $91.51 $0.00
$1,000.01 $2,000.00 1000 $128.13 $0.00
$2,000.01 $25,000.00 1000 $128.13 $43.44
$25,000.01 $50,000.00 1000 $1,127.13 $31.33
$50,000.01 $100,000.00 1000 $1,909.98 $21.71
$100,000.01 $500,000.00 1000 $2,995.99 $17.39
$500,000.01 $1,000,000.00 1000 $9,946.77 $14.74
$1,000,000.01 $9,999,999,999.99 1000 $17,320.42 $9.77 1 Fee amounts include CPI adjustments.

Building Permit Fees - Monterey

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT - PERMITS & INSPECTIONS
Fee Amount
Fee Amount
Fee Amount

DESCRIPTION
Plan Check - Monterey
Fee Amount
FY22 FEE1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 13, Packet Page 63 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Architectural Review - ARC Major 1 $4,190.50
Architectural Review - ARC Minor 1 $1,907.00
Architectural Review - Admin Major 1 $1,177.50
Architectural Review - Admin Minor 1 $328.50
Architectural Review - Signs ARC/HPC Review, including Historic Permit 1 $1,458.00 Architectural Review - Signs Minor 1 $374.50
Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/rezone * $0.00 Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/o rezone * $0.00 Historical Preservation - Demolition Review 1 $236.00
Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, major * $0.00 Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, admin * $0.00 Historical Preservation - Historic Report, review * $0.00 Hisotric Preservation - Historic Survey * $0.00
Conditional Use Permits -Planning Commission Major (deposit) $4,000 deposit Preapplication $1,000.00
Conditional Use Permits - Planning Commision Minor 1 $2,170.00 Conditional Use Permits - Zoning Administrator 1 $918.00 Conditional Use Permits - Temporary 1 $328.50
Variances/Parking Adjustment - Major Planning Commission 1 $1,718.00 Variances/Parking Adjustment - Minor Zoning Administrator 1 $918.00 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map (includes preliminary and final) $6,000 deposit Subdivisions - Covenant of Easement 1 $338.00
Subdivisions - Minor Subdivisions 1 $4,382.50
Subdivisions - Lot Line Adjustment 1 $3,863.00
Subdivisions - Certificate of Compliance 1 $1,391.50
Lot Merger 1 $824.50
Environmental Review - Environmental Impact Report deposit based on cost estimate Environmental Review - Environmental Initial Study
leading to a Negative Declaration $4,000 deposit
Text or Map Admendments -
General Plan/Area Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning Ordinance $4,000 deposit Text or Map Admendments - Local Coastal Plan $5,000 deposit Annexation $5,000 deposit
Permits - Food Vending Permit 1 $199.50
Permits - Development Services Sidewalk Vendor Permit 1 $205.50 Permits - Home Occupation Permit 1 $70.00
Zoning Affidavit 1 $328.50
Permits - Permit Extension 1 $920.00
Permits - Permit Amendment 2/3 of permit fee
Permits - Special Permits (bingo, pet) 1 $199.50
Permits - Temporary Sign 1 $17.50
Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development (ARC) 1 $672.50 Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development (Administrative) 1 $284.50 Concept Review (PC) 1 $1,578.50
Undocumented Dwellings 1 $328.50
Appeals - Of Decisions of Staff, ZA, ARC and
Environmental Determination to the Planning Commission 1 $331.50 Appeals - Of Decisions of Planning Commission to the City Council 1 $721.00

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT - PLANNING FEES
1 Per City Code Sec. 19-103, Fee includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April). * Solar arrays, cisterns, and safe parking are exempt from architectural review, historical preservation, use permit and variance fees.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 14, Packet Page 64 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Encroachment Permits
Street Opening Fee 1 $252.00
Street Opening Fee with Sewer Connection 1 $509.00
Temporary Encroachment Fee
(plus $91/hour if review outside PPW is required) 1 $193.00 Permanent Encroachment Fee
(plus $87/hour for inspection)1 $252.00
Driveway or Sidewalk Encroachment Fee1 $252.00
Traffic Control Fee1 $128.00
Public Improvement Inspection 3% of common area or dedication improvements Building Permits
Investigative Fee for work without permit(s) Cost of permit Missed inspections or work not complete1 $104.00
Sewer Lateral Review Fee1,2 $114.00
Plumbing Permit - for the issuance of
most Plumbing Permits1 $133.00
Electrical Permit1 $133.00
Mechanical Permit1 $133.00
Grading Plan Review Fee1 $133.00
Grading Permit Fee1 $133.00
Residential Property Inspections Reports -
Single Family Dwelling1 $148.00
Additional Inspection1 $104.00
Additional Plan Check fee1 $110.00
Address Change1 $76.00
Duplicate Job Card1 $53.00
Revision1 $53.00
Temporary Permit1 $143.00
General Plan Fee 15% of building permit fee
PW Engineering
Grease Interceptor Waiver Fee
(360 days from City letter) $60/month
Final Subdivision Map Check1 $754.00
Sewer Connection (Twin Oaks) $420/Developable parcel
Standard Specification $50/set
Street Patch Charge (asphalt only) $16.50/sq foot
Other
Banner 1 $190.00
Lease Administration Fee1 $250.00
Storm Water Review and Inspection Fee
(plus $94/hour)1 $330.00
Storm Water - Developer Design Review1 $2,230.00
Miscellaneous - Public Improvement Design Service
or Plan Check $111/hour
Miscellaneous - Administrative Notification Fee $111/hour

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT & PUBLIC WORKS DEPT - GENERAL 1 Fee amount includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April). 2 Per Ordinance #3579

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 15, Packet Page 65 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE

LIBRARY
POLICY
Overdue Fines - Adult Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines, DVDs, Videos) $.50/day to a max of $10 Policy #130 Overdue Fines - Teen Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines, DVDs, Videos) $.25/day to a max of $5 Policy #130 Overdue Fines - Youth Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines, DVDs, Videos) $.25/day to a max of $5 Policy #130 Overdue Fines - Laptop Computers $5/hour Policy #175
Overdue Fines - Telescopes $5/day to a max of $50 Policy #175 Lost/Damaged Materials - Books Cost of item Policy #125 Lost/Damaged Materials - Magazines Adult $10 / Youth & Teen $5 Policy #125 Lost/Damaged Materials - Paperbacks Youth $6 Policy #125 Library Cards - California Resident No Charge Policy #120 Library Cards - Out of State Resident $5 for one month Policy #120 Duplicate (Replacement) Library Card No Charge Policy #120 Photocopying Services - Library
$.10 per single-sided black & white copy,
$.25 per single-sided color copy Policy #140
Microfilm copies - Library $.25 per 8.5"x11" printed page Policy #140 Print-outs from Internet Stations $.10 per printed page Policy #140 Fees for document delivery, color internet prints, & duplication of California History Room photos and other archival materials. Call Library for fee Policy #140 &
#145
Meeting Room Use - Community Room
(must be non-profit org w/ approved application on file) $10/hr max $50/day if user does not have
valid library card Policy #105
Meeting Room Use - Conference Room
(must be non-profit org w/ approved application on file) $5/hr max $25/day if user does not have a
library card Policy #105

LIBRARY

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 16, Packet Page 66

DESCRIPTION
FY22

PUBLISHED
FY22

NON-PROFIT
Room
Serra I $4,580 $3,665
Serra II $3,775 $3,020
Serra I, II $8,345 $6,675
Serra Lobby $1,135 $910
Steinbeck I $1,495 $1,195
Steinbeck II $1,205 $965
Steinbeck III $1,495 $1,195
Steinbeck I, II, III $4,120 $3,295
Steinbeck I - A $890 $715
Steinbeck I - B $890 $715
Steinbeck I - C $890 $715
Steinbeck Lobby $890 $715
Colton I, II or III $520 $415
Colton I, II & III $1,560 $1,245
Jeffers Plaza $1,495 $1,195
Stevenson I $635 $510
Stevenson II $635 $510
Stevenson Terrace $1,245 $995
Delmonte Terrace $1,135 $910
Parking $50 $50

3. Future rates beyond FY22 increase between 3-5% annually not to exceed 5%.

4. Rates are rounded off to the nearest $5.

5. Rates are on a fiscal basis July 1 through June 30.

Parking

MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER
Notes regarding MCC fees:

1. Published Rates: from $0.38/sq foot for Ballrooms to $1.09/square foot for Stevenson Rooms.

2. Non-Profit Rates: 20% off published rates for Monterey County 501 (c)(3) Organizations.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 17, Packet Page 67 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Equipment:
5x7 Lined pad w/pen or pencil 26.00/dozen
Hard candies 6.00/bowl
Table 18.00
Table w/linen 23.00
Linen - refresh 6.00
Skirt - refresh 38.00 (cost to dry clean)
Podium 30.00
Easel 15.00
Dance Floor/15x15 or larger 350.00 per event
Dance Floor/15x15 or smaller 150.00 per event
Pipe & Drape (2 bases) 20.00
Stanchion (2 bases) 10.00 per section
Chair, banquet 1.00
Services
Labor Fees:

Including but not limited to: removing decorations,
preparing for fog machines, additional room refreshes,
airwall open/close, room turns or balloon drops. 50.00/hr per person Room Turns:

Steinbeck Ia, Ib, Ic 50.00/section
Steinbeck II, III 150.00 per section
Colton 50.00 per section
Serra I 450.00 minimum
Serra II (Based On Setup Requirements) 400.00 minimum
Serra Carpet Replacement 125.00 per 3x3 section
Re-Key Lock + (1) Key 75.00
Additional Keys 25.00 each
Unreturned Keys 25.00 each
Banner hung, oversized with grommets @ corners & center 50.00 Banner installation of grommets @ 2 corners & center 50.00 Shipment per cardboard box

25.00/day to store
(5 boxes for the RENTER is complimentary with receipt
no earlier than 2 days prior to move in)
Shipment, oversized 110.00/day to store
Shipment, pallet
110.00 + 50.00/additional day to store, includes forklift assistance
Monterey Conference Center - Equipment & Service Fees
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 18, Packet Page 68 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Monterey Conference Center - Equipment & Service Fees
(2 pages)
Analog Lines:

Polycom instrument 50.00/day
Heavy Equipment: Day = 8 hours
Forklift with operator 75.00/hr or 500.00/day
Scissor Lift 75.00/hr or 500.00/day
Powered Pallet Jack 30.00/hr or 150.00/day
Non-Powered Pallet Jack 25.00/hr or 125.00/day
Office Supplies/Services:

Power Strip 30.00
Extension Cords 20.00
Office Services/Supplies Cost + 25% (5.00 minimum)
Tables 9.00 each
Banquet Chairs 1.00 each
Risers 15.00 per 6' x 8' section
Forklift 50.00 per hr or 25.00 per ½ hr
Pallet Jack 50.00 per hr or 25.00 per ½ hr
Scissor Lift 50.00 per hr or 25.00 per ½ hr
Offsite Equipment Rental Fees:

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 19, Packet Page 69 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Pacific Biological Laboratories (public use)
$18/hour/staff person M-F 8am to 5pm, $25/hour/staff
person at other times,
including time for travel, set up & close-up

MUSEUMS & CULTURAL ARTS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 20, Packet Page 70

DESCRIPTION
FEE
JANUARY 1, 2021
FEE
JANUARY 1, 2022
Cannery Row Garage $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr West Custom House Garage $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $562/yr East Custom House Garage $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Waterfront Lot $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Wharf II $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Red Wharf Permits - $135/qtr Permits - $150/qtr
Depot Lot Figueroa / Del Monte $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Upper 7 $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot #4 Franklin / Van Buren $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot #6 Wharf $157.50/mo, $465/qtr, $1674/yr $162.50/mo, $480/qtr, $1728/yr Lot #8 Franklin / Pierce $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot #11 Franklin / Pierce $77.50/mo, $225/qtr, $810/yr $82.50/mo, $240/qtr, $864/yr Lot #14 Bonifacio / Adams $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot #18 Van Buren / Jefferson $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot #21 Foam / Cannery Row $47.50/mo, $135/qtr, $486/yr $52.50/mo, $150/qtr, $540/yr Lot B Calle Principal / Pearl $77.50/mo, $225/qtr, $810/yr $82.50/mo, $240/qtr, $864/yr New Monterey Employee Permit Permits - $27.50/mo, $75/qtr Permits - $32.50/mo, $90/qtr Monterey Resident Discount Decal
$20/yr
2hrs free in Downtown Garages (West and East),
Waterfront Lot and Cannery Row Garage
$20/yr
2hrs free in Downtown Garages (West and East),
Waterfront Lot and Cannery Row Garage
Employee Voucher Parking Program
Cannery Row & Downtown Garages
20 entries - $50
Valid in Downtown Garages (East and West)
and Cannery Row Garage
20 entries - $50
Valid in Downtown Garages (East and West)
and Cannery Row Garage
Construction Daily Permit
$10.00 Downtown
$20.00 Waterfront / Cannery Row
$15.00 Downtown
$25.00 Waterfront / Cannery Row
Reserved Parking (Citywide)
$20/space per day
$50/space for display
$25/space per day
$55/space for display

PARKING - PERMIT FEES

13. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to negotiate and set fees for any City parking facility for special events or functions.

Notes Regarding Parking Fees:

1. A refundable $5.00 deposit for the permit entry card and card programming will be required in addition to the permit fee.

Please note, if payment is received after the grace period, a reactivation fee of $5.00 per permit will be charged.

2. Wharf II permits shall only be issued to those who have boats at A or H Tier and must be verified with the Harbormaster.

3. Permit fees are non-refundable. If you desire to change your billing option, it will become effective the following quarter.

You may not switch billing options during the quarter.

4. A replacement fee of $10 per permit will be charged for lost or stolen paper permits.

5. An administrative fee of $10 will be charged to dismiss a parking citation for failure to display a proper permit.

6. Grace periods: Monthly Permits - 2 days, Quarterly Permits - 5 days, Annual Permits - 10 days

7. Permit Pro-rate Information: Monthly - on the 15th of each month, Quarterly - on the 1st and 15th of each month, Annual - None.

8. Monterey Residents may purchase a decal for $20/year that will allow them two hour parking in the Downtown Garages, Cannery Row Garage and the Waterfront Lot.

9. Effective 01/01/09, the Fisherman's Wharf Party Boat discount rate for the Waterfront lot for the period of Memorial Day through Labor Day shall be $7/day and $5/day the remaining time of the year.

