Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, May 3, 2022

Council Chamber, 580 Pacific
St., and Zoom Teleconference
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 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 a hybrid format providing both inperson and 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:
o In-person (location listed above), with masks strongly recommended for all, regardless of vaccination status, except those who are younger than two years old or have a medical condition that prevents wearing a mask.  Online via ZoomGov Webinar live (no time delay):
 Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333  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.  Need more help or seeking guidance on making public comments? Read our ZoomGov Meeting Instructions.
o 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. Overview of Casa de Noche Buena on its First Anniversary (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
5/3/2022 4:00:00 PM
2 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.

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. April 19, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
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.

3. 2nd Reading - Ordinance Regarding Police Department Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment; Approve Military Equipment Use Policy (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 , Section 15061) 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."

4. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 Each, to Provide On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; and Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $700,000 each for On-Call Housing, Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
5/3/2022 4:00:00 PM
3 6. Authorize Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC Technology & Energy) for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide Engineering Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Approve the Annual Contribution for FY 2021/2022 to the Fisherman's Wharf Association in the Amount of $25,607 (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Notice of Intent to Terminate Revenue Sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 300 David Avenue, Monterey, Effective July 1, 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Notice of Intent to Terminate Revenue Sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, Effective July 1, 2022 (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. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards (MCC 38-112.6) (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, 15282(h) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17)
*** 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

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.
5/3/2022 4:00:00 PM
4 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

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).)

11. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 Section 38-15 to Establish a Bicycle/Equipment Rentals Use Classification and Section 38-44 to Add Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as a Principally Permitted Use in the Open Space Zoning District and Adopt Resolutions Amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan to Allow Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as a Principally Permitted Use; Applicants Mark Marquez and Joaquin Sullivan; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5

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.

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.

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
5/3/2022 4:00:00 PM
5 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: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Overview of Casa de Noche Buena on its First Anniversary (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on Casa de Noche Buena on its First Anniversary.

VALUE DRIVER:

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.

DESCRIPTION:

Casa de Noche Buena is the first homeless shelter specifically for women and families with children on the Monterey Peninsula. Located in Seaside, the shelter is operated jointly by Community Homeless Services (CHS) and Gathering for Women (GFW). Combined, the two organizations have 61 years of experience, with CHS offering substance abuse, mental health, and homeless services; and GFW offering homeless services.

The shelter has a maximum capacity of 35, depending on the sizes of families and ages of children. It features nine bedrooms, five bathrooms, dining area and classroom, laundry room, kitchen, lounge, two offices, a backyard, and lobby/reception area. Services provided include housing navigation, employment assistance, and life skills education. Children-specific activities Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 include arts and crafts, games, books, movies, TV shows, outdoor play area, tutoring and homework help.

The City of Monterey has been a longtime partner of CHS and GFW. Since Fiscal Year 2019/20, the City has provided the following funding to the two homeless service providers:
 $7,556 in General Funds for Casa de Noche Buena utilizing the “Homelessness Donation Meter” contributions in October 2020.
 $20,000 in CDBG public service grant program funds for Casa De Noche Buena, plus an additional $20,000 planned for FY 2022/23
 $50,000 for CHS Safe Place in Monterey, plus an additional $20,000 planned for FY 2022/23
 $48,000 for Gathering for Women (GFW), plus an additional $20,000 planned for FY 2022/23
At its meeting on May 3, 2022, CHS Chief Executive Officer Robin McCrae and GFW Executive Director Staci Alziebler-Perkins will deliver a presentation about Casa de Noche Buena on its first anniversary since opening in January 2021.

Attachment: Presentation on Casa de Noche Buena
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 4/20/2022
1 Shelter for
Homeless Women
and Families with
Children
OPENED 01/19/2021
CASA DE NOCHE BUENA IS:

A PARTNERSHIP – Community Human Services
(CHS) and Gathering for Women (GFW)
THE FIRST – Homeless shelter specifically for
women and families with children on the Monterey
Peninsula.
61 YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE
CHS – Substance abuse, mental health and
homeless services
GFW – Homeless services
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 4/20/2022
2 Casa de Noche Buena
1292 Olympia Avenue, Seaside, CA
 County building leased to CHS
$1.3M renovation funded by HEAP & donations
Shelter: 9 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms,
dining/classroom, laundry room, kitchen, lounge,
two offices, a backyard, and a lobby/reception
area.
 Services: Housing navigation, employment
assistance, life skills education, information and
referral to ancillary services.
 Children‐specific activities: Arts and crafts,
games, books, movies, TV shows, outdoor play
area, tutoring and homework help.

Program Overview
 Maximum capacity of 35, depending on sizes of
families/ages of children.
 Shelter capacity reduced during COVID.
 Length of stay up to 90 days; longer with justification.  Maximum length of stay is 180 days.
 CDNB offers shelter, meals and case management
leading to permanent housing.
 Linkages to income, employment, education &
housing
 Referrals to health, mental health & substance
abuse services
 Services and activities for children
 Mail and internet access
 Laundry room, clothing & personal items
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 4/20/2022
3 Eligibility

SINGLE FEMALES
 Meets federal definition of
homeless
 Female
 18 years of age or older
 Living alone, without custody of
child(ren)
 Ability to participate in and
benefit from program