10. Effective 01/01/09, the monthly charge for a net storage in the Depot Lot shall be $50/space.

11. Boot Removal Fee is $75.00.

12. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to set a flat parking rate in any attendant parking facility up to the approved maximum daily rate for said facility.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 21, Packet Page 71 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEES
Downtown:

Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Lower $1.50/hr, $8.00 all day Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Upper $1.50/hr, $8.00 all day Downtown West Garage
1st hr free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof.
$12 daily max
Downtown East Garage
1st hr free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof.
$12 daily max
Monterey Sports Center Lot
$1.50/hr, 3 hr max
Defered - Pending validation program
Lot 4, Franklin & Van Buren $1.50/hr $8.00 all day
Lot 8, Franklin & Pierce $1.50/hr
Lot B, Calle P. & Pearl permit only
Lot 11, Calle P. and Pearl $1.50/hr, $8.00 all day
Lot 14, Bonifacio & Adams $1.50/hr, $8.00 all day
Lot 18, Van Buren & Jefferson permit only
Cannery Row:

Meters, Cannery Row (Zone 1) $2.25/hr.

Meters, Wave (Zone 2) $2.00/hr.

Meters, Foam (Zone 3) $1.75/hr
CR1, Foam & Hoffman
Flat rate pricing or hourly rate structure based on
demand and season. $5.00 - $20 daily max
CR7, Foam & Irving $20/daily max, $5 after 5pm
Lot 24, C.R. & Foam - Meters (Zone 3) $1.75/hr
Lot 21, C.R. & Foam
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max
San Carlos Beach Lot $1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Coast Guard Pier (Breakwater)
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max
Waterfront:

Waterfront Lot 1 $1/30 minutes or fraction thereof, $15 daily max.

Marina Lot
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max
Depot Lot , Figueroa
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max
Municipal Wharf II $1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Lot 6, Waterfront no fee, loading/unloading zone only
Southern Pacific (SP) Lot $1.50/hr, $10 daily max
East Depot Lot/Gravel side
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max
Monterey Bay Park (MB7)
$1.50/hr, $10 daily max
Double space $2/hr, $16 daily max

PARKING - RATES

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 22, Packet Page 72

DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM
FEE

MONTEREY
RESIDENT FEE2
Permits/Facility Rentals

1. Group Picnic Permit $80 $61.20

2. El Estero Park Group Picnic Permit $104 $85.28

3. Veteran's Memorial Park Group Area 2 Picnic Permit $104 $85.28

4. Group Beach Permit $80 $61.20

5. Group Beach Permit/Commercial $215 $215.00

6. Beach Wedding Permit $607 $607.00

7. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Commercial $789 $603.59

8. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Nonprofit $248 $248.00

9. Sport Court Permit
(eg., Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis) - PER DAY $66 $50.49

10. Bounce House/Inflatable Permit $50 $50.00

11. Wedding Event Permit - Colton Hall Lawn
Or Friendly Plaza - Per Location $218 $185.30

12. Event Permit (Per Day) $607 $607.00

13. Event/Park Closure Permit (Per Day) $1,379 $1,379.00

14. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee $27 $27.00

15. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Non-Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $56 $56.00

16. Facility Rental – Community Centers Private Party Use - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $146 $111.69

17. Waterfront Community Room Rental Permit - Nonprofit - Per Hour Fee $80 $80.00

18. Ballpark Event Permit
Day Use $607 $607.00
Hourly Use $61 $61.00
Lights Use - Per Hour Fee $27 $27.00

19. Ballpark Use Fee Practice -
Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $28 $22.40

20. Parks & Recreation Commission
Appeal Process $179 $179.00

PARKS & RECREATION
(4 pages)
effective April 1, 2022

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 23, Packet Page 73

DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM
FEE

MONTEREY
RESIDENT FEE2

PARKS & RECREATION
(4 pages)
effective April 1, 2022

21. Monterey Sports Center
Drop-In Admission:

Youth (3-17 Years) $9 $8.00
Adult (18-61 Years) $14 $13.00
Senior (62 And Older) $9 $8.00
10-Visit Pass:

Youth (3-17 Years) $90 $80.00
Adult (18-61 Years) $140 $130.00
Senior (62 And Older) $90 $80.00
Subscription/Auto Billing (1 Month):

Youth (9-12 Years) $34 $30.60
Teen (13-17 Years) $37 $33.30
Adult (18-61 Years) $61 $54.90
Senior (62 And Older) $45 $40.50
Family* $87 $78.30
Membership (1 Year):

Youth (9-12 Years) $371 $333.90
Teen (13-17 Years) $408 $367.20
Adult (18-61 Years) $668 $601.20
Senior (62 And Older) $493 $443.70
Family* $957 $861.30
Business/Corporate Fee:

Membership (1 Year) $586 $586.00
Facility Rental (Staff Time Additional)
During Non-Operating Hours:

Pool - First 2 Hours $304 $273.60
Additional Hour $136 $122.40
Gym - First 2 Hours $304 $273.60
Additional Hour $136 $122.40
Pool & Gym - First 2 Hours $466 $419.40
Additional Hour $223 $200.70
During Operating Hours:

Pool Lane Rental - Per Hour Fee $19 $17.10
Gymnasium Court Rental- Per Hour Fee $37 $33.30
Studio Rental- Per Hour Fee $74 $66.60
* Family Membership Eligibility - 2 adults and their dependent children 20 years of age and younger than live in the same household.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 24, Packet Page 74

DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM
FEE

MONTEREY
RESIDENT FEE2

PARKS & RECREATION
(4 pages)
effective April 1, 2022
Conference Room Rental- Per Hour Fee $25 $22.50

22. Veteran's Memorial Park Campground:

Campsite With 1 Vehicle $44 $44.00
Additional Vehicle $12 $12.00
Each Bicycle - Hiker Campsite $9 $9.00
Overnight Youth Group Area 3 - Per Person Fee $9 $9.00
Overnight Youth Group Area 2 - Per Person Fee $11 $11.00 Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veterans & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Vehicle Campsite)3 $5 DISCOUNT $5 DISCOUNT Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veteran & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Hiker Campsite)3 $2 DISCOUNT $2 DISCOUNT
Shower Fee For Non-Campers $4 $4.00
Dump Station Fee For Non-Campers - Per Use Fee $12 $12.00 Recreational Vehicle Surcharge - Per Night Fee $6 $6.00 Urban Forestry
$112.00
$0.00
$139.50
$198.50
4 The Parks and Recreation Director may approve promotional pricing for Recreation activities, programs, and services, subject to the following standards: 1. The fee reduction must be intended to promote Recreation programs and facilities; 2. The fee reduction shall not reduce fees by more than 25%; 3. The fee reduction is publicized and open to all; and 4. The fee reduction is limited in duration. 5 The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to set fees for Recreation activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards: 1. Recreational programs and services shall benefit both the participant and the community due to their educational, cultural, and physical value. 2. Recreational programs and services require facilities, supplies, equipment, and/or considerable staff planning and supervision specific to the program and therefore, it is appropriate to charge a fee for these programs and services. Some examples include, but are not limited to instructional programs, summer day camp, senior programs, teen programs, special events, and youth/adult athletic programs. 3. Fees will not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the program, class, or service. 4. Fees will remain affordable to allow access to community members, especially youth and seniors; and 5. Contractually taught class fees will be set based on availability of instructor, instructor costs, as these programs follow city purchasing policy.
1 Fees will be annually adjusted per CPI (SF, April Edition) rounded to the nearest fifty cents. 2 To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser must be a resident of the City of Monterey or United States Active Duty Military as of the date of registration or for eligible employee and dependents who have access to resident rates per Memoranda of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, utility bill or U. S. Military active duty status such as military ID is required. 3 To be eligible for discounted camping rates at Veteran's Memorial Park, proof of age such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, or proof of United States Military active duty, retired or disabled veteran status is required.

Notes Regarding Parks & Recreation fees:

Tree View Trimming Permit - City or Private Tree1
Tree Removal Permit Fee - Dead and Dying1
Tree Removal Permit Fee (Non-Development)1
Tree Removal Permit Appeal Fee (Non-Development)1
Non-Development Tree Permits:

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 25, Packet Page 75

DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM
FEE

MONTEREY
RESIDENT FEE2

PARKS & RECREATION
(4 pages)
effective April 1, 2022
6 Five percent (5%) of Parks & Recreation (P&R) Fees, which excludes P&R Commission Appeals, Cemetery, RV Storage Lot, and Urban Forestry fees, will be committed to the Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 26, Packet Page 76 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE1 RESIDENT*
Ground Burials for Caskets
a. Infant Burial Site $1,541.00 $1,309.50
b. Adult Burial Site - Single Depth $5,058.50 $4,300.00 c. Adult Burial Site - Double Depth $8,218.00 $6,984.50 d. Changing Rights from Adult Single Depth to Adult Double Depth (50% of Adult Single Depth Price) $2,529.50 $2,150.00
Niche Inurnment
a. Niche- Single Lakeside Columbarium $2,761.00 $2,346.50 b. Niche - Double Lakeside and Old Columbarium $5,239.00 $4,452.50 Ground Burial for Urns
a. Full Burial Site (1-8 urns) $5,058.50 $4,300.00
b. Half Burial Site (1-4 urns) $2,529.25 $2,073.50
c. Cremains Added Plot (2nd, 3rd right etc. of Inurnment) $1,333.50 $1,133.50 Indenture/Administrative Fee
a. Indenture – Burial Site $213.00
b. Indenture - Niche $213.00
c. Indenture Transfer fee $250.50
d Deed Replacement $82.00
Endowment Care
a. Infant Burial Site $655.00
b. Half Burial Site $1,200.50
c. Burial Site – Single Depth $1,855.50
d. Burial Site – Double Depth $1,855.50
e. Niche- Single $873.00
f. Niche- Double $1,091.50
Internment/Inurnment – Labor Charges
a. Infant Cremains $573.00
b. Adult Cremains $616.50
c. Infant Casket Burial $753.00
d. Child Casket Burial $764.00
e. Child Burial (adult sized casket) $1,200.50
f. Adult Burial – Single Depth $1,200.50
g. Adult Burial – Double Depth $1,386.00
h. Niche- Lakeside Columbarium Inurnment $409.50
i. Niche- Old Columbarium Inurnment $502.50

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT - CEMETERY FEES
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 27, Packet Page 77 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE1 RESIDENT*

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT - CEMETERY FEES
(2 pages)
a. Infant Burial $436.50
b. Cremation Burial $436.50
c. Niche – Columbarium Inurnment $436.50
d. Adult Burial – Single Depth $829.50
e. Adult Burial - Double Depth (1st, 2nd Right of Internment) $829.50 Disinterment – Labor Charges
a. Infant Cremains $459.00
b. Adult Cremains $627.50
c. Infant/Child Casket Burial $1,959.00
d. Child Casket Burial (adult sized casket) $2,723.00
e. Adult Burial – Single Depth $2,892.50
f. Adult Burial – Double Depth $3,651.00
g. Dis-inurnment Niche - Single/face plate disposal/replace $709.50 h. Dis-inurnment Niche - Double/ face plate disposal/replace $818.50 Memorial Marker Placement - Cement Border
a. 8X16x3 inch $141.50
b. 12X24x3 inch $377.00
c. 12x36x3 inch $480.00
d. 16x28x3 inch $523.50
Memorial Marker Placement – No Cement Border
a. 8X16x3 inch $131.50
b. 12X24x3 inch $245.50
c. 12x36x3 inch $268.00
d. 16X28x3 inch $322.50
Other Services
a. Niche Engraving - Single Niche – per character $9.00 b. Niche Engraving - Double Niche - per character $9.00 c. Flower Vase Drilling $16.00
d. Paint Inscriptions $191.00
e. Remove Marker/Dispose $245.50
1 Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cents (0.50). *To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser or deceased must be a resident of the City of Monterey as of the date of purchase or death or for eligible employees who have access to residents rates per Memorandum of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver’s license or utility bill we be required.

Internment/Inurnment - Weekends/Holidays – Labor Charges – Additional Fee

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 28, Packet Page 78 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Special Events Stand-by (Fire) Fully Burdened Cost
Engine Company Inspections (initial inspection) $0
Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection $0
Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re-inspections $90 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - initial inspection $0 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - First re-inspection $0 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Second re-inspection $100 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Third re-inspection $200 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Fourth & each subsequent reinspection $500 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Pre-Inspection Fee ≤25 occupants $143
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Pre-Inspection Fee ≥26 occupants $244
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Fire Clearance Fee 7 to 50 occupants $143
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Fire Clearance Fee >50 occupants $244
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Annual Inspection Fee 7 to 50 occupants $143
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Annual Inspection Fee >50 occupants $244
High Rise Inspection $1,010
Annual Day Care Inspections (6 or more children) $66
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
First False Alarm $0
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Second False Alarm $20
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Third False Alarm $30
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Fourth False Alarm $60
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Fifth False Alarm $100
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Any Additional False Alarms $500
Hazardous Materials Response Fully Burdened Cost
DUI Incident Reimbursement1 Not to exceed $12,000
Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $75
CPR Heart Saver Class - cost per student $50
CPR Healthcare Provider Class - cost per student $60

PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 29, Packet Page 79 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE

PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE
(2 pages)
CPR First Aid - cost per student $100
Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $66 Fire Plan review and inspections, Liquid Propane Gas installations $235 Fire Plan review and inspections, Field Inspections (missed appointment) Fully Burdened Cost
Fire Plan review and inspections, Medical Gas $235
Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation
(400 - 1000 sq ft) $143
Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation
(1000 - 2000 sq ft) $194
Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation
(>2000 sq ft) $244
Unauthorized Work Double Permit Fee
Unauthorized Occupancy $100
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential 10% of Building Plan Check Fee Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial 20% of Building Plan Check Fee Project Consultation Fee Fully Burdened Cost
Expedited Plan Checks Fully Burdened Cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System $607 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 1-5 Heads $428
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 6-180 Heads (in-house review) $816
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 6-180 Heads (contractor review) $428 + contractor cost Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 180+ Heads (in-house review), ie. tenant improvements $816
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 180+ Heads (contractor review) $662 + contractor cost Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than Sprinklers (ie., spray booth, clean agent, hood system), new system $816
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than sprinklers (ie., spray booth, cleant agent, hood system) - alteration to existing system $525
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Underground Systems (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, system test flush) system test flush) $1,010

1. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 30, Packet Page 80 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE
Vehicle Equipment Inspection $16
Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 1st visit $54
Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 1st visit $64
Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 2nd vist and thereafter $69 Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 2nd visit and thereafter $79 Animal Impound Fee - daily kennel fee $22
Fingerprints - inked card $12
LiveScan service only $33
LiveScan prints - Local (includes DOJ fee)2 $65
LiveScan prints - Local/Federal (includes DOJ & FBI fee)2 $82 LiveScan prints - Child Care Provision (includes DOJ & CACI fee)2 $80 Clearance Letter $20
Taxicab Owner or Driver Permit Application Review $0
Taxicab Driver Permit $194
Taxicab Vehicle Permit $56
Taxicab Driver Transfer $58
Massage Establishment - CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $128
Massage Establishment - Non-CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $222 Amended Massage Establishment Permit $13
Amended Massage Establishment Permit with Livescan $94
Local Background Checks $10
Security Alarm Permit $25
Police False Alarm Response - First false alarm $0
Police False Alarm Response - Second false alarm $30
Police False Alarm Response - Third false alarm $50
Police False Alarm Response - Fourth false alarm $75
Police False Alarm Response - Fifth false alarm $100
Police False Alarm Response - Sixth false alarm and thereafter $500 Police Party Disturbance Response - First response $0
Police Party Disturbance Response - Second response $80 Commercial Filming (daily)5 $350 to $1,500
Vehicle Release $172
Concealed Weapons Permit $100
Alcoholic Beverages on the Beach Permit (for 10 or fewer people) $10 Officer Public Service Rate (hourly)4 $121.41
CSO Public Service Rate (hourly)4 $86.21
DUI Incident Reimbursement3 Not to exceed $12,000
Dog License - 1-12 months - unaltered dog $24
Dog License - 1-12 months - altered dog $9
Dog License - each additional month - unaltered dog $2
Dog License - each additional month - altered dog $1
Dog License - delinquent penalty $15
Dog License - replacement tag $2
Pedicab Owner Permit1 $204.00
Pedicab Driver Permit1 $204.00

4. Based on FY18 costs.

5. Commercial Filming is based on # of days requested, amount of staff time involved in getting the permit in order, & client mtgs.

PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE

1. Adjusts annually July 1 per CPI SF April edition, rounded to nearest $0.50.

2. Total fee comprised of service fee set by resolution ($33) and fees set by State DOJ and FBI.

3. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 31, Packet Page 81

PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR & MARINA
FY22 FEES
FY22 Mar-Oct Transient1 $0.79 Nov-Feb Transient1 $0.72
TIER BERTH SIZE LENGTH FY22 MONTHLY1 FY22 ANNUAL1 MONTHLY 1.5x 1 Monthly Transient1 $/ft length
Daily
Transient 1 Monthly Transient1
$/ft length
Daily
Transient1
A 4, 6-8, 10, 12 50X19.5 50 533.00 5,756.50 799.50 1,106.00 39.50 1,008.00 36.00 A 9, 11 45X19.5 45 491.50 5,308.00 737.50 994.00 35.50 910.00 32.50 A 13-18* 45X15.5 45 465.50 5,027.50 698.50 994.00 35.50 910.00 32.50 A 19-34 45X14.5 45 465.50 5,027.50 698.50 994.00 35.50 910.00 32.50 A 35-58 40X14.5 40 429.50 4,638.50 644.50 882.00 31.50 812.00 29.00 A 59-80* 35X13.5 35 396.00 4,277.00 594.00 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 A 81-82 35X14.5 35 396.00 4,277.00 594.00 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 B 1-36* 30X11.5 30 340.00 3,672.00 510.00 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 B 37-57 (odd) 35-12.5 35 371.00 4,007.00 556.50 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 B 38-58 (even) 30x12.5 30 353.00 3,812.50 529.50 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 B 59 35X13 35 396.00 4,277.00 594.00 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 B 60 30x13 30 353.00 3,812.50 529.50 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 C 1-4 25x11.9 25 288.50 3,116.00 433.00 560.00 20.00 504.00 18.00 C 5-40 25x10 25 281.00 3,035.00 421.50 560.00 20.00 504.00 18.00 D 1-36* 30X11.5 30 340.00 3,672.00 510.00 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 D 37-58 30X12.5 30 353.00 3,812.50 529.50 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 D 59-60 30X13 30 353.00 3,812.50 529.50 672.00 24.00 602.00 21.50 E 1-36 25x11.9 25 288.50 3,116.00 433.00 560.00 20.00 504.00 18.00 E 37-40 25X10.6 25 281.00 3,035.00 421.50 560.00 20.00 504.00 18.00 F 1-44 20X9.9 20 187.50 2,025.00 281.50 448.00 16.00 406.00 14.50 G 1* 26X11.5 26 307.50 3,321.00 461.50 574.00 20.50 532.00 19.00 G 2-18* 35X12.5 35 371.00 4,007.00 556.50 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 G 19-27 35X13 35 396.00 4,277.00 594.00 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 G 28 35X14.5 35 396.00 4,277.00 594.00 770.00 27.50 700.00 25.00 G 29 40 40 429.50 4,638.50 644.50 882.00 31.50 812.00 29.00 H 1-2 & 5 50X24 50 574.00 6,199.00 861.00 1,106.00 39.50 1,008.00 36.00 H 3-4 50X19.5 50 533.00 5,756.50 799.50 1,106.00 39.50 1,008.00 36.00 H 6-14* 50X17.5 50 514.50 5,556.50 772.00 1,106.00 39.50 1,008.00 36.00 H 15-24 50X15.5 50 491.50 5,308.00 737.50 1,106.00 39.50 1,008.00 36.00 H 25-34 25X10.6 25 281.00 3,035.00 421.50 560.00 20.00 504.00 18.00 I 1-10 20X9.9 20 187.50 2,025.00 281.50 448.00 16.00 406.00 14.50 I 11-14 Side-tie 20 167.00 1,803.50 250.50 448.00 16.00 406.00 14.50

7.35 Transformer berths (6 feet shorter and charged at a lesser rate) A 17 39X15.5 39 403.50 4,358.00 605.50 868.00 31.00 784.00 28.00 A 61 28X13 28 321.50 3,472.00 482.50 616.00 22.00 560.00 20.00 B 1 & 31 24X11.5 24 269.50 2,910.50 404.50 532.00 19.00 490.00 17.50 D 1 & 31 24X11.5 24 269.50 2,910.50 404.50 532.00 19.00 490.00 17.50 G 15 28X12.5 28 296.00 3,197.00 444.00 616.00 22.00 560.00 20.00 H 13 44X17.5 44 461.50 4,984.00 692.50 980.00 35.00 882.00 31.50 1 Licensee fee amounts include CPI adjustments per year end Feb SF.

Non-standard berth -
fishing vessel rate $/ft: 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 32, Packet Page 82 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE

MONTEREY OUTER HARBOR MOORING RATES
Monterey Resident Rate1
Quarterly $236.00
Annual (with 10% discount) $849.50
Liveaboard quarterly $85.00
Liveaboard annually (with 10% discount) $306.00
Non-Resident Rate1
Quarterly $298.00
Annual (with 10% discount) $1,073.00
OHM Assignment Fee per month1 $74.50
Other Services1
Qrt Wharf 1 Dinghy fee $80.50
Qrt Marina Dinghy fee $134.50
Qrt Marina Boat Rack (kayaks) $53.50
Qrt Marina Boat Rack (skiff) Dinghy fee $80.50
City Mooring Rate1
Monthly $137.00
Quarterly $411.00
Yearly (with 10% discount) $1,479.50
East Mooring Rates
Vessel Size1
Under 30 ft1 $127.30
30' to 40' 1 $168.90
41' to 54' 1 $211.60
55' and larger 1 $252.90
East Mooring Rates from Nov through March = 1.5 times regular berth rate Transient Mooring - East Mooring Balls $15/day

PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR & MARINA
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 33, Packet Page 83 DESCRIPTION FY22 FEE

PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR & MARINA
(2 pages)
OTHER
Marina Impound Fee 1.5 x Transient berth rate
Crane $200/hour or portion thereof
Boat Towing $100/hour or portion thereof
Water Removal (charged only if owner is notified and fails to respond) $45/hour or portion thereof
Mooring Repair Rate $100/hour or portion thereof
Deposits - Refundable
Electrical Pigtails
20/30 amp $100
50 amp $200
Marina Shower Key $20
Marina Gate Key/Hoist Key $10
Annual Parking Permit - Marina Berth License Holder $120/calendar year Bike Locker Rental $10/month
Public Hoist on Wharf II $1.50 for 15 minutes
Mooring Inspection Fee $100/hour
Yellow Boat Dock (Dive Boat Loading and Sailing Charters) $150/month Berth Assignment Rate 1.5x Regular berth rate
Waiting List - Initial Fee $20
Waiting List - Annual Fee $10
K Tier Side-tie Transient (no utilities, rafting required) 28' & Under (Summer) $9/day or $250/month
29' & Up (Summer) $12/day or $335/month
K Tier Side-tie Transient (no utilities, rafting required) 28' & Under (Winter)2 $8/day or $225/month
29' & Up (Winter)2 $11/day or $310/month
Wharf I & II Transient Vessel
51' - 70' $30/day
71' - 90' $35/day
91' & over $40/day
Cruise Ship Passenger Landing Fee $7/passenger
Wharfage1
High Volume Seafood (Trawl-caught ground fish, squid, mackerels, sardines) $/TON $7.14
High Volume Seafood (Anchovies) $/TON $3.58
All Other Seafood/Sea Products Harvested by Pot, Trap, Hooks, or By Hand (includes crustaceans and invertebrates) $/POUND 0.024 Aguaculture Abalone (Less than 4" in length) $/EACH 0.060 Aguaculture Abalone (4" or larger in length) $/EACH 0.119 1 Fees include CPI adjustment per year end Feb SF.
2 There is a single fee for K-Tier Side-tie Transient; a reduced fee is charged during Winter months.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 34, Packet Page 84 DESCRIPTION UNITS FY22 FEE
Category
Residential Sewer Charge1 $10.77
Multi-Residential/Condo Sewer Charge1 $7.88
Sewer Connection Fee2 Dwelling Unit $3,090
Non-residential Sewer Charges1
(per one unit of sewer charge)
Business/Government (1-10 employees) Location/Each Business $8.29 Business/Government (11-20 employees) Location/Each Business $16.59 Business/Government (21-30 employees) Location/Each Business $24.99 Business/Government (31-40 employees) Location/Each Business $33.28 Business/Government (41-50 employees) Location/Each Business $41.57 Business/Government (51-60 employees) Location/Each Business $49.87 Business/Government (61-70 employees) Location/Each Business $58.27 Business/Government (71-80 employees) Location/Each Business $66.56 Business/Government (81-90 employees) Location/Each Business $74.85 Business/Government (91-100 employees) Location/Each Business $83.14 Business/Government (101-110 employees) Location/Each Business $91.55 Business/Government (111-120 employees) Location/Each Business $99.84 Business/Government (141-150 employees) Location/Each Business $124.82 Business/Government (171-180 employees) Location/Each Business $149.70 Business/Government (181-190 employees) Location/Each Business $158.10 Business/Government (210-220 employees) Location/Each Business $182.98 Business/Government (271-280 employees) Location/Each Business $232.52 Business/Government (721-730 employees) Location/Each Business $607.32 Hotel/Motel Each Room $4.63
Supermarket Each Location $45.45
Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $11.09
Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $15.29
Rest Home/Convalescent Each Bed of Licensed Capacity $3.12 Animal Hospital Location/Each Licensed Business $20.79
Restaurant - 1 Meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.43
Restaurant - 2 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.65
Restaurant - 3 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $1.18
Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $1.18
Bar Location/Each Business $18.09
Night Club Location/Each Business $54.17
Take-Out Small Location/Each Business $20.14
Take-Out Medium Location/Each Business $49.65
Take-Out Large Location/Each Business $90.47
Bakery Location/Each Business $16.37
Theatre Per screen @ each Location $26.82

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
(2 pages)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 35, Packet Page 85 DESCRIPTION UNITS FY22 FEE

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
(2 pages)
Non-residential Sewer Charges1
(per one unit of sewer charge) cont'd
Gym - 500 Members Location/Each Business $8.29
Mortuary Location/Each Business $22.08
School - Minimum Location/Each Business $8.29
School - Pre-Grade 6 School Population $0.11
School - Grade 7 - College School Population $0.22
School - Boarding School Population $2.26
Instructional Facility School Population $8.29
Church - 1-100 Members Location/Each Business $8.29
Church - Over 100 Members Location/Each Business $16.59 Photo Developer Location/Each Business $8.29
Laboratory - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Laboratory - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 Printer - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Printer - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59
Garage/Repair Location/Each Business $7.97
Paint Shop - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Paint Shop - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $27.57
Laundromat Each Washing Machine $7.22 1
Fees set with annual increases July 1 of each year through 2015/16. 2 Annual increases effective July 1 each year, per Construction Cost Index (MRWPCA ordinance for Dec).

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 36, Packet Page 86 ATTACHMENT 2

CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED

DESCRIPTION
NON-RES.

FEE
NON-RES. FEE
(Eff. April 1,
2022)

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2 (Eff. April
1, 2022)
Permits/Facility Rentals

1. Group Picnic Permit $76 $80 $58 $61.20

2. El Estero Park Group Picnic Permit $99 $104 $81 $85.28

3. Veteran's Memorial Park Group Area 2 Picnic Permit $99 $104 $81 $85.28

4. Group Beach Permit $76 $80 $58 $61.20

5. Group Beach Permit/Commercial $205 $215 $205 $215

6. Beach Wedding Permit $578 $607 $578 $607

7. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Inc. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less) - Commercial $751 $789 $578 $603.59

8. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Inc. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less) - Nonprofit $236 $248 $236 $248

9. Sport Court Permit (e.g. Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis) - PER DAY $63 $66 $47 $50.49

10. Bounce House/Inflatable Permit $48 $50 $48 $50

11. Wedding Event Permit - Colton Hall Lawn
Or Friendly Plaza - Per Location $208 $218 $173 $185.30

12. Event Permit (Per Day) $578 $607 $578 $607

13. Event/Park Closure Permit (Per Day) $1,313 $1,379 $1,313 $1,379

14. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During
Community Center Operating Hours) -
Per Hour Fee $26 $27 $26 $27

15. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During
Community Center Non-Operating Hours) -
Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $53 $56 $53 $56

16. Facility Rental – Community Centers Private Party Use - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $139 $146 $92 $111.69

17. Waterfront Community Room Rental Permit -
Nonprofit - Per Hour Fee $76 $80 $76 $80
Day Use $578 $607 $578 $607
Hourly Use $58 $61 $58 $61
Lights Use - Per Hour Fee $26 $27 $26 $27

PARKS AND RECREATION
(4 pages)

18. Ballpark Event Permit
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 37, Packet Page 87 ATTACHMENT 2

CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED

DESCRIPTION
NON-RES.

FEE
NON-RES. FEE
(Eff. April 1,
2022)

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2 (Eff. April
1, 2022)

PARKS AND RECREATION
(4 pages)

19. Ballpark Use Fee Practice -
Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $27 $28 $21 $22.40

20. Parks & Recreation Commission
Appeal Process (EXEMPT - Not a Facility Fee) $170 $179 $170 $179

21. Monterey Sports Center
Drop-In Admission:

Youth (3-17 Years) $8 $9 $6 $8
Adult (18-61 Years) $13 $14 $11 $13
Senior (62 And Older) $8 $9 $6 $8
10-Visit Pass:

Youth (3-17 Years) $90 $80
Adult (18-61 Years) $140 $130
Senior (62 And Older) $90 $80
Drop-in Admissions are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Subscription/Auto Billing (1 Month):

Youth (9-12 Years) $34 $30.60
Teen (13-17 Years) $37 $33.30
Adult (18-61 Years) $61 $54.90
Senior (62 And Older) $45 $40.50
Family* $87 $78.30
Membership (1 Year):

Youth (9-12 Years) $341 $371 $318 $333.90
Teen (13-17 Years) $408 $367.20
Adult (18-61 Years) $618 $668 $572 $601.20
Senior (62 And Older) $457 $493 $422 $443.70
Family* $884 $957 $820 $861.30
Corporate Membership (1 Year)
(minimum of four employees) (per employee) $557 $586 $557 $586 Facility Rental (Staff Time Additional)
During Non-Operating Hours:

Pool - First 2 Hours $260 $304 $260 $273.60
Additional Hour $116 $136 $116 $122.40
Gym - First 2 Hours $260 $304 $260 $273.60
* Family Membership Eligibility - 2 adults and their dependent children 20 years of age and younger that live in the same household.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 38, Packet Page 88 ATTACHMENT 2

CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED

DESCRIPTION
NON-RES.

FEE
NON-RES. FEE
(Eff. April 1,
2022)

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2 (Eff. April
1, 2022)

PARKS AND RECREATION
(4 pages)
Additional Hour $116 $136 $116 $122.40
Pool & Gym - First 2 Hours $399 $466 $399 $419.40
Additional Hour $191 $223 $191 $200.70
During Operating Hours:

Pool Lane Rental - Per Hour Fee $16 $19 $16 $17.10
Gymnasium Court Rental- Per Hour Fee $32 $37 $32 $33.30 Studio Rental- Per Hour Fee $63 $74 $63 $66.60
Conference Room Rental- Per Hour Fee $21 $25 $21 $22.50

22. Veteran's Memorial Park Campground:

Campsite With 1 Vehicle $42 $44 $42 $44
Additional Vehicle $11 $12 $11 $12
Each Bicycle - Hiker Campsite $8 $9 $8 $9
Overnight Youth Group Area 3 - Per Person Fee $8 $9 $8 $9 Overnight Youth Group Area 2 - Per Person Fee $11 $10 $11 Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veterans & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Vehicle Campsite)3
$5

DISCOUNT
$5

DISCOUNT
Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veteran & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Hiker Campsite)3
$2

DISCOUNT
$2

DISCOUNT
Shower Fee For Non-Campers $3 $4 $3 $4
Dump Station Fee For Non-Campers - Per Use Fee $11 $12 $11 $12 Recreational Vehicle Surcharge - Per Night Fee $5 $6 $5 $6 Veteran's Memorial Park Campground fees are rounded to
the nearest whole dollar.

Notes Regarding Parks & Recreation fees:
1 Fees will be annually adjusted per CPI rounded to the nearest fifty cents. (Urban Forestry Fees only - not shown in Attachment 2) 2 To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser must be a resident of the City of Monterey or United States Active Duty Military as of the date of registration or for eligible employee and dependents who have access to resident rates per Memorada of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver's license or state-issued identification,utility bill or U. S. Military active duty status such as military ID is required. 3 To be eligible for discounted camping rates at Veteran's Memorial Park, proof of age such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, or proof of United States Military active duty, retired or disabled veteran status is required. 4 The Parks and Recreation Director may approve promotional pricing for Recreation activities, programs, and services, subject to the following standards: 1. The fee reduction must be intended to promote Recreation programs and facilities; 2. The fee reduction shall not reduce fees by more than 25%; 3. The fee reduction is publicized and open to all; and 4. The fee reduction is limilted in duration.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 39, Packet Page 89 ATTACHMENT 2

CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED

DESCRIPTION
NON-RES.

FEE
NON-RES. FEE
(Eff. April 1,
2022)

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2

MONTEREY

RESIDENT
FEE2 (Eff. April
1, 2022)

PARKS AND RECREATION
(4 pages)
5 The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to set fees for Recreation activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards: 1. Recreational programs and services shall benefit both the participant and the community due to their , educational, cultural, and physical value. 2. Recreational programs and services require facilities, supplies, equipment, and/or considerable staff planning and supervision specific to the program and therefore, it is appropriate to charge a fee for these programs and services. Some examples include, but are not limited to instructional programs, summer day camp, senior programs, teen programs, special events, and youth/adult athletic programs. 3. Fees will not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the program, class, or service. 4. Fees will remain affordable to allow access to community members, especially youth and seniors; and 5. Contractually taught class fees will be set based on availability of instructor, instructor costs, as these programs follow city purchasing policy.
6 Five percent (5%) of Parks & Recreation (P&R) Fees, which excludes P&R Commission Appeals, Cemetery, RV Storage Lot, and Urban Forestry fees, will be committed to the Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 40, Packet Page 90 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Linda Tulett, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of March 2022 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Mayor and City Council recognize March 2022 as American Red Cross Month in Monterey and receive a presentation from the Central Coast Chapter of the American Red Cross.

VALUE DRIVER:

This proclamation is consistent with the Council’s value driver: “In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.”
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 91 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to present the proclamation and receive the presentation.

DISCUSSION:

The proclamation honors the volunteers, staff, and donors who support the American Red Cross mission. The community depends on these local heroes to deliver assistance, shelter, food, and hope during emergencies, including the coronavirus pandemic.

The American Red Cross has a long history of helping our neighbors in need in Monterey. The Central Coast Chapter assisted households affected by home and wildfires, helped collect blood donations from our generous community blood donors, provided training services, and assisted families of our armed forces, among many other vital efforts.

The Red Cross partnered with the City of Monterey on numerous Disaster Relief Operations, Blood Drives, and training for Preparedness, Health, and Safety. In 2021 in Monterey County, volunteers helped 44 households affected by 28 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging and providing recovery support. In addition, they collected over 1300 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to over 2,300 residents, helped the families of 360 students prepare for disasters through its Pillowcase Project, and assisted over 200 families of our armed forces.

The City of Monterey dedicates the month of March to those who support the American Red Cross’ mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies. Our community depends on the organization, which relies on volunteers and the public’s generosity to perform its essential mission.

Attachments: 1. Proclamation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 92 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation declaring
March 2022

AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH
WHEREAS, March is American Red Cross Month, a special time to honor the kindness of our neighbors who aid families in need every day in Monterey County, across the United States, and around the world.

Their dedication touches millions of lives each year as they carry out the organization’s 140-year mission of preventing and alleviating suffering;
WHEREAS, people in Monterey come together to care for one another in times of crisis. This humanitarian spirit is part of the foundation of our community and is exemplified by American Red Cross volunteers and donors;
WHEREAS, in 1881, Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross, turning her steadfast dedication to helping others into a bold mission to prevent and alleviate people’s suffering. Today, more than 140 years later, we honor the kindness and generosity of Red Cross volunteers here in Monterey, who continue to carry out Clara’s lifesaving legacy. They join the millions of people across the United States who volunteer, give blood, donate financially, or learn vital life-preserving skills through the Red Cross; WHEREAS, local Red Cross volunteers (164 in the county) give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours. Last year in Monterey County, volunteers helped 44 households affected by 28 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging, as well as providing recovery support. In addition, they collected over 1300 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to over 2300 residents, helped the families of 360 students prepare for disasters through our Pillowcase Project, and assisted over 200 families of our armed forces; and
WHEREAS, this work to prevent and alleviate human suffering is vital to strengthening our community’s resilience. We dedicate this month of March to all those who continue to advance the noble legacy of American Red Cross founder Clara Barton, who lived by her words, “You must never think of anything except the need, and how to meet it.” We ask others to join in this commitment to give back to our community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Clyde Roberson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of March 2022 as American Red Cross Month. I encourage all Americans to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 93 ATTACHMENT 1
Dated: March 2022 ________________________
Clyde Roberson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 94 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the City's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability/Pension Obligation Strategies (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the City’s Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability and Pension Obligation Strategies from Bartel Associates, LLC.

VALUE DRIVERS:

This presentation is consistent with the Council’s value driver: “Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.” Inclusive of the strategic priority is to track, monitor, and respond to ongoing pension liability costs.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Sufficient costs have been budgeted in FY 2021/22 to cover the cost of pension liability analysis from Bartel Associates. There is no cost in receiving the presentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 95 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to receive the presentation.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council last received a comprehensive report and presentation from a consultant on the City’s pension obligations and options on April 25, 2018. At that time, the City Council was presented with repayment scenarios and estimated results of various options to repay the unfunded liability. In addition, the City’s unfunded pension liability has been discussed during annual and mid-year budget reports.

During the 2021/2022 fiscal year Mid-Year budget, the Council voted to approve establishing a Pension Reserve Fund to address the unfunded Pension Liabilities and Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liability. Each year, the city is required to pay contributions to the CalPERS retirement system. The contribution amount to be remitted is an actuarial-based calculation provided by CalPERS annually. The contributions to fund the pension are comprised of two components, (1) the normal cost and (2) and amortization of the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). The Normal cost is a percentage of the total active payroll. The percentage in recent years ranging from 10% to 12%. The UAL is the present value of future employer contributions for service already earned. The contribution for the 2021-22 fiscal year is $13,643,792 and is projected to be $14,987,092 for the FY 2022-23.

Classic employees (those hired before January 1, 2013) have agreed to contribute on a pre-tax basis a 3% or 5% cost share towards the Employer Contribution to CalPERS. This is in addition to the 8% or 9% employee contribution amount established by CalPERS. The percentages vary based on the bargaining unit agreements. PEPRA employees (those hired on or after January 1, 2013) do not contribute to cost sharing. However, PEPRA employees contribute 50% of the normal cost of the plan.

The Pension Liability for the Miscellaneous group is $286,266,464 reduced by the Net Position in the Fiduciary Plan of $191,691,676, leaving an unfunded balance of $94,574,788. The Pension Liability for the Safety group is $213,929,917 reduced by the Net Position in the Fiduciary Plan of $143,295,880, leaving an unfunded balance of $70,634,037. The Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB) Liability is $13,520,043 reduced by the Net Position in the Fiduciary Plan of $5,034,811, leaving an unfunded balance of $8,485,232. The City’s total Pension and OPEB Liability is at $173,694,057 as of the last actuarial date of June 30, 2020.

Staff proposed, and the City Council agreed, to start with an initial contribution of $1M to be implemented and funded at Mid-Year. At that time, staff committed to bringing back a proposal on how to utilize this funding. This presentation will provide Council with some additional insights pertaining to how to use pension reserves.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 96 Staff has engaged the professional actuarial firm Bartel Associates, LLC to complete a comprehensive review of the City’s CalPERS program, analyze the City’s options about the unfunded liability, and present strategies to address the growing obligation.

RTK
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 97 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize Letters to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water, Governor of the State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Housing and Community Development, and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Regarding the City’s Water Supply Needs for New Housing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize letters to be sent to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water, State Water Resources Control Board, and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments regarding the City of Monterey’s water supply needs to build the required housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. In addition, the letters request the various agencies adopt resolutions requesting the State Water Resources Control Board lift the Cease and Desist Order since all illegal diversions from the Carmel River ceased December 31, 2021 so developers can set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system. The letter to the State Water Resources Control Board requests that the Cease and Desist Order be lifted since all illegal diversions from the Carmel River have ceased December 31, 2021.

VALUE DRIVER:

The City Council has adopted a strategic priority to:

Champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future. The Council recognizes that access to a dependable supply of fresh water is a significant gating factor that impacts the City’s ability to provide affordable housing and promote economic vitality consistent with the goals described in the City’s General Plan.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Sending letters to the Governor and the agencies mentioned above reaffirms the City Council’s commitment and passion for providing affordable housing for its residents and workforce.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from sending the letters.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey staff determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378(b)(5)). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 98 general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action is a report on PY2015-16 CDBG funded activities and this matter has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose to modify or not send the attached letters.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Understanding the Governor's and the California State Legislature’s expressed priorities for affordable housing and understanding the City’s own needs for an increased supply of affordable housing units, the City has been at the forefront of implementing policies that allow housing developers to build additional housing units. This agenda report is designed to raise awareness with the State’s elected leader, Governor Gavin Newsom, for his leadership to coordinate response with his subordinate State agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Housing and Community Development (HCD) agencie1s to allow projects to move forward, which maximize the development of affordable housing units.

In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted Order WR 95-10. Among other matters, the order found that California American Water (Cal Am) was diverting about 10,730 acre-feet per annum of water from the Carmel River without a valid basis of right and directed that Cal Am should diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion. Over the years, there have been multiple amended orders. The most recent order (2016) stated, “CalAm shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2021.” The order established a reduction in diversions over time, as reflected in Table 1. The last illegal diversion was required to be terminated on December 31, 2021.