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
 Meets federal definition of
homeless
 Parent + Parent + Child(ren)
or
 Mother + Child(ren)
 Father + Child(ren)
 Ability to participate in and
benefit from program
Barriers to Admission
 History of violence
 Danger to self or others
 Registered sex offender
pursuant to California
Penal Code § 290.46
 Unwilling or unable to
abide by shelter rules
 Previous termination may
be barrier to re-admission
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 4/20/2022
4 Admissions During COVID‐19
Accepting requests from guests for admission via phone ‐ (831) 867‐8200. 1) During initial phone call, staff:
 Collects person’s name and contact
information
 Conducts initial screening for eligibility
 Places potential guest on Callback List
3) Day of Intake
 Guests arrive at intake appointment with personal belongings ready to be admitted.  Review and receive Program Handbook and COVID education/prevention materials  Tour facility
 Move into room
2) When rooms become available, staff:
 Contacts people on list to update
info and confirm eligibility
 Conducts initial assessment for
COVID‐19 symptoms
 Schedules in‐person intake
appointment
Modified Shelter in Place
 Vaccinated guests complete COVID screening and are admitted without testing or restriction.
 Non‐vaccinated guests are rapid tested, admitted if negative, and PCR tested. Must isolate for 3‐5 days till PCR test results come back.
 Guests sign in and out with name, date, time, and purpose of the absence every time they leave the shelter.
 4‐step process every time a guest returns:

1. Wash hands with soap and water, or use hand sanitizer

2. Complete symptom screening questionnaire

3. Have temperature taken and recorded

4. Have possessions screened for drugs, alcohol, weapons, etc.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 4/20/2022
5 Statistics as of
January 2022
CDNB Year One:
 61 individuals served
 26 Single Women
 11 Families (14 adults/21 children)
 5,460 bed nights provided
 16,416 meals served
 45 individuals discharged
 19 single women and
 8 families (26 individuals)
 Permanent – 32 (71%)
 Transitional –4 (8.5%)
 Other Shelter –2 (4.5%)
 Homelessness –7 (16%)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 12 4/20/2022
6 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 13 4/20/2022
7 Thank You!
Casa de Noche Buena
831-867-8200
Elsa Guillen, Program Officer
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.chservices.org
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 14

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, April 19, 2022
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa*, Smith, Williamson, Roberson**

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference in the afternoon and the evening ** Attended remotely by teleconference in the evening
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, Library Director, City Clerk, Police Lieutenant, Police Lieutenant, Parks Operations Manager, Associate Planner, Senior Engineer, Police Lieutenant, Sustainability Coordinator, Lieutenant
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-026 C.S.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for in-person attendance.

She called the roll with the full Council present, with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance as highlighted above.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized DLI Quarterly Joint Service Award winners The Council recognized Sergeant Chris Maharaj, Sergeant Colton Readd, and Lance Corporal Maxwell Mavromatis, all from the U.S. Marine Corps. Each award recipient made brief remarks in his language of study. Not in attendance but recognized by the Council was Lance Corporal Adrian Montalvomercado, also from the U.S. Marine Corps.

Public comment was not received.

2. Presentation on “Trees for Monterey,” a Rotary District Service Grant Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4.b)
Action: Received presentation
Park Operations Manager Marcuzzo gave a brief presentation and thanked the Rotarians for their volunteerism.

Public comment was received from John Hetz, organizer of the project, who thanked the other participants.

Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Tom Rowley and Demetrius Kastros, and Shay Balesteri.

CONSENT ITEMS
Mayor Roberson noted that Items 15, 17, 18, and 21 had been requested by the public to be pulled from Consent.

Public comment was received on Items 5 and 15 from Shay Balesteri, General Employees of Monterey, who said that City employees work hard to take care of the City, and requested that the City hold off on any new spending of rainy day funds or increased use of outside vendors and contractors until negotiations with all City employee groups had been finalized.

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS, except Items 15, 17, 18, and 21:

3. March 15, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved

4. March 23, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Resolutions

5. Authorize Amendment to the Agreement for Destination Marketing and Group Sales Services with the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $989,405 to $1,800,000 Effective April 14, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-027 C.S.

6. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period April 20, 2022 through May 20, 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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-028 C.S.

7. Authorize Agreement with Infor Public Sector, Inc. and Appropriate $328,279.09 for Purchase of Infor Public Sector Suite (Hansen) Multi-year Support Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
3 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-029 C.S.

8. Amend Resolution 21-018 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the City of Salinas to Jointly Participate in a Grant to Fund Paramedic Training to Reflect the Full Grant Amount (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-030 C.S.

9. Authorize Increase of FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $8,555.70 to the Capital Project Fund, Ryan Ranch Disc Golf ADA Improvements Project ***CIP/NCIP**** (Adopted Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-031 C.S.

10. Amend Resolution 21-131 to Authorize the Deed Restriction requirement for the California State Parks’ Per Capita Grant (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-032 C.S.

11. Award a Sole Source Contract to Edges Electrical Group in the amount of $175,528.64 for the Waterfront Parking Lot Resurface/Stripe Project - Phase 2 - Marina Lot (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15302, Class 2)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-033 C.S.

12. Award a Professional Services Agreement for the Completion of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to G7ei, Inc. in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $192,000 ***CIP*** (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-034 C.S.

13. Authorize an Appropriation of Measure P/S Funds in the Amount of $1,500,000 to the Measure P Sidewalks Project Account (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-035 C.S.

14. Amend Resolution No. 22-003 to Update the MOU with MRWMD and Authorize the Finance Director to Remit CalRecycle SB1383 Local Assistance Grant Program Funds to the MRWMD for Public Education, Outreach, and Compliance Monitoring Relating to Organics Recycling and Edible Food Recovery (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-036 C.S.

15. Authorize Professional Services Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 to Provide On-Call Code Compliance Services (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-037 C.S.

Human Resources Director Hauck gave a brief verbal presentation clarifying that this action would not be any change from status quo and was not a new contract. City Manager Uslar clarified that the proposed contract was to monitor short-term rentals and that the current code compliance position was fully staffed.

Public comment was not received.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
4 On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-037 C.S. to Authorize Professional Services Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 to Provide On-Call Code Compliance Services:

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

16. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the General Plan Annual Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-038 C.S.

17. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with EMC Planning Group, Inc. and Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 Each, to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-039 C.S.