Although the last illegal diversion has been ceased, the region continues to be subject to the Cease and Desist Order until a new water supply is operational for multiple years.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 99 Table 1
Effective Diversion Limit if All Milestones Missed, No Other EDL Adjustments Water Year Effective Diversion Limit if
All Milestones Missed, No
Other EDL Adjustments
2015-2016 8,310 AFA
2016-2017 7,310 AFA
2017-2018 6,310 AFA
2018-2019 5,310 AFA
2019-2020 4,310 AFA
2020-2021 Legal Limit
Source: State of California State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 2016-0016 To build new housing in compliance with the State housing goals, property owners must obtain new water connections and additional water supply.

How much water is needed to comply with the draft requirements? RHNA: A Roadmap to Nowhere?
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) recently assigned the City a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 3,654 housing units, including 1,177 very low income, 769 low-income, 462 moderate-income, and 1,246 market-rate. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) is currently reviewing the RHNA allocation, but City staff anticipates it will be approved. The City will then be required to update its housing strategy as expressed in the Housing Element and provide adequate zoning for these units to be constructed between June 2023 and December 2031. Assuming a mix of one and two bath units, the City conservatively estimates the water need at 367 acre-feet (See Table 4). If the City or regulating agencies want all two-bedroom/two-bathroom units to prevent future overcrowding, the water need would be 406 acre-feet.

Without additional water, the RHNA goal of planning for 3,654 additional housing units will be impossible and remain just an aspirational goal.

Table 2
New Housing Required
between June 2023 – December 2031
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Housing Unit Type Housing Units
Very Low Income 1,177
Low Income 769
Moderate Income 462
Market Rate 1,246
Total 3,654
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 100 Table 3
Minimum Water Needed to
Construct One Housing Unit with a Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry Room One Bedroom/Bath Units Two Bedroom/Two Bath Units
Fixture
Type
Fixture
Unit
Value
# of
Fixtures
Estimated
Fixtures
Estimated
Acre Feet
Fixture
Unit
Value
# of
Fixtures
Estimated
Acre Feet
of Water
Estimated
Acre Feet
Washbasin 1 1 1 .01 1 1 1 .01
Toilet, Ultra
Low Flush
(1.6 gallons
per flush)

1.3 1 1.3 .013 1.3 2 2.6 .026
Bathtub with
Showerhead
2 1 2 .02 2 2 4 .04
Kitchen Sink
with optional
Dishwasher

1.5 1 1.5 .015 1.5 1 1.5 .015
Clothes
Washer
1 1 1 .01 1 1 1 .01
Landscaping n/a n/a n/a .01 n/a n/a n/a .01
Total 6.8
fixtures
.078 8.8 10.1
fixtures
.111
Source: https://www.mpwmd.net/regulations/water-permits/residential/residential-fixtureunits/table-1-residential-fixture-unit-count/ Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 101 Table 4
Estimated Water Need to
New Housing Required to be Constructed between 2023 - 2031 Regional
Housing
Needs
Allocation
Housing
Units
Assuming ½ of Required Units are One Bed/One Bath
(.078 acre-feet per unit) and ½ of Units are Two
Bed/Two Bath (.111 acre-feet per unit)
Total
Water
Need
(acrefeet)
Very Low
Income
1,177 588 units * .078 af = 46 af 587 units * .111 af = 65 af 111 Low Income 769 385 units * .078 af = 30 af 384 units *.111 af = 43 af 73 Moderate
Income
462 231 units * .078 af = 18 af 231 units *.111 af = 26 af 44 Market Rate 1,246 1,246 units *.111 af= 139 af 139
Total 3,654 94 af 273 af 367
Source: City of Monterey, Community Development Department Charting a Path Forward
Multiagency cooperation is needed to obtain water and ensure that the desperately needed housing is constructed by the 2023 deadline. The City is requesting the Council authorize the following letters to outline the City’s challenge:

1. Send letters to Monterey One Water and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District informing them of the amount of water needed to meet the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, inquire if the proposed project will provide that water, and ask when the water will be available understanding that the City’s deadline is 2023. If the water is unavailable by 2023, when can the City anticipate the water for housing purposes? Furthermore, the City requests that Monterey One Water and MPWMD pass a resolution requesting that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased.

2. Send a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board informing them of the amount of water needed to meet the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, update them on the lost opportunities for affordable housing construction, and asking them to immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased. If the CDO is lifted, developers could set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system.

3. Send a letter to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments updating them on the water needed to construct the recently assigned RHNA. Furthermore, the City requests that AMBAG pass a resolution requesting that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased.

4. Courtesy copy the Governor of California and the California Department of Housing and Community Development
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 102 Affordable Housing - Lost Opportunities
In terms of upcoming development, the City continues to lose out on housing development opportunities. While the City’s implementation of new policies is working and have attracted experienced and solvent developers, the inability of the SWRCB to respond to requests made by the City and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has led to a significant reduction in the scopes of the projects. Stated differently, while the State’s legislature and the Governor have repeatedly prioritized increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities, the SWRCB remains tone-deaf to the requests expressed by the City, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Senator Laird, and housing advocates.

The following example documents what our rental community is losing:

The Garden Road area allows 405 new housing units. The City received applications to construct housing at four sites along Garden Road. The initially anticipated unit count was 298 units if the City could obtain additional water from the Water District’s reserve category. The District conditionally allocated reserve water; however, the State Water Resources Control Staff indicated it would violate the Cease and Desist Order unless the project used no more water than it did before the rezoning. As a result, this opportunity was lost, and projects were reduced to 180 units consistent with the onsite water credits/use. This represents a loss of 118 units, which could have housed between 300 and 400 residents.

Table 5
Garden Road Housing Opportunities
Address Original
Application - # of
Units
Downsized
Projects due to
Water
Project Status
2000 Garden Road 72 34 AR Preliminary and
Final Permit
Approved
2300 Garden Road 64 64 ARC Review
Scheduled on 3/16
2560 Garden Road 63 25 Application
Incomplete 2/2022
2600 Garden Road 99 57 AR Preliminary
Review Permit
Approved
Total 298 180
There is no quick fix to reverse this fate. The projects were re-scoped, and plans were redrawn.

Costs borne by the developers have been incurred.

The City has also inventoried its properties for affordable housing projects. Four sites were identified for 100% affordable housing projects, and a Request for Proposal was released. The City has selected two affordable housing developers for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) discussions. These developers can potentially build 150 units that are 100% affordable Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 103 housing. However, these sites do not have adequate-sized water meters or supply for the housing to be constructed.

In sum, there have been 118 affordable housing units lost as a result of water unavailability for the Garden Road area, and 150 low-income units are in abeyance.

Conclusion
The City needs to obtain a water supply to fulfill the Council’s strategic initiative to “champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.”
In pursuit of this initiative, staff recommends the City Council authorize the attached letters are sent to the appropriate agencies. As described in this agenda report, the issues surrounding water and affordable housing are complex. In the future, the City may benefit from hiring a lobbyist with experience advocating for municipalities at the varying levels of state government:
the Governor’s Office, state agencies, and the state legislature.

KC
Attachments: 1. Letter to Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

2. Letter to Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

3. Letter to Monterey One Water

4. Letter to State Water Resources Control Board
e: Gavin Newsom, Governor of the State of California
Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
State of California Housing and Community Development Department Maura Twomey, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Housing Outreach List
Land Watch
State Water Resources Control Board
Paul Sciuto, Monterey One Water
Dave Stoldt, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Esther Malkin, Renters United
Housing List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 104 Attachment 1
March 2, 2022
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Board of Directors
Kristen Peterson, City of Capitola
Karen Ferlito, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Kim Shirley, City of Del Rey Oaks
Scott Funk, City of Gonzales
Lance Walker, City of Greenfield
Rick Perez, City of Hollister
Carlos Victoria, City of King City
Lisa Berkley, City of Marina
Ed Smith, City of Monterey
Jenny McAdams, City of Pacific Grove
Steve McShane, City of Salinas
John Freeman, City of San Juan Bautista
Mary Ann Carbone, City of Sand City
Justin Cummings, City of Santa Cruz
Derek Timm, City of Scotts Valley
Jon Wizard, City of Seaside
Ana Velazquez, City of Soledad
Eduardo Montesino, City of Watsonville
Mary Adams, County of Monterey
John Phillips, County of Monterey
Betsy Dirks, County of San Benito
Bea Gonzales, County of San Benito
Manu Koenig, County of Santa Cruz
Greg Caput, County of Santa Cruz
RE: City of Monterey Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Dear Board of Directors,
The City of Monterey wanted to update the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) on the immediate need for water by 2023.

AMBAG recently completed its State-mandated task of designating the number of housing units that will need to be planned for in each jurisdiction from 2023 to 2031. The State’s goal is for those units to be constructed during this timeframe as well.

The City of Monterey wants to build the expected housing units that are ultimately assigned by our fellow jurisdictions through the AMBAG RHNA process.

Monterey was assigned 3,654 housing units (1,177 very low income, 769 low income, 462 moderate-income, and 1,246 market-rate) to place housing closer to jobs and address equity metrics such as placing more housing in communities that are predominately white with higher incomes. The aspirational goal to address these issues is impossible without an immediate water supply.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 105 The City has reviewed with MPWMD staff the water credits needed per residential type. The City estimates needing between 367to 406 acre-feet by 2023 to meet the regionally and State required RHNA.

The City also wanted to update the Board on its efforts to construct housing. In terms of upcoming development, the City continues to lose out on housing development opportunities.

While the City’s implementation of new policies is working and have attracted experienced and solvent developers, the inability of the SWRCB to respond to requests made by the City and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has led to a significant reduction in the scopes of the projects. Stated differently, while the State’s legislature and the Governor have repeatedly prioritized increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities, the SWRCB remains tonedeaf to the requests expressed by the City, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Senator Laird, and housing advocates.

The following example demonstrates what our rental community is losing:

The Garden Road area allows 405 new housing units. The City received applications to construct housing at four sites along Garden Road. The original anticipated unit count was 298 units if the City could obtain additional water from the Water District’s reserve category. The District conditionally allocated reserve water; however, the State Water Resources Control Staff indicated it would violate the Cease and Desist Order unless the project used no more water than it did before rezoning. As a result, this opportunity was lost, and projects were reduced to 180 units consistent with the onsite water credits/use. A loss of 118 units could have housed between 300 and 400 residents.

Table 1
Garden Road Housing Opportunities
Address Original Application -
# of Units
Downsized Projects
due to Water
Project Status
2000 Garden Road 72 34 AR Preliminary and
Final Permit
Approved
2300 Garden Road 99 64 ARC Review
Scheduled 3/15
2560 Garden Road 63 25 Application
Incomplete 2/2022
2600 Garden Road 64 57 ARC Preliminary
Review Approved
Total 298 180
Source: City of Monterey Community Development Department There is no quick fix to reverse this fate. The projects were re-scoped, and plans were redrawn.

Costs borne by the developers have been incurred.

The City has also inventoried its properties for affordable housing projects. Four sites were identified for 100% affordable housing projects, and a Request for Proposal was released. The City has selected two affordable housing developers for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) discussions. These developers can potentially build 150 units that are 100% affordable housing. However, these sites do not have adequate-sized water meters or supply for the housing to be constructed.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 106 In sum, there have been 118 affordable housing units lost as a result of water unavailability for the Garden Road area, and 150 low-income units are in abeyance.

The City of Monterey wanted the AMBAG Board of Directors to understand from our perspective the quandary of meeting State-mandated housing requirements, being designated additional housing units to be constructed between 2023-2031, and the need for water supply to be available in 2023 to meet the City and region’s housing targets. The City would appreciate the support from AMBAG in obtaining water through its various partners so that the City can build the RHNA housing allocation. The City requests that the AMBAG Board request an update from the various groups (Monterey One Water, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and California American Water) about the water supply and the ability for the region to obtain this water by 2023. Furthermore, the City requests that the AMBAG Board pass a resolution requesting these agencies provide this water by 2023 and that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased. If the CDO is lifted, developers could set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system.

Sincerely,
Clyde Roberson,
Mayor
cc: Maura F. Twomey, Executive Director, AMBAG ([email protected]) Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 107 Attachment 2
March 2, 2022
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board of Directors [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: City of Monterey Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Dear Board of Directors,
The City of Monterey wanted to update the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District on the immediate need for water by 2023.

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments recently completed its State-mandated task of designating the number of housing units that will need to be planned for in each jurisdiction from 2023 to 2031. The State’s goal is for those units to be constructed during this timeframe as well.

The City of Monterey wants to build the expected housing units that are ultimately assigned by our fellow jurisdictions through the AMBAG RHNA process.

Monterey was assigned 3,654 housing units (1,177 very low income, 769 low income, 462 moderate-income, and 1,246 market rate) to place housing closer to jobs and address equity metrics such as placing more housing in communities that are predominately white with higher incomes. The aspirational goal to address these issues is impossible with an immediate water supply.

The City has reviewed with MPWMD staff the water credits needed per residential type. The City estimates needing between 367- 406 acre feet by 2023 to meet the regionally and State required RHNA.

The City also wanted to update the Board on its efforts to construct housing. In terms of upcoming development, the City continues to lose out on housing development opportunities.

The following example demonstrates what our rental community is losing:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 11, Packet Page 108 The Garden Road area allows 405 new housing units. The City received applications to construct housing at four sites along Garden Road. The original anticipated unit count was 298 units if the City could obtain additional water from the Water District’s reserve category. The District conditionally allocated reserve water; however, the State Water Resources Control Staff indicated it would violate the Cease and Desist Order unless the project used no more water than it did before rezoning. As a result, this opportunity was lost, and projects were reduced to 180 units consistent with the onsite water credits/use. A loss of 118 units could have housed between 300 and 400 residents.

Table 1
Garden Road Housing Opportunities
Address Original
Application - # of
Units
Downsized
Projects due to
Water
Project Status
2000 Garden Road 72 34 AR Preliminary and
Final Permit
Approved
2300 Garden Road 64 64 ARC Review
Scheduled 3/15
2560 Garden Road 63 25 Application
Incomplete 2/2022
2600 Garden Road 99 57 AR Preliminary
Review Approved
Total 298 180
Source: City of Monterey Community Development Department There is no quick fix to reverse this fate. The projects were re-scoped, and plans were redrawn.

Costs borne by the developers have been incurred.

The City has also inventoried its properties for affordable housing projects. Four sites were identified for 100% affordable housing projects, and a Request for Proposal was released. The City has selected two affordable housing developers for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) discussions. These developers can potentially build 150 units that are 100% affordable housing. However, these sites do not have adequate-sized water meters or supply for the housing to be constructed.

In sum, there have been 118 affordable housing units lost as a result of water unavailability for the Garden Road area, and 150 low-income units are in abeyance.

The City of Monterey wanted the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to understand from our perspective the quandary of meeting State-mandated housing requirements, being designated additional housing units to be constructed between 2023-2031, and the need for water supply to be available in 2023 to meet the City and region’s housing targets. The City would appreciate a letter from the MPWMD detailing from their perspective if water will be available by 2023. When will water be available for allocation? If not, what can the City of Monterey City Council do to make this happen?
Furthermore, the City requests that the MPWMD pass a resolution requesting that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 12, Packet Page 109 diversions have ceased. If the CDO is lifted, developers could set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system.

Sincerely,
Clyde Roberson,
Mayor
e: David Stoldt, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ([email protected])
Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 13, Packet Page 110 Attachment 3
March 2, 2022
Monterey One Water Board of Directors
Mary Ann Carbone, City of Sand City
Thomas Moore, Marina Coast Water District
Jason Campbell, City of Seaside
Christie Cromeenes, City of Salinas
Scott Donaldson, City of Del Rey Oaks
Linda Grier, Boronda County Sanitation District
John Phillips, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Nick Smith, City of Pacific Grove
Ron Stefani, Castroville Community Services District
Tyller Williamson, City of Monterey
RE: City of Monterey Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Dear Board Members,
The City of Monterey wanted to update the Monterey One Water on the immediate need for water by 2023.

The City of Monterey wants to build the expected housing units that are ultimately assigned by our fellow jurisdictions through the AMBAG RHNA process.

The City has reviewed with MPWMD staff the water credits needed per residential type. The City estimates needing between 367- 406 acre feet by 2023 to meet the regionally and State required RHNA.

The City also wanted to update the Board on its efforts to construct housing. In terms of upcoming development, the City continues to lose out on housing development opportunities.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 14, Packet Page 111 The following example demonstrates what our rental community is losing:

Table 1
Garden Road Housing Opportunities
Address Original
Application - # of
Units
Downsized
Projects due to
Water
Project Status
2000 Garden Road 72 34 AR Preliminary and
Final Permit
Approved
2300 Garden Road 64 64 ARC Review 3/15
2560 Garden Road 63 25 Application
Incomplete 2/2022
2600 Garden Road 99 57 AR Preliminary
Review Permit
Approved
Total 298 180
Source: City of Monterey Community Development Department There is no quick fix to reverse this fate. The projects were re-scoped, and plans were redrawn.

Costs borne by the developers have been incurred.

The City has also inventoried its properties for affordable housing projects. Four sites were identified for 100% affordable housing projects, and a Request for Proposal was released. The City has selected two affordable housing developers for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) discussions. These developers can potentially build 150 units that are 100% affordable housing. However, these sites do not have adequate-sized water meters or supply for the housing to be constructed.

In sum, there have been 118 affordable housing units lost as a result of water unavailability for the Garden Road area, and 150 low-income units are in abeyance.

The City of Monterey wanted the Monterey One Water Board to understand from our perspective the quandary of meeting State-mandated housing requirements, being designated additional housing units to be constructed between 2023-2031, and the need for water supply to be available in 2023 to meet the City and region’s housing targets. The City would appreciate a letter from Monterey One Water detailing from their perspective if water will be available by 2023. When will water be available for allocation? If not, what can the City of Monterey City Council do to make this happen?
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 15, Packet Page 112 Furthermore, the City requests that Monterey One Water pass a resolution requesting that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased. If the CDO is lifted, developers could set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system.

Sincerely,
Clyde Roberson,
Mayor
cc: Paul Sciuto, General Manager, Monterey One Water
Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 16, Packet Page 113 Attachment 4
March 2, 2022
State Water Resources Control Board
E. Joaquin Esquivel, Chair
Dorene D'Adamo, Vice Chair
Sean Maguire
Laurel Firestone
Nichole Morgan
RE: City of Monterey Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Dear Board Members,
The City of Monterey wanted to update the State Water Resources Control Board on the immediate need for water by 2023.

The City of Monterey wants to build the expected housing units that are ultimately assigned by our fellow jurisdictions through the AMBAG RHNA process.

The City has reviewed with MPWMD staff the water credits needed per residential type. The City estimates needing between 367- 406 acre feet by 2023 to meet the regionally and State required RHNA.

The City also wanted to update the Board on its efforts to construct housing. In terms of upcoming development, the City continues to lose out on housing development opportunities.

The following example demonstrates what our rental community is losing:

The Garden Road area allows 405 new housing units. The City received applications to construct housing at four sites along Garden Road. The original anticipated unit count was 298 units if the City could obtain additional water from the Water District’s reserve category. The Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 17, Packet Page 114 District conditionally allocated reserve water; however, the State Water Resources Control Staff indicated it would violate the Cease and Desist Order unless the project used no more water than it did before rezoning. As a result, this opportunity was lost, and projects were reduced to 180 units consistent with the onsite water credits/use. A loss of 118 units could have housed between 300 and 400 residents.

Table 1
Garden Road Housing Opportunities
Address Original
Application - # of
Units
Downsized
Projects due to
Water
Project Status
2000 Garden Road 72 34 AR Preliminary and
Final Permit
Approved
2300 Garden Road 64 64 ARC Review 3/15
2560 Garden Road 63 25 Application
Incomplete 2/2022
2600 Garden Road 99 57 AR Preliminary
Review Permit
Approved
Total 298 180
Source: City of Monterey Community Development Department There is no quick fix to reverse this fate. The projects were re-scoped, and plans were redrawn.

Costs borne by the developers have been incurred.

The City has also inventoried its properties for affordable housing projects. Four sites were identified for 100% affordable housing projects, and a Request for Proposal was released. The City has selected two affordable housing developers for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) discussions. These developers can potentially build 150 units that are 100% affordable housing. However, these sites do not have adequate-sized water meters or supply for the housing to be constructed.

In sum, there have been 118 affordable housing units lost as a result of water unavailability for the Garden Road area, and 150 low-income units are in abeyance.

The City of Monterey wanted the State Water Resources Control Board to understand from our perspective the quandary of meeting State-mandated housing requirements, being designated additional housing units to be constructed between 2023-2031, and the need for water supply to be available in 2023 to meet the City and region’s housing targets. Furthermore, the City requests that the State Water Resources Control Board immediately lift the Cease and Desist Order since the illegal diversions have ceased. If the CDO is lifted, developers could set new water meters and work within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District credit system.

Sincerely,
Clyde Roberson,
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 18, Packet Page 115 Mayor
cc: Eileen Sobeck, Executive Director, SWRCB
Paul Sciuto, General Manager, Monterey One Water
Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Mark Stone, 29th Assembly District
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 19, Packet Page 116 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared by: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts.

VALUE DRIVER:

The City’s extensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic is consistent with the City’s Value Driver to “In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members.” Specifically, one of the City’s Strategic Priorities is to “Ensure the health and wellness of the community including the COVID-19 pandemic response through emergency operations, clear communication with the public, delivering vaccinations, supporting testing efforts, issuing emergency orders, managing social distancing regulations, adopting eviction protections, hosting blood drives, and providing food security.” POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Receiving the City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts is consistent with City policy.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

All funding associated with the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been budgeted as part of the FY 2021/22 budget, and reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on eligible COVID-19 expenses continues to be recovered where applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 117 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

DISCUSSION:

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City of Monterey continue to evolve and shift daily.

The City of Monterey has maintained up-to-date information on its website:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/covid-19-response-and-resources and www.monterey.org/coronavirus.

The public is encouraged to visit the web portal to stay updated on the latest news, open/closed city services, help for employers and employees, public health resources, virtual services/programs, fiscal impacts, labor issues, testing and vaccination information, and other resources.

In addition, every three weeks, the City Manager addresses the public during special editions of "Monterey Mornings with the Manager" on YouTube Live at 9:30 a.m. Wednesdays at www.youtube.com/cityofmonterey.

The City Manager will deliver a verbal presentation on the City's most recent COVID-19 response and vaccination efforts at the City Council meeting on March 15, 2022.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Deny Appeal and Uphold Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variance Application for Fencing Along the Front and Side Property Lines and Fencing for a Trash Enclosure at 301 Casa Verde Way that Exceeds the 4-Foot Height Limit for this Reverse Corner Lot; Applicant Steve Mickel with Mickel Construction Inc; Property Owner Thomas Cutino; Residential Medium Density Multifamily Dwelling (R-3) Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council deny the appeal (AP 21-0232) and adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission (PC) decision to deny the variance application (VA 20-0257) to allow the installation of fencing along the front and side property lines exceeding the 4-foot maximum height limit, and fencing for a trash enclosure that exceeds the 4-foot height limit, for this reverse corner lot at 301 Casa Verde Way.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Code section 38-211 states:

Authority of Appellate Body
Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council ...shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission.

Substantial evidence in the record must support the findings, and the findings must support the decision. .The City Council’s review is de novo, meaning that it acts as if it were considering the application for the first time, affording no deference to prior recommendations or decisions of the Planning Commission. All issues are reviewed as if for the first time.

Required findings for approval of a variance are set forth in Monterey City Code (MCC) section 38-161(B); and additional findings specific to fence height variances are set forth in MCC section 38-153, subsections (C)(8) and (C)(7)(C).

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

A fee of $331.50 was paid by the applicant. Appeals are subsidized by the City of Monterey and staff costs are reimbursed at 10%. The full cost recovery would have been $3,315.00.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes the construction/retention of a fence in support of apartments. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects that are exempt under Class 1.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The construction/retention of the fence will not result in a significant effect on the environment because it would be located in an existing, developed neighborhood.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report. The project is not near or visible from a state scenic highway. Impacts to scenic highways will not occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The property is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65962.5.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There are two buildings located on the property at 301 Casa Verde Way: one was constructed in 1930 and the other in 1960. The existing building is not a historic or potentially historic building as it has been greatly modified over time. The site is not located in a highly sensitive archaeological area Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 as mapped in the City of Monterey General Plan EIR. Therefore, there will be no impacts to historical or archaeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may elect to approve the appeal and grant the variance if substantial evidence supports the findings, and if the findings support the conclusion that all applicable legislative requirements for a variance have been satisfied, or approve the appeal with modifications to the project as conditions of approval pursuant to City Code section 38-162.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission denied a request to install fencing along the front and side property lines and for a trash enclosure exceeding the 4-foot height limit for the reverse corner lot at 301 Casa Verde Way.

On December 21, 2021, appellant Steve Mickel filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on behalf of property owner Thomas Cutino.

The project site is zoned R-3 and is developed with apartment buildings in the Villa Del Monte neighborhood. The lot is located at the corner of Casa Verde Way and Encina Avenue, approximately 150 feet from the Highway 1 off-ramp. The lot is rectangular shaped and approximately 8,690 square feet in size. The apartment building sits on a flat lot with little to no change in elevation.

The applicant has installed fencing along the corner streets of Casa Verde Way and Encina Avenue, where the maximum height of the main fence varies from 5’10” to 6’1” and trash enclosure fencing that is approximately 7’10”. As a result of a complaint, the City’s Code Compliance Coordinator opened a case about the non-conforming height of the existing fencing.

Subsequently, the applicant, Steve Mickel, applied for a variance with the Planning Division on behalf of the property owner, Thomas Cutino. The variance includes a site plan and elevations showing the type of fence and dimensions of the fencing along the corner streets. (Attachment

2.)
The property is defined as a reverse corner lot1. Reverse corner lots in the R-3 District require a four-foot fence height along the front and side property lines. The property sits at the corner of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way (Figure 1). A maximum fence height of four feet is required along both Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Subject property at 301 Casa Verde Way
1 Reverse Corner Lot: A corner lot, the side lot line of which is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of a lot or parcel of land which adjoins the rear lot line of said corner lots (MCC Sec. 38-11).

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 Figure 2. R-3 Fence Standards (MCC 38-25.D.9).

The Public Works Department is the Traffic Committee. It has reviewed the proposed fence height to determine if there would be a visual obstruction at the intersection caused by the proposed fence, which could constitute a traffic hazard. Public Works has determined that the proposed fence would not cause a visual obstruction.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 Building Permit Approved in 2014
In 2014, Building Permit B14-0518 was issued for the multi-family units. The approved plan notes that the 6-foot fence along Encina Avenue was to be removed. The existing trash enclosure was permitted to be located on the property line with 4’ high gates facing the internal driveway (Attachment 4; Figure 3).

Figure 3. Trash Enclosure shown on Site Plan for B14-0518 Project Description
The applicant proposes the fencing, including fencing along the property line and trash enclosure fencing, that exceeds the maximum fence height requirements for front and corner side property lines, as described below. The images below are to visualize the fencing along each elevation. Please review the details in Attachment 2.

Casa Verde Elevation
The fencing along the Casa Verde elevation is located on either side of the driveway/parking area for the apartment. The maximum fence height along Casa Verde varies from 5’10” to 6’1” (Figures 4a, 4b, and 5).

Figure 4a. Casa Verde Elevation, west of the driveway
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123 Figure 4b. Casa Verde Elevation, east of the driveway
Figure 5. Photo of the Casa Verde Elevation
Encina Avenue Elevation
The fencing along the Encina Avenue elevation is primarily the standard fence installed along the property, the height of which varies from 5’10” to 6’1”. Approximately 4’8” of fencing for the trash enclosure has been installed with a height of 7’10” (Figure 6 – 8). The trash enclosure doors swing out into the sidewalk when open (Figure 8), which could be a safety hazard, and the City has not issued an encroachment for the structure to occupy the city’s right-of-way.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124 Figure 6. Encina Avenue Elevation – trash enclosure fencing and fence Figure 7. Photo of Encina Avenue Elevation
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 7, Packet Page 125 Figure 8. Trash Enclosure along Encina Avenue (Door Swings Into Sidewalk) Analysis
Monterey City Code (MCC) Sec. 38-211 states:

Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, an error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission. The City Council or Planning Commission shall transmit a copy of its decision to the applicant, appellant, and the body whose action is appealed within 30 days of hearing the matter.

The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission.