Community Development Director Cole gave a brief verbal presentation.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who shared concerns about Rincon Consultants and details of their work and contract with the City, and asked for the contract to be terminated.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-039 C.S. to Authorize Professional Services Agreements with EMC Planning Group, Inc. and Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 Each, for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities:

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

18. Appropriate $92,400 to Economic & Planning Systems to Collect Information and Prepare Research for an Economic Analysis of Housing Development for Parcels 031-191-018, 031- 191-019, 031-191-006, 031-191-016, 031-191-003, 031-191-015 and Authorize Three Month Contract Extension (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-040 C.S.

City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation.

Public comment was received from Tom Rowley, who spoke about housing issues and related impacts on public education in the area served by Foothill School.

The Council commented on the Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA) number assigned to the City. It was stated that anything the City can do to participate in compiling data to fight future penalization by the State and remove other barries to developing housing is welcome and that Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
5 housing is a priority and strategic objective of the Council. It was expressed that the City should be genuinely trying to look at how to build housing on the Fort Ord property.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-040 C.S. to Appropriate $92,400 to Economic & Planning Systems to Collect Information and Prepare Research for an Economic Analysis of Housing Development for Parcels 031-191- 018, 031-191-019, 031-191-006, 031-191-016, 031-191-003, 031-191-015:

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

19. Request Appropriation of $15,641 in Donated Funds to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Library Trust Fund Budget (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-041 C.S.

20. Approve Expenditure of $20,000 from the Monterey 250 General Fund to Reimburse the Cannery Row Business Association and the Old Monterey Foundation for the Giant Abalone Shell Artwork Project (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-042 C.S.

Other

21. Receive Informational Report about How to Participate in the Monterey Regional Compatible Use Study (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Received report
Public comment was received from Tom Rowley, who said that the study that is out for review is not user-friendly; Nina Beety and Becky Steinbruner, who asserted there was a lack of transparency from the City on the matter and cited concerns about environmental contamination and health impacts associated with military installations; and a man who identified himself as an FCC-licensed radiofrequency engineer and spoke about misconceptions about 5G technology. *** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC HEARING

22. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Regarding Police Department Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment; Approve Military Equipment Use Policy (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 , Section 15061) Action: Waived further reading and passed Ordinance to print Mayor Roberson introduced the ordinance by reading its full title. Police Chief Hober gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
6 Public comment was received from Eloise Shim, who expressed concern about procurement of military equipment as relates to citizens' 4th Amendment rights, and about interactions with the homeless community.

Police Chief Hober clarified that surveillance equipment is not included in this policy proposal except for drones. The Council praised the Monterey Police Department's participation in the Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT).

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council waived further reading and passed to print an Ordinance Regarding Police Department Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment and Approving the Military Equipment Use Policy:

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

23. Recommend that the City Council Adopt the 2022/2023 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) Action: Continued public hearing to 7 p.m.; Adopted Resolution No. 22-043 C.S.

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council continued the matter to 7 p.m.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council recessed at 5:53 p.m.

Following its continuance to 7 p.m., this matter was heard following Item 26 in the evening session. Housing Analyst Leonard gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-043 C.S. to Adopt the 2022/2023 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

24. Report on Public Banking and Receive Direction on Whether to Express Interest in Participation in Central Coast Public Banking Viability Study (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Directed staff to express interest in participating in a Central Coast public banking viability study (3-2, Councilmembers Albert and Smith voting no) This matter was heard following Item 23 in the evening session. Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from George Riley, who said that the feasibility study was intended to answer some of the opposition’s questions; Johnny Khamis, who shared concerns about how a public bank would make up for potential losses and said it was not worth pursuing a study; Lynn Hamilton, who spoke in favor of moving forward with a feasibility study and said that a public bank could work much like Central Coast Community Energy.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that risky behavior that is allowed in the private sector could and should be prohibited in a public bank. Comments were made in support of the feasibility study in order to answer questions and learn more. Comments were made in opposition of the feasibility study due to concern about placing the City's assets in a high-risk situation. It was requested to know what could be the sources of funds and collateral for public banks. It was stated that at this time, discussion about committing money to the feasibility study was not necessary at this time due to a current lack of information about the total cost or total number of participants. It was stated that expressing interest by way of a resolution would be acceptable. It was pointed out that a resolution had not been brought to the Council by staff.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Williamson, to direct staff to express interest in participating in a Central Coast public banking viability study:

Council discussed the motion. It was stated that the Council has a fiduciary responsibility to the public.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Williamson, Roberson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** RECESS
The Council recessed at 5:53 p.m. following the vote to continue Item 23 to 7:00 p.m.

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:01 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
8 *** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the full Council present with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from DeAnn Brady,

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Klein made the following report from the 3 p.m. special closed session:
cs1. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Monterey v Monterey Peninsula Airport District (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV002445) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a roll-call vote of 4-0-1 with Councilmember Haffa abstaining, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel
She said that the second matter, labor negotiations, was not heard in the afternoon.

PRESENTATIONS (EVE)

25. Recognition of April 2022 as Fair Housing Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized April 2022 as Fair Housing Month
Mayor Roberson read the proclamation.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who said that a proclamation was appreciated but more action was needed.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)

26. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards (MCC 38-112.6) (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, 15282(h) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17) Action: Waived further reading and passed Ordinance to print, with direction for staff to come back with recommendations relating to situations where an R-3 zoned property is adjacent to an R-1 zoned property, and to the parking issues highlighted by the City Attorney
Mayor Roberson introduced the ordinance by reading its full title. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received.

The Council discussed the matter and an expressed concern about what would happen in the case when an R-3 zoned property might be located next to an R-1 zoned property, which it was stated could result in a three-story building next to a single-story home. City Manager Uslar Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
9 suggested that a possible solution that he said would benefit current pending projects: passing the ordinance as proposed, while directing staff to come back with ideas to address the conflict between R-1 and R-3 zones as discussed. On question, City Attorney Davi suggested that more time would assist staff to study the suggestions and that if the Council desires changes, they could direct staff to come back with alternatives. On question, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt clarified that none of the pending projects was immediately adjacent to R-1 zoned property.