MCC section 38-161(B) requires three general variance findings, and MCC section 38-153, subsections (C)(8) and (C)(7)(C), require additional findings specific to variances for fence height.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 8, Packet Page 126 General Variance Findings per MCC Section 38-161(B):

1. That, because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.

Response: The facts do not support this finding for a variance. The size of the property is approximately 8,690 square feet and is compatible with the other R-3 zoned lots east of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, which range between 5,366 square feet and 25,838 square feet.

The shape of the lot is rectangular consistent with the majority of the surrounding lots. The dimensions of the property are not unusual for the area. The location of the structures on the property does not cause unnecessary hardship for the property that would require a fence height that is higher than the maximum allowable. The property is located on a corner lot, near the intersection of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, with steady traffic passing the site’s immediate vicinity; however, there are many R-3 zoned lots with residential uses located on corner lots that experience heavy traffic nearby. In summary, the facts do not support this finding for a variance.

2. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Response: The facts support this variance finding. Granting the fence height variance would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Public Works has reviewed the existing/proposed fence heights and has determined that the fence would not create a traffic safety hazard.

3. That granting the application is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning district.

Response: The facts do not support this variance finding. Granting the fence height variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district. The property is similar in size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings to other properties. The size of the property is approximately 8,690 square feet and is compatible with the other R-3 zoned lots east of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, which range between 5,366 square feet and 25,838 square feet. The shape of the lot is rectangular consistent with the majority of the surrounding lots. The dimensions of the property are not unusual for the area. The location of the structures on the property does not cause unnecessary hardship for the property that would require a fence height that is higher than the maximum allowable. The property is located on a corner lot, near the intersection of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, with steady traffic passing the site’s immediate vicinity; however, there are many R-3 zoned lots with residential uses located on corner lots that experience heavy traffic nearby. In summary, granting a fence variance to the subject property would result in granting a special privilege of allowing this property to have a higher than standard fence height than other corner lots in the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 9, Packet Page 127 Figure 9. Subject property in a 2019 Google Street View image showing fencing that is more compliant than current fencing in a non-compliant state, as shown in Figures 5, 7, and 8 above.

Fence Height Variance Findings:

Per MCC section 38-153 (C)(8), one or more of the following determinations in this subsection under a-c shall be made, and that meet the criteria in subsection (C)(7)(c) of this section. As it relates to this variance application for 301 Casa Verde Way, one of the three findings under Section 38-153(C)(8) can be made and one of the physical hardships under Section 38- 153(C)(7)(c).

1. The fence does not appear as a visual barrier and does not impede the sightline for vehicles [MCC Section 38-153 (C)(8)(c)].

Response: The facts support this finding. The existing/proposed fence does not appear as a visual barrier and, as confirmed by Public Works, would not impede the sightline for vehicles.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 10, Packet Page 128 Figure 10. Line-of-sight at the corner of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way The variance application does not meet two of the general required variance findings and one of the fence variance findings. In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal. Should the City Council deny the request for a variance, staff will request that the property owner bring the fence into compliance with the City Code.

CAS/
Attachments: 1. Resolution Denying Appeal Application AP 21-0232

2. Site Plan

3. Letter from Applicant

4. Building Permit B14-0518

5. Planning Commission Minutes
e: Steve Mickel, Applicant
Thomas Cutino, Property Owner
Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 11, Packet Page 129 RESOLUTION NO. ____ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 DENYING APPEAL AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY

VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FENCING ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY

LINES AND INSTALLATION OF FENCING FOR A TRASH ENCLOSURE THAT EXCEEDS THE 4-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 301 CASA VERDE WAY
WHEREAS, Steve Mickel, applicant, submitted an application (AP 21-0232) for a fence height variance to allow installation of fencing along the front and side property lines, exceeding the four-foot height limit for this reverse corner lot at 301 Casa Verde Way; WHEREAS, the site is zoned Residential Medium Density Multifamily Dwelling (R-3) and is developed with apartments in the Villa Del Monte neighborhood; WHEREAS, the variance application is subject to Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 22, Variances;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on December 14, 2021, carefully considered all of the information presented, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission denied the variance application (4 Ayes; 2 Noes; 1 Absent; 0 Abstain, See Resolution No. P21-031); WHEREAS, the Steve Mickel, applicant, representing property owner Thomas Cutino, at 301 Casa Verde Way, filed appeal application AP-21-0232 to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial of the fence variance to City Council for the following reasons: the proposed fence is consistent with other fences in the neighborhood; the fence does not create traffic related hazards; the property is located at a 4-way stop and experiences excessive noise; properties nearby are zoned commercial;;
WHEREAS, the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing on March 15, 2022, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes the construction/retention of a fence in support of apartments.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 12, Packet Page 130 resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects that are exempt under Class 1.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The construction/retention of the fence will not result in a significant effect on the environment because it would be located in an existing, developed neighborhood.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report. The project is not near or visible from a state scenic highway. Impacts to scenic highways will not occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The property is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65962.5.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

There are two buildings located on the property at 301 Casa Verde Way: one was constructed in 1930 and the other in 1960. The existing building is not a historic or potentially historic building as it has been greatly modified over time. The site is not located in a highly sensitive archaeological area as mapped in the City of Monterey General Plan EIR. Therefore, there will be no impacts to historical or archaeological resources.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby denies Appeal Application AP-21-0232 and upholds the Planning Commission decision to deny to installation of fencing along the front and side property lines and installation of fencing for a trash enclosure that exceeds the 4-foot height limit at 301 Casa Verde Way. Although one or more of the fence height variance findings may be made under Monterey City Code section 38-153(8), the facts do not support a variance under the required elements of Monterey City Code section 38-161, the City Council therefore denies the variance based on the following findings:

Findings in Support of Denial:

General Variance Findings
Monterey City Code section 38-161(B)(1) requires that“…because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 13, Packet Page 131 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.” This finding cannot be met.

The size of the property is approximately 8,690 square feet and is compatible with the other R-3 zoned lots east of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, which range between 5,366 square feet and 25,838 square feet. The shape of the lot is rectangular consistent with the majority of the surrounding lots. The dimensions of the property are not unusual for the area. The location of the structures on the property does not cause an unnecessary hardship for the property that would require a fence height that is higher than the maximum allowable. The property is located on a corner lot, near the intersection of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, with steady traffic passing the immediate vicinity of the site; however, there are many R-3 zoned lots with residential uses located on corner lots that experience heavy traffic nearby. In summary, the facts do not support this finding for a variance.

Monterey City Code section 38-161(B)(3) requires that “…granting the application would be consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.” This finding cannot be met.

Granting the fence height variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district. The property is similar in size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings to other properties. The size of the property is approximately 8,690 square feet and is compatible with the other R-3 zoned lots east of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way, which range between 5,366 square feet and 25,838 square feet. The shape of the lot is rectangular consistent with the majority of the surrounding lots. The dimensions of the property are not unusual for the area. The location of the structures on the property does not cause an unnecessary hardship for the property that would require a fence height that is higher than the maximum allowable. The property is located on corner lot, near the intersection of Encina Avenue and Casa Verde Way with steady traffic passing the immediate vicinity of the site; however, there are many R-3 zoned lots with residential uses located on corner lots that experience heavy traffic nearby. In summary, granting a fence variance to the subject property would result in granting a special privilege of allowing this property to have a higher than standard fence height than other corner lots in the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 14, Packet Page 132 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 15, Packet Page 133 ATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 16, Packet Page 134 N.T.S.

S I T E P L A N

CORNER - CASA VERDE & ENCINA
301 CASA VERDE (FRONT)

STOP SIGN VIEW - ON CASA VERDE

STOP SIGN VIEW - ON ENCINA
301 CASA VERDE (FRONT)

VIEW FROM EAST AT ENCINA STOP SIGN

LINE OF SIGHT

NEW FENCE

NEW FENCE
NEW FENCE @
45 DEG. 64" LONG

REVISIONS BY
Date plotted: 06-29-2021
Copyright Notice:
for any other purpose other than the
use of this project.
copied or reproduced in any way in whole
or part
These plans and specifications are the sole
property of the designer and are not to be 3+
&(//

/,&1 19 YERBA BUENA CT. MONTEREY, CA. 93940 STEVE MICKEL building design construction 3 11-06-2020
A-2.0
Scale: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
Date:

Drawn: S. MICKEL
Job:

Of Sheets
Sheet: 301 AND 307 CASA VERDE WAY MONTEREY, CA. 93940 A.P.N. 013-093-017 A
B
C
D
259 CASA VERDE WAY 110 ENCINA AVENUE
40 ENCINA AVENUE 311 CASA VERDE WAY CUTINO FENCE REPLACEMENT

LINE OF SIGHT
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 17, Packet Page 135 4'-8" 58'-10"
CORNER
TRASH ENCL. SIDEWALK 95"98"
28'-6" 27'-6" 18'-6" 31'

DRIVEWAY

CORNER 47"
GATE SIDEWALK 25" 40" 25" LATTICE 71" TO 74" HEIGHT VARIES 2X4
PT DF
2X4
PT DF
2X4
2X8 PT DF

PT DF SIDEWALK
4X4
PT DF
POST
2X8 VERTICAL
FENCE

BOARDS (TYP)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 322 CASA VERDE WAY (FRONT) NEIGHBORING FENCE - 35 ENCINA (FRONT) NEIGHBORING FENCE (FRONT)

NEIGHBORING FENCE (SIDE)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 87 MONTICITO (FRONT)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 418 CASA VERDE WAY (FRONT)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 424 CASA VERDE WAY (FRONT)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 24 HELVIC (FRONT) NEIGHBORING FENCE - 34 HELVIC (FRONT) NEIGHBORING FENCE - 350 CASA VERDE WAY (FRONT)
NEIGHBORING FENCE - 350 CASA VERDE WAY (FRONT)

/,&1 19 YERBA BUENA CT. MONTEREY, CA. 93940 STEVE MICKEL building design construction 3 11-06-2020
A-2.1
Scale: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
Date:

Drawn: S. MICKEL
Job:

Of Sheet
Sheet:

SCALE: 1" = 1' - 0''

TYPICAL FENCE PANEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0''

ENCINA ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0''
CASA VERDE ELEVATION CUTINO FENCE REPLACEMENT 301 AND 307 CASA VERDE WAY MONTEREY, CA. 93940 A.P.N. 013-093-017 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 18, Packet Page 136 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 19, Packet Page 137 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 20, Packet Page 138 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 21, Packet Page 139

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
December 14, 2021
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Freeman, Reed*, Brassfield*, Dawson, Latasa, Millich* Commissioners Absent: Fletcher
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Principal Planner Roveri*, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Associate Planner Sabdo, Housing Analyst Leonard*, Recording Secretary Cleary, Administrative Assistant Barrera
* Participated remotely by videoconference

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

PRESENTATIONS

2. Presentation on Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 35 (No Written Report) ACTION: Heard presentations and discussed Senate Bills 9 and 35.

Community Development Director Cole provided background information and introduced the item and presenters.

Principal Planner Roveri shared a presentation regarding Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Latasa questioned when Building permits can be issued. Ms. Cole explained building permits would not be issued without a stamp from the Water District, meaning the City will not allow construction to begin without water credits or a water meter.

Chair Freeman inquired about the amount and deadlines for the housing needs allocation. Ms.

Cole stated the new Housing Element must be adopted by December 2023 with a new Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Commissioner Brassfield asked how SB 35 would change the Planning approval process. Ms.

Roveri clarified that SB 35 project applications will be reviewed for consistency with a checklist and noting how the project satisfies the requirements.

Commissioner Millich asked if projects must be occupied to satisfy RHNA requirements. Ms.

Roveri reiterated building permits cannot be issued without Water District approval.

Commissioner Millich expressed concern that the State established a requirement even though there are not enough water credits to implement.

Recording Secretary Cleary provided information to the public on how to participate and provide public comment during the meeting.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 22, Packet Page 140 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
2 Commissioner Latasa asked if SB 35 projects can be appealed. Ms. Roveri clarified appeals are not possible because there will be no discretionary approval and the law requires projects to meet objective design standards.

Housing Analyst Leonard summarized Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if SB 9 would need an approval checklist. Mr. Leonard confirmed there will be a checklist for ministerial approval.

Chair Freeman inquired about water meters. Ms. Cole explained applicants must have enough credits within the existing house.

Commissioner Brassfield inquired about Senate Bill 10 (SB 10). Mr. Leonard explained SB 10 allows cities to up-zone areas to allow higher-density housing. Ms. Cole added that Monterey has already allowed more density in some areas.

Commissioner Brassfield suggested creating a declaration stating housing has not been created because there are no water credits to give.

CONSENT ITEMS
Approval of Minutes

3. October 26, 2021
ACTION: Approved as amended.

Commissioner Millich requested to be marked as having attended electronically.

Vice Chair Reed motioned to approve the October 26, 2021 PC Minutes as amended and the November 09, 2021 PC Minutes as submitted. Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion.

On a motion by Vice Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the October 26, 2021 PC Minutes as amended:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

4. November 09, 2021
ACTION: Discussed with Item 3; approved as submitted.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 23, Packet Page 141 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
3 On a motion by Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the November 09, 2021 PC Minutes as submitted:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
***End of Consent Agenda***

PUBLIC HEARING

5. Consider 301 Casa Verde Way; Variance Application VA-20-0257 to Allow Installation of Fencing Along the Front and Side Property Lines and Fencing for a Trash Enclosure That Exceeds the 4-Foot Height Limit for this Reverse Corner Lot; Applicant Steve Mickel with Mickel Construction Inc; Property Owner Thomas Cutino; Residential Medium Density Multifamily Dwelling (R-3) Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Denied variance application VA-20-0257 to allow installation of fencing along the front and side property lines and fencing for a trash enclosure that exceeds the 4-foot height limit for the reverse corner lot at 301 Casa Verde Way
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Vice Chair Reed requested clarification regarding Finding 3. Ms. Sabdo suggested the proposal does not constitute a special privilege.

Commissioner Latasa stated page 37 of the Agenda Packet says the decision is appealable to the Planning Commission and suggested that be changed to the City Council.

Commissioner Latasa asked clarifying questions regarding qualifications for variances. Ms.

Sabdo provided details.

Applicant Comments
Applicant Steve Mickel provided further information regarding the project and highlighted concerns of traffic safety, security, and noise.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 24, Packet Page 142 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
4 Commissioner Latasa asked why the trash enclosure height was proposed. Mr. Mickel deferred to property owner Thomas Cutino.

Commissioner Millich suggested using hedges or landscaping to help mitigate noise and trespassing. Ms. Sabdo confirmed there are no restrictions on hedge or landscaping height.