It was stated by the Council that property owners buy with knowledge about adjacent properties. It was stated by City Attorney Davi that parking issues (or lack thereof) as they relate to roof height would be a matter that staff would like time to investigate. Concern was expressed by Council about taking a path that would add restrictions to add housing units to the City. City Attorney Davi suggested that it may be possible to make a condition of approval that the garage will not subsequently converted.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Roberson, and seconded by Councilmember Albert, to waive further reading and passed to print an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City of Monterey Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards, with direction for staff to come back with recommendations relating to situations where an R-3 zoned property is adjacent to an R-1 zoned property, and to the parking issues highlighted by the City Attorney.

It was suggested by Council that one option would be restricting R-3 zoned properties adjacent to R-1 zoned properties to a height of 16 feet instead of 25. On question, City Attorney Davi confirmed that staff would bring the matter back to Council at a second reading with alternatives available. It was suggested by Council to consider adopting the ordinance fully as-is and taking up the matter of adjacent R-1 and R-3 zoned properties separately later so as not to delay any current pending projects. Following discussion about this concept, the mover indicated intention to continue with the existing motion.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

COUNCIL COMMENTS
None made.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 9:13 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
cs2. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck and Gina Russo; General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes April 19, 2022
10 Management Employees' Association (MEA), Monterey Police Association (MPA), Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA), Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA), Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA), Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action taken

ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 24 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 481 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, adding Chapter 12.8 to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code (sections 7070, et. seq.), relating to the use by California law enforcement agencies of certain equipment defined as “military equipment” under Government Code section 7070; WHEREAS, Chapter 12.8 seeks to promote transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Police Department may acquire, possess, or use certain items that qualify as “military equipment” as defined in Government Code section 7070; WHEREAS, Government Code sections 7070 and 7071 require that a law enforcement agency prepare a publicly released, written military equipment use policy covering the purposes and authorized uses, fiscal impact, applicable legal and procedural rules, required training, and applicable complaint process prior to the agency’s acquisition or use of any military equipment; WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment; WHEREAS, Government Code section 7071 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations;
WHEREAS, the proposed military equipment use policy is found within Monterey Police Department Policy 706;
WHEREAS, Monterey Police Department Policy 706 was published on the Monterey Police Department’s website on March 16, 2022, at least 30 days prior to any public hearing on the military equipment at issue;
WHEREAS, Monterey Police Department Policy 706 was presented to the City Council on April 19, 2022;
Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 2 WHEREAS, the City Council considered Monterey Police Department Policy 706 as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting, providing for public comment, on April 19, 2022;
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that:
 The military equipment is necessary, because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.  Monterey Police Department Policy 706 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
 The purchase of military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.  Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

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 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: 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.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3 is hereby added to read as follows:
“Section 27-10 Military Equipment Use Policy Adopted
Monterey Police Department Policy 706 is hereby adopted, approved, and incorporated herein by reference. Policy 706 shall be publicly available on the Monterey Police Department’s website for as long as military equipment is available for use, and proposed changes will be posted at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue.”
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 Each, to Provide On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 each, to provide on-call cultural resource preservation services.

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. Utilizing a professional services consultant for this purpose also supports the value driver to “provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.” POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding Professional Services Agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey’s Fee Schedule allows the City to charge application fees (through developer deposits) sufficient to cover the professional services required to process the applications. These deposits are collected and placed in a developer deposit fund to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work. In addition, the City may have a future project where on-call planning, economic, and environmental services are needed; for example, a General Plan update or environmental review for a City project. The City would then determine at that time which City fund would be used to cover the costs of the project. In some cases, a separate City Council action will be required to appropriate funds. Other times, this work will be covered by approved CIP or NCIP projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 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:

Council could decide that professional services are not required at this time for on-call cultural resource preservation services.

DISCUSSION:

On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services provide expertise to City staff on matters related to historic preservation and cultural resource preservation. This expertise is critical in Monterey, which has more historic buildings in its downtown than any city west of Santa Fe, and is immensely proud of its heritage and historic resources.

On January 21, 2022, staff circulated the RFP for On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s new e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and on the City’s website. By the February 22, 2022 deadline, responses were received from nine firms.

Selection of these consultants was made in accordance with the qualifications-based selection process per Section 28-30 of the City Code.

Each of the three firms selected have experience providing historic preservation consulting services in California and are familiar with Monterey. The combination of the following three firms provides the City with local representation as well as expertise in cultural resource preservation services:
 Architectural Resources Group, Inc. from San Francisco, CA  Dudek from Santa Cruz, CA
 Page & Turnbull, Inc. from San Jose, CA
Each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000.

KC/SAB
Attachments: 1. Resolution awarding contracts
e: Lisa Yerogivch, AIA LEED AP, ARG
Sarah Hahn, Project Manager, ARG
Joseph Monaco, AICP, President/CEO, Dudek
Ryan Brady, RPA, Contract Manager, Dudek
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 H. Ruth Todd, FAIA, Principal, Page &Turnbull, Inc.

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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. ____ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP INC.; DUDEK; AND PAGE & TURNBULL INC. FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000 EACH, TO PROVIDE ON-CALL CULTURAL RESOURCE

PRESERVATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to process wireless permit applications;
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2022, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s new eProcurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website; WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, responses were received from nine firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and, three firms were found to be qualified: Architectural Resources Group Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull Inc;
WHEREAS, the three firms selected have experience providing a full range of historic resources services in California and are familiar with Monterey; WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000; 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 CITY 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull Inc. to provide professional services to provide on-call cultural resources preservation services, for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 each PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 3rd day of May, 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc; and Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $700,000 Each, To Provide On-Call Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing professional services agreements with Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.; Dudek; Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems Inc.; and Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $700,000, to provide on-call planning, economic, and environmental services for the City’s Community Development Department and Public Works Department.

VALUE DRIVER:

Awarding professional services agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey Fee Schedule allows the City to charge application fees (through developer deposits) sufficient to cover the professional services required to process the applications. These deposits are collected and placed in a developer deposit fund to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work. In addition, the City may have a future project where on-call planning, economic, and environmental services are needed; for example, a General Plan update or environmental review for a City project. The City would then determine at that time which City fund would be used to cover the costs of the project. In some cases, a separate City Council action will be required to appropriate funds. Other times, this work will be covered by approved CIP or NIP projects.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 33 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide that professional services for on-call planning, economic, and environmental services are not required at this time.

DISCUSSION:

On January 31, 2022, staff circulated the RFP for On-Call Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted.

The RFP was posted through the City’s new e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the March 2, 2022 deadline, responses were received from twelve firms.

Five of the six firms selected have experience providing a full range of planning and environmental services in California and are familiar with Monterey:
 Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. from Monterey, CA
 Dudek (Santa Cruz, CA office)
 Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners from Oakland, CA  EMC Planning Group, Inc. from Monterey
 Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Monterey, CA office)
One of the four firms selected has experience providing economic development services in California and in Monterey with a particular focus on economic and market forces influencing Fort Ord redevelopment on the Monterey Peninsula.
 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. from Sacramento, CA The combination of the following six firms provides the City with expertise in on-call planning, economic, and environmental services.

Each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $700,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $500,000.

KC/SAB
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 34 Attachments: 1. Resolution awarding contracts
e: Denise Duffy, Principal-in-Charge, Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Ryan Brady, RPA, Contract Manager, Dudek
Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal, Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners David Zehnder, Economic & Planning Services, Inc.

Megan Jones, MPP, Principal-in-Charge, Rincon Consultants, Inc.

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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 35 RESOLUTION NO. ____ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH DENISE DUFFY AND ASSOCIATES, INC; DUDEK; DYETT AND BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS; EMC PLANNING, INC.; ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.; AND RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $700,000 EACH, TO PROVIDE

ON-CALL PLANNING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to process wireless permit applications;
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2022, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s new eProcurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website; WHEREAS, on March 2, 2022, responses were received from twelve firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and, six firms were found to be qualified: Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.; Dudek; Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems Inc.; and Rincon Consultants, Inc.; WHEREAS, five of the six firms (Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.; Dudek; Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning, Inc.; and Rincon Consultants, Inc.) have experience providing a full range of planning and environmental services in California and are familiar with Monterey; and one of the six firms (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc) has experience providing economic development services in California and in Monterey with a particular focus on economic and market forces influencing Fort Ord properties on the Monterey Peninsula;
WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $700,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $500,000; 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute Professional Services Agreements with Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.; Dudek; Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; and Rincon Consultants, Inc. to provide professional services to provide on-call planning, economic development, and environmental services, for a not to exceed amount of $700,000 each.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 3rd day of May, 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 37 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC Technology & Energy) for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide Engineering Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with CTC Technology & Energy for a not to exceed amount of $200,000, to provide engineering services to evaluate and process permit applications for the construction and modification of wireless facilities.

VALUE DRIVER:

Awarding Professional Services Agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s Wireless Ordinance allows the City to charge application fees (through developer deposits) sufficient to cover the professional services required to process the applications.

These deposits are collected and placed in a developer deposit fund to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 38 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:

Council could decide that professional services are not required at this time. However, the City requires peer review of RF reports to verify that projects meet federal standards. The City does not have in-house expertise to prepare or review RF reports.

DISCUSSION:

On January 26, 2022, staff circulated the RFP for Wireless Facilities On-Call Engineering Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s new e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the February 28, 2022 deadline, one response was received. Due to a lack of responses to the RFP, on March 18, 2022, staff reissued the RFP to receive a broader selection of firms to provide the desired services. By the April 15, 2022 deadline, three responses were received.

One of the engineering firms selected has experience reviewing wireless permits for compliance with applicable wireless standards (i.e., radio frequency reports) in California and is familiar with Monterey.
 CTC Technology & Energy, Kensington, Maryland
The agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000.

KC/SAB
Attachments: 1. Resolution awarding contracts
e Joanne Hovis, President, CTC Technology & Energy, Kensington, Maryland 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. ____ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COLUMBIA

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CTC ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY) FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000, TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES TO

EVALUATE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION OF

WIRELESS FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to obtain engineering expertise to evaluate wireless facility applications; WHEREAS, on January 26, 2022, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s new eProcurement Portal (OpenGov Procurement), and the City’s website; WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022, responses were received from one firm. The selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the proposal and determined to re-issue the RFP due to lack of responses to the RFP; WHEREAS, on March 18, 2022, the City reissued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to receive a broader selection of firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s new e-Procurement Portal (OpenGov Procurement), and the City’s website; WHEREAS, on April 15, 2022, responses to the reissued RFP were received from three firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and one firm was found to be qualified: CTC Energy & Technology;
WHEREAS, one of the firms has experience in reviewing RF reports and is familiar with Monterey;
WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for two additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000; 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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 40 projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC Energy & Technology), with an initial one-year term and two additional one-year options, to provide professional services to evaluate and process permit applications for the construction and modification of wireless facilities, for a not to exceed amount of $200,000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 3rd day of May, 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 41 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
SUBJECT: Approve the Annual Contribution for FY 2021/2022 to the Fisherman’s Wharf Association in the Amount of $25,607 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the annual contribution for FY 2021/2022 in the amount of $25,607 to the Fisherman’s Wharf Association.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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:

The Fisherman’s Wharf Promotion District (“FWA”) provides a mechanism for a business district to collect funds and create programs targeted to its specific needs. The City has historically provided a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for marketing and promotion expenses with an annual cap.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

With this action, the City of Monterey is providing $25,607 from the Tidelands Trust Fund for FY 2021/2022 for reimbursement of marketing and promotions expenses. This amount is included in the FY22 annual budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this matter is not a project. Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 42 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could request that more information be provided, it could decide not to donate the funds to the FWA, or it could donate a different amount.