Mr. Cutino suggested the trash enclosure height is proposed to fit the open dumpster lid and reiterated main concerns as security from unwelcome visitors, noise, and safety.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Latasa spoke in favor of approval and suggested the proposal meets all three general findings.

Commissioner Millich spoke in favor of denial, suggesting the findings cannot be made and adding that relying on illegal fencing to provide further illegal fencing does not seem legitimate.

Vice Chair Reed argued this is not a special circumstance because a fence variance was previously approved on David Avenue which should set precedence for higher fences and variances for higher fences.

Commissioner Brassfield suggested the intent of the Ordinance is to deter enclosures and that the applicant did not obtain a variance prior to building, and added that the property is not as dangerous as others in the area.

Chair Freeman spoke in favor of denial, suggesting hedges could replace the two-foot portion and protect the City from receiving more fence variance applications in the future.

Commissioner Millich made a motion to deny the fence variance application. Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Latasa suggested it seems inconsistent to approve one six-foot fence on David Avenue and deny one on Casa Verde Way.

Commissioner Dawson suggested placing pyracantha outside the fence in lieu of variance.

Commissioner Millich suggested the David Avenue proposal was approved by previous Commissioners and the facts would have been different from facts of this proposal, specifying each project is reviewed individually. Vice Chair Reed suggested approval is not a grant of special privilege because special privileges have already been granted in the past.

On a motion by Commissioner Millich, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission denied variance application VA-20-0257 to allow installation of fencing along the front and side property lines and fencing for a trash enclosure that exceeds the 4-foot height limit for the reverse corner lot at 301 Casa Verde Way:

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 25, Packet Page 143 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
5 AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson, Millich NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Latasa
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

6. Consider 55 Camino Aguajito; Use Permit Application UP-21-0178 to Convert a Hotel Restaurant to a Manager’s Unit, Lobby Expansion, Laundry Room and Exercise Room; Applicant Don Desai; GAMFAM, LLC.; VAF Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Approved use permit application UP-21-0178 to convert a hotel restaurant to a manager’s unit, lobby expansion, laundry room and exercise room at 55 Camino Aguajito pursuant to findings and conditions in the Staff Report and Draft Resolution
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Applicant Comments
Applicant Don Desai explained they would live in the space, adding that when the restaurant closed for COVID-19 it received no government assistance and is no longer sustainable.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brassfield commended the property owner for providing employee housing and spoke in support of approval.

On a motion by Vice Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Brassfield and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved use permit application UP-21-0178 to convert a hotel restaurant to a manager’s unit, lobby expansion, laundry room and exercise room at 55 Camino Aguajito pursuant to findings and conditions in the Staff Report and Draft Resolution:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

7. Consider 484 Washington Street; Use Permit Application UP-21-0171 for a RestaurantMajor Use; Applicant Ian Penniman; Owner AG Davi Properties; PC-D Zoning District;

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 26, Packet Page 144 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
6 Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1
ACTION: Approved use permit application UP-21-0171 for a restaurant-major use at 484 Washington Street pursuant to findings in the Report, Staff comments, and draft Resolution
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Applicant Comments
Applicant Ian Penniman of Melville Tavern highlighted goals of the proposal and specified the site has 24-hour camera surveillance, an alarm, security, and manager on premise.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Vice Chair Reed motioned to approve the proposal. Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion and suggested there has been no previous difficulties at the site.

On a motion by Vice Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved use permit application UP-21-0171 for a restaurant-major use at 484 Washington Street pursuant to findings in the Report, Staff comments, and draft Resolution:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

8. Consider 300 Cannery Row; Permit Extension Application 21-0204 for a Mixed-Use to Adaptively Occupy a Building at 300 Cannery Row; Maximum Allowable Building Height of 45 Feet; Density in Excess of 30 Units per Acre to Provide Eight Condominium Units (Use Permit 19-105) Through Approval of a Tentative Map (Permit TM-19-0243) and to Include a Residential Parking Plan at 258/270 Foam Street; Applicant/Owner: The 300 LLC; Cannery Row Commercial and Planned Community- Lighthouse Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously Adopted
ACTION: Approved permit extension application 21-0204 for mixed-use to adaptively occupy a building at 300 Cannery Row; maximum allowable building height of 45 feet; density in excess of 30 units per acre to provide eight condominium units (Use Permit 19-105) through approval of a tentative map (Permit TM-19- 0243) and to include a residential parking plan at 258/270 Foam Street

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 27, Packet Page 145 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
7 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole presented the Agenda Report, answered Commissioner questions, and specified a new approval would extend the original permit until December 17, 2023.

Commissioner Dawson inquired about the parking plan. Ms. Cole explained the parking lot would be on Foam Street with a walkway to the site.

Applicant Comments
None.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dawson spoke in favor of allowing the extension.

On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Latasa and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved permit extension application 21-0204 for mixed-use to adaptively occupy a building at 300 Cannery Row; maximum allowable building height of 45 feet; density in excess of 30 units per acre to provide eight condominium units (Use Permit 19-105) through approval of a tentative map (Permit TM-19-0243) and to include a residential parking plan at 258/270 Foam Street:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Update received.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Millich suggested the Planning Commission release a declaration showing compliance with SB 35 or exemption for lack of water as the State.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 28, Packet Page 146 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 14, 2021
8 Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole Chair
Community Development Director Planning Commission

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 29, Packet Page 147 Community Services District
Agenda Report
№06/11
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article, 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Services District Board of Directors receive a report on the Ocean View Community Services District.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey approved the Ocean View Plaza Project (“Project”) located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565, and 570 Cannery Row in June 2004. The California Coastal Commission requires that the water supply for the Project be provided for by a public entity (See, Public Resources Code section 30250, which requires adequate public services be available to serve new development). The Coastal Commission determined that a Coastal Development Permit could not be filed without the necessary government approvals from other agencies.

Subsequently, the City of Monterey requested that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) review the establishment of a Community Services District (CSD) for the project site that would own, operate, and maintain the proposed desalination plant once constructed. This CSD was formed pursuant to Community Services District Law (Government Code section 61000 et seq.,) to own and operate a desalination plant to provide residential and commercial water to the Project.

LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-27 on December 27, 2005, approving the formation of this CSD. The Monterey City Council was subsequently appointed as the District Board and must meet quarterly according to requirements of Government Code section 61044. The CSD has Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 148 contracted with the City for administrative support services on behalf of the CSD on a reimbursed basis.

In November 2019, the California Coastal Commission denied requests for coastal development permit extensions. The Coastal Commission voted that there were changed circumstances from its original coastal development permit issued in 2008 related to water supply and coastal hazards/sea level rise.

In January 2020, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC, sued the Coastal Commission over its denial of the permit extension request as described in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000165. On November 30, 2021, AquaLegacy Development LLC intervened in that action, which has been stayed pending resolution of the appeals in related litigation in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 16CV001078 (Court of Appeal Nos. H049517 and H049540), in which the court entered a judgment on March 4, 2021, that AquaLegacy is vested with title to the property.

The City originally approved the vesting tentative map for the project on June 1, 2004. The map approval has been extended by operation of law to June 26, 2022, and may be further tolled. cc:

Save Our Waterfront, 781 Terry Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Cannery Row Association
Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCO), POB 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 New Monterey Neighborhood Association
David Balch, Esq.

Anne Mudge, Esq.

Neill Bower, Esq.

Paul James Beard, Esq.

Stephanie Lai, Esq.

Aaron Gruber, Esq.

Dylan Crosby, Esq.

Bob Faulis
William Coffee, Esq.

David Bowie, Esq.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 149 Community Services District
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager, City of Monterey SUBJECT: Select a Candidate for the Election of a LAFCO Commissioner – Independent Special District Regular Member and Authorize the Board President to Submit a Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Services District Board of Directors select a candidate for the election of one Independent Special District Regular Member to serve a four-year term on the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCO) and authorize the Board President (Mayor Clyde Roberson) to submit a ballot for the District’s candidate of choice.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

DISCUSSION:

On March 2, 2022, the Ocean View Community Services District received a memorandum from LAFCO transmitting a ballot, voting instructions, and candidate information for the election of one Independent Special District Regular Member to serve a four-year term on the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County. LAFCO requested that the ballot and information to the legislative body of your District for voting and signature by the presiding officer (Board President) or designee. Districts may vote for one of the three candidates. The deadline to return the ballot is April 1, 2022.

A second ballot, for the election of one Special District Alternate Member, will be issued after the election of a Regular Member.

The Ocean View Community Services District Board of Directors may choose one of three candidates:

Date: 3/15/2022
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 150  David Kong (Greenfield Public Recreation District and Greenfield Cemetery District)  Mary Ann Leffel (Monterey Peninsula Airport District)  Gail Morton (Marina Coast Water District)
Alternatively, the Board may decline to take any action and authorize the Mayor to select the candidate and submit the ballot.

Attachments: 1. Official Ballot, including nomination forms Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 151 LAFCOof Monterey County _

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF MONTEREY COUNTY

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 1, 2022
TO: Independent Special District General Managers, Fire Chiefs and CEOs FROM: Kate McKenna, AICP,
Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Ballot for Election of LAFCO Commissioner – Special District Regular Member (Due April 1, 2022)
This memorandum transmits a ballot, voting instructions and candidate information for the election of one Independent Special District Regular Member to serve a four-year term on the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County. Please forward the ballot and information to the legislative body of your District for voting and signature by the presiding officer (Board President) or designee. Vote for one of the three candidates. The deadline to return the ballot is April 1. LAFCO may extend this deadline if more time is needed to obtain ballots from a majority of Districts.

A second ballot, for election of one Special District Alternate Member, will be issued after the election of a Regular Member. Sequential balloting is in accordance with adopted procedures to ensure diversity in representation.

Thank you for participating in the election process. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Enclosures:

Ballot and Voting Instructions
Candidate Information
2022
Commissioners
Chair
Christopher Lopez
County Member
Vice Chair
Mary Ann Leffel
Special District Member
Luis Alejo
County Member
Wendy Root Askew
County Member, Alternate
Kimbley Craig
City Member
Matt Gourley
Public Member
Ian Oglesby
City Member
Warren Poitras
Special District Member
Steve Snodgrass
Public Member, Alternate
Graig R. Stephens
Special District Member, Alternate
Anna Velazquez
City Member, Alternate
Counsel
Kelly L. Donlon
General Counsel
Executive Officer
Kate McKenna, AICP
132 W. Gabilan Street, #102
Salinas, CA 93901
P. O. Box 1369
Salinas, CA 93902
Voice: 831-754-5838
www.monterey.lafco.ca.gov
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 152 LAFCOof Monterey County _

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF MONTEREY COUNTY
March 1, 2022

OFFICIAL BALLOT OF THE

INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE

FOR ELECTION OF ONE REGULAR SPECIAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO LAFCO Voting Instructions:

1. The presiding officer of the legislative body of the District or the legislative body’s alternate officer is authorized to vote. Please vote for one candidate. A majority of Districts must return ballots in order to conclude the election. The candidate receiving the most votes will be elected to a Regular Member seat.

2. Please return this ballot to LAFCO of Monterey County at P.O. Box 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 or at 132 W. Gabilan Street, Suite 102, Salinas, CA 93901 or by email to [email protected] .

3. Deadline - Ballots must be received in the LAFCO office by April 1, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. LAFCO may extend this deadline if more time is needed to obtain ballots from a majority of Districts.

PLEASE VOTE FOR 1 CANDIDATE (REGULAR MEMBER SEAT):

David Kong (Greenfield Public Recreation District and Greenfield Cemetery District) Mary Ann Leffel (Monterey Peninsula Airport District)
Gail Morton (Marina Coast Water District)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOTING MEMBER SIGNATURE: _________________________________________________________________________ INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT: _____________________________________________________________________ DATE: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/15/2022, Item No. 18., Item Page 4, Packet Page 153 LALFcXJ ofMontcrcy County

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF MONTEREY COUNTY

INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE

NOMINATION FORM

TO DECLARE CANDIDACY AND REQUEST NAME AND STATEMENT ON BALLOTS

FOR ONE REGULAR POSITION AND ONE ALTERNATE POSITION ON

THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF MONTEREY COUNTY Due Date: February 28, 2022
Nominations xviii be considered to fill the four-year term for one Regular seat (expiring May 2026) and the four-term for one Alternate seat (expiring May 2026) for Independent Special District Commissioners onthe Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County.Nomination Deadline and Process:Nominations must be received in the LAFCO Office by February 28, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. Qualified personsmay submit their own nominations using this form (no Board action is needed). You may email thecompleted form to rnc1<ennakmonterev.1aFco.ca.gov OR mail it to P.O. Box 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 OR hand-deliver it to 132 ‘N. Gabilan Street, Suite 102 in Salinas.

Nomination Statement:
“I, David Kong ,hereby declare myself a candidate for the election to the position of Regularor Alternate Commissioner of the LAFCO of Monterey County. I am an elected or appointed MontereyCounty Independent Special District board member or trustee residing within the county and not amember of a legislative body of a city or county. I request my name be placed on the official ballot and, ifelected, I will qualify and accept the office of Regular or Alternate LAFCO Commissioner for which I amselected and serve to the best of my ability.”Nominee Information:Name: David Kong Address: 348 Barbera Way
Phone and e-mail: 831-682-2812 [email protected] represented: Greenfleld Public Recreation District and Greenfield Cemeter’ District Your position with the District: Board President
Number of years as a District Board Member or Trustee: 3 years Candidate Statement for the Ballot:

Please give reasons for wanting to be an elected LAFCO Commissioner and briefly summarize qualifications and background:

I am interested in being an elected LAFCO Commissioner because I would like to represent the South Monterey Communities on the Commission LAFCO makes many important decisions on matters concerning South Monterey County. I have been a lifelong resident of Monterey County. I have lived in Pacific Grove, Salinas, and now have been a South County Resident for 21 years. I have served as a city planning commissioner, County Redistricting Commissioner, and School Board member and now serve on the Greenfield Public Recreafion District and Greenfield Cemetery District as Board President. lam interested in having good land management of Monterey County. South Monterey County is mostly rural and agricultural. I am a good team player and I know a number of the current commissioners on LAFCO.I would be honored to serve on the LAFCO Commission and asking for your vote.

Page 1 ends

Monterey City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

Monterey City Council
March 15, 2022