DISCUSSION:

The FWA collects an annual assessment of 300% of the business license fee. The average amount of revenue collected annually over the past three years is approximately $163,600. The FWA continues to support the businesses on Fisherman’s Wharf by organizing, advertising, promoting and hosting various special events throughout the year. Notable annual events include Whalefest, the Fourth of July celebration, Wharf Birthday Party, Halloween on the Wharf, and Christmas on the Wharf.

The City has historically allocated approximately $25,000 to the FWA for advertising and promotions. The City’s FY22 budget has the appropriation to fund this economic development support. No additional budget allocation is necessary.

JA/ad
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Wendy Brickman, FWA
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
APPROVING THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIUON FOR FY 2021/2022 TO THE FISHERMAN’S WHARF ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,607
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey collects the Business Improvement District (BID) assessment as part of the business license collection and this money is passed directly to the District;
WHEREAS, the Fisherman’s Wharf Promotion District (FWA) collects an annual assessment of 300% of the business license fee;
WHEREAS, the three-year average of revenue collected annually is approximately $163,600;
WHEREAS, the City has historically allocated $25,000 to the FWA for advertising and promotions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this matter is not a project. Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves a contribution for FY 2021/2022 to the Fisherman’s Wharf Association in the amount of $25,607.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 44 2 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 45 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
Prepared by: Carol Hewitt, Finance Analyst
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Terminate Revenue Sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 300 David Avenue, Monterey, Effective July 1, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide notice of intent to repeal Resolutions 14,037, 14,038, 14,056 to stop revenue sharing sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 00175002000 with the City of Pacific Grove. The City provides notice of its intention to collect such taxes pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax]. The City intends to repeal those resolutions on June 21, 2022, effective July 1, 2022.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Terminating revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 300 David Avenue in Monterey would be equitable and legal because the factual basis supporting the prior revenue-sharing resolutions no longer exists. This action is also consistent with the Monterey City Code on business license tax, public utilities use tax, and sales and use tax (Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax]).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The projected revenue increase in sales and business license revenue for the City of Monterey for FY23 is estimated to be significant. Due to confidentiality requirements, specific revenue estimates are not able to be published. However, the popularity of the restaurant currently located at 300 David Avenue (First Awakenings) suggests that the business is among the top 50 sales tax generators in the City of Monterey.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 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:

Because the restaurant operating at 300 David Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue-sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove no longer exists, and therefore revenue sharing with Pacific Grove is neither equitable nor legally supportable. Therefore, no alternatives are proposed.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Since the late 1970s, the City of Monterey has maintained revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove regarding the apportionment of sales tax, business license tax, and utility user tax.

However, the restaurant operating at 300 David Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council provide notice of intent to terminate revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove.

Site Information
300 David Avenue, Monterey, is sited entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits.

Attachment 2 provides a view of the Parcel Map for this address and APN 001075002000.

First Awakenings is the restaurant currently operating at 300 David Avenue, Monterey, and it has a State of California Seller’s Permit for the Monterey location. The First Awakenings restaurant has 1,449 sq. feet of interior seating area and 1,513 sq. feet of exterior seating area, requiring 44 parking spaces. First Awakenings provides 45 parking spaces entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits.

History
On December 12, 1978, the City of Monterey conceptually approved Use Permit 78-75, with conditions held in abeyance for restaurant use (Bob’s Big Boy) at 300 David Avenue, Monterey, CA (APN 001075002000), and a certificate of occupancy was granted in August 1980.

On November 20, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,037 to share revenue generated from Bob’s Big Boy restaurant, which was to operate in the block bounded by David Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue in Monterey, and Eardley Avenue and Central Avenue in Pacific Grove. This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5319 on November 20, 1979. The apportionment was for the City of Pacific Grove to collect and retain the Business License Tax and the City of Monterey to collect and retain the Utility User Tax.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 On November 20, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,038, indicating that both cities provide municipal services to the Bob’s Big Boy restaurant and that the sales tax revenue should be apportioned 58% to the City of Monterey and 42% to the City of Pacific Grove because it was “impossible to determine the situs of sales tax generation within the restaurant.” This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5318 on November 20, 1979.

On December 18, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,056, amending Resolution 14,038, to clarify that the City of Monterey would collect revenue from the California State Board of Equalization and apportion the funds between the two cities because, according to the agenda report, “it is necessary to have one of the involved cities collect the money and physically make the distribution since the state cannot divide the funds without a vote of the electorate at a general election pursuant to Article XIII of the California Constitution.” Pacific Grove adopted Resolution 5424 on January 20, 1982, to mirror the City of Monterey’s Resolution.

California Constitution and State Law
From the time it was enacted in 1974 until it was amended in 1998, the California Constitution, Article 13, Section 29, authorized “…the Legislature to authorize cities to enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue derived from any sale or use tax imposed by them that is collected for them by the State. Before the contract becomes operative, it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary election.”
Cities must contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration or operation of sales tax pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section 7202.

The Legislature authorized, and still authorizes, cities to apportion revenue (i.e., as defined in Government Code section 55702 - Bradley Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax) from tangible personal property retail sales pursuant to Government Code section 55704. The contract, and resolutions approving the contract, are to be transmitted to the State Board of Equalization to allocate the funds pursuant to Government Code section 55706.

A revenue-sharing contract between the City of Monterey and the City of Pacific Grove was not authorized by a majority vote of the electorate in either city, or transmitted to the State Board of Equalization for allocation.

In 1998, the California Constitution was amended to allow revenue sharing contracts approved by a two-thirds vote of each affected jurisdiction’s governing body without having to go to a vote of the electorate.

Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes are allocated “to the place where the sale is deemed to take place….” For First Awakenings, the “principal negotiations are carried on” and “the order is taken” in the City of Monterey. The City of Monterey is, therefore, the place of business for purposes of Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes pursuant to 18 California Code of Regulation section 1802.

Summary
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 48 Because the restaurant operating at 300 David Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue-sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove does not exist, and therefore revenue sharing with Pacific Grove is neither equitable nor legally supportable.

City Council is asked to adopt a resolution to provide notice of its intent to repeal Resolutions 14,037, 14,038, and 14,056 at its regular meeting on June 21, 2022, with an effective date of June 30, 2022, provide notice of its intent that effective July 1, 2022, sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 00175002000 will not to be shared with the City of Pacific Grove, and shall be collected pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax], and to direct the City Clerk to send this resolution to the City of Pacific Grove, and the property owner, and the business owner for 300 David Avenue, Monterey, within three days of its passage.

RTK/ch
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. County of Monterey – Assessor’s Map View
cc: Property Owner, 300 David Ave., Monterey, CA
Business Owner, 300 David Ave., Monterey, CA
e: City of Pacific Grove, City Clerk
Stella Sandoval, Senior Accountant, City of Monterey
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 49 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE REVENUE SHARING WITH THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE FOR 300 DAVID AVENUE, MONTEREY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022 WHEREAS, On December 12, 1978, the city conceptually approved Use Permit 78-75, with conditions held in abeyance for restaurant use (Bob’s Big Boy) at 300 David Avenue, Monterey, CA (APN 001075002000), and a certificate of occupancy was granted in August 1980;
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,037 to share revenue generated from the Bob’s Big Boy restaurant which was to operate in the block bounded by David Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue in Monterey, and Eardley Avenue and Central Avenue in Pacific Grove. This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5319 on November 20, 1979. The apportionment was for the City of Pacific Grove to collect and retain the business license tax and the City of Monterey to collect and retain the utility user’s tax;
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,038, indicating that both cities provide municipal services to Bob’s Big Boy restaurant and that the sales tax revenue should be apportioned 58% to the City of Monterey and 42% to the City of Pacific Grove because it was “impossible to determine the situs of sales tax generation within the restaurant.” This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5318 on November 20, 1979;
WHEREAS, on December 18, 1979, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 14,056, amending Resolution 14,038, to clarify that the City of Monterey would collect revenue from the California State Board of Equalization and apportion the funds between the two cities because, according to the agenda report, “it is necessary to have one of the involved cities collect the money and physically make the distribution since the state cannot divide the funds without a vote of the electorate at a general election pursuant to Article XIII of the California Constitution.” Pacific Grove adopted Resolution 5424 on January 20, 1982, to mirror the City of Monterey’s Resolution;
WHEREAS, from the time it was enacted in 1974 until it was amended in 1998, the California Constitution, Article 13, Section 29, authorized “…the Legislature to authorize cities to enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue derived from any sale or use tax imposed by them that is collected for them by the State. Before the contract becomes operative, it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary election.”
WHEREAS, cities must contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration or operation of sales tax pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section 7202. The Legislature authorized, and still authorizes, cities to apportion revenue (i.e., as defined in Government Code section 55702 - Bradley Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax) from tangible personal property retail sales pursuant to Government Code section Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 50 2 55704. The contract, and resolutions approving the contract, are to be transmitted to the State Board of Equalization to allocate the funds pursuant to Government Code section 55706; WHEREAS, a revenue sharing between the City of Monterey and the City of Pacific Grove was not authorized by a majority vote of the electorate in either city, or transmitted to the State Board of Equalization for allocation;
WHEREAS, in 1998, the California Constitution was amended to allow revenue sharing contracts approved by two-thirds vote of each affected jurisdiction’s governing body without having to go to a vote of the electorate;
WHEREAS, 300 David Avenue, Monterey, is sited entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. The City of Pacific Grove has not been providing any municipal services to 300 David Avenue, Monterey;
WHEREAS, First Awakenings is the restaurant currently operating at 300 David Avenue, Monterey, and it has a State of California Seller’s Permit for the Monterey location. The First Awakenings restaurant has 1,449 sq. feet of interior seating area and 1,513 sq. feet of exterior seating area, requiring 44 parking spaces. First Awakenings provides 45 parking spaces entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits;
WHEREAS, Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes are allocated “to the place where the sale is deemed to take place….” For First Awakenings, the “principal negotiations are carried on” and “the order is taken” in the City of Monterey. The City of Monterey is therefore the place of business for purposes of Bradley-Burnes Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes pursuant to 18 California Code of Regulation section 1802; WHEREAS, because the restaurant operating at 300 David Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue-sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove no longer exists, and therefore revenue sharing with Pacific Grove is neither equitable nor legally supportable; 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:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 51 3 2. The City Council hereby provides notice of its intent to repeal Resolutions 14,037, 14,038, and 14,056 at its regular meeting on June 21, 2022, with an effective date of June 30, 2022.

3. The City Council hereby provides notice of its intent that effective July 1, 2022, sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 00175002000 will not to be shared with the City of Pacific Grove, and shall be collected pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax], as those sections may be amended or superseded.

4. The City Clerk is directed to send this Resolution to the City of Pacific Grove, and to the property owner and to the business owner for 300 David Avenue, Monterey, within three days of its passage.

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 _______, 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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 52 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
Prepared by: Carol Hewitt, Finance Analyst
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Terminate Revenue Sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, Effective July 1, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide notice of intent to repeal Resolutions 82-4 and 82-5 to stop revenue sharing sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 001014004000 with the City of Pacific Grove. Such taxes shall be collected pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax] starting July 1, 2022.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Terminating revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 902 Lighthouse Avenue in Monterey would be equitable and legal because the factual basis supporting the prior revenuesharing resolutions no longer exists and are not legally supportable. This action is also consistent with the Monterey City Code on business license tax, public utilities use tax, and sales and use tax (Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35- 40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax]).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The projected revenue increase in sales and potential utilities use tax revenue for the City of Monterey for FY23 will contribute to the City’s General Fund. Due to confidentiality requirements, specific revenue estimates are not able to be published.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 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:

Because the restaurant operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue-sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove does not exist. Therefore, no alternatives are proposed.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Since the late 1970s, the City of Monterey has maintained revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove regarding the apportionment of sales tax, business license tax, and utility user tax.

It is inequitable to continue revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove for 300 David Avenue in Monterey because the restaurant operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council provide notice of intent to terminate revenue-sharing with the City of Pacific Grove.

Site Information
The parcel for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey is sited almost entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. The City of Pacific Grove is not providing any municipal services to 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey;
Carl’s Jr. is the restaurant currently operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, and it has a State of California Seller’s Permit for the Monterey location.

History
On May 12, 1981, the city approved Use Permit 81-32, with conditions, for restaurant use (Carl’s Jr.) at 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, CA (APN 001014004000).

The City of Monterey granted a certificate of occupancy in February 1982.

On January 5, 1982, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 82-4 to share revenue generated from the Carl’s Jr. restaurant. This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5425 on January 20, 1982. The apportionment was for the City of Pacific Grove to collect and retain the utility user’s tax, and for the City of Monterey to collect and retain the business license tax for purposes of eliminating unnecessary administrative expenses.

On January 5, 1982, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 82-5, indicating that both cities provide municipal services to the Carl’s Jr. restaurant and that the sales tax revenue should be apportioned 55% to the City of Monterey and 45% to the City of Pacific Grove because it was Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55 “impossible to determine the situs of sales tax generation within the restaurant.” This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5424 on January 20, 1982.

A revenue-sharing contract between the City of Monterey and the City of Pacific Grove was not authorized by a majority vote of the electorate in either city or transmitted to the State Board of Equalization for allocation.

Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes are allocated “to the place where the sale is deemed to take place….” For Carl’s Jr., the “principal negotiations are carried on” and “the order is taken” in the City of Monterey. The restaurant is located entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. The City of Monterey is therefore the place of business for purposes of Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes pursuant to 18 California Code of Regulation section 1802.

Summary
Because the restaurant operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove does not exist, and therefore revenue sharing with Pacific Grove is neither equitable nor legally supportable.

City Council is asked to adopt a resolution to provide notice of its intent to repeal Resolutions 82-4 and 82-5 at its regular meeting on June 21, 2022, with an effective date of June 30, 2022, provides notice of its intent that effective July 1, 2022, sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 001014004000 will not to be shared with the City of Pacific Grove, and shall be collected pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax], and to direct the City Clerk to send this Resolution to the City of Pacific Grove, and to the Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 property owner and to the business owner for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, within three days of its passage.

RTK/ch
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. County of Monterey – Assessor’s Map
cc: Property Owner, 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, CA Business Owner, 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, CA
e: City of Pacific Grove, City Clerk
Stella Sandoval, Senior Accountant, City of Monterey
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 57 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19

NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE REVENUE SHARING WITH THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE FOR 902 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE, MONTEREY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022 WHEREAS, on May 12, 1981, the city approved Use Permit 81-32, with conditions, for restaurant use (Carl’s Jr.) at 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, CA (APN 001014004000); WHEREAS, the City of Monterey granted a certificate of occupancy in February 1982; WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 82-4 to share revenue generated from the Carl’s Jr. restaurant. This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5425 on January 20, 1982. The apportionment was for the City of Pacific Grove to collect and retain the utility user’s tax, and the City of Monterey to collect and retain the business license tax for purposes of eliminating unnecessary administrative expense;
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 82-5, indicating that both cities provide municipal services to the Carl’s Jr. restaurant and that the sales tax revenue should be apportioned 55% to the City of Monterey and 45% to the City of Pacific Grove because it was “impossible to determine the situs of sales tax generation within the restaurant.” This was a joint resolution with the City of Pacific Grove, which adopted Resolution 5424 on January 20, 1982;
WHEREAS, from the time it was enacted in 1974 until it was amended in 1998, the California Constitution, Article 13, Section 29, authorized “…the Legislature to authorize cities to enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue derived from any sale or use tax imposed by them that is collected for them by the State. Before the contract becomes operative, it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary election;”
WHEREAS, cities must contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration or operation of sales tax pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section 7202. The Legislature authorized, and still authorizes, cities to apportion revenue (i.e., as defined in Government Code section 55702 - Bradley Burns Unform Sales and Use Tax) from tangible personal property retail sales pursuant to Government Code section 55704. The contract, and resolutions approving the contract, are to be transmitted to the State Board of Equalization to allocate the funds pursuant to Government Code section 55706; WHEREAS, a revenue sharing contract between the City of Monterey and the City of Pacific Grove was not authorized by a majority vote of the electorate in either city, or transmitted to the State Board of Equalization for allocation;
WHEREAS, in 1998, the California Constitution was amended to allow revenue sharing contracts approved by two-thirds vote of each affected jurisdiction’s governing body without having to go to a vote of the electorate;
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 58 2 WHEREAS, the parcel for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey is sited almost entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. The City of Pacific Grove is not providing any municipal services to 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey;
WHEREAS, Carl’s Jr. is the restaurant currently operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, and it has a State of California Seller’s Permit for the Monterey location; WHEREAS, Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes are allocated “to the place where the sale is deemed to take place….” For Carl’s Jr., the “principal negotiations are carried on” and “the order is taken” in the City of Monterey. The restaurant is located entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits. The City of Monterey is therefore the place of business for purposes of Bradley-Burnes Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes pursuant to 18 California Code of Regulation section 1802;
WHEREAS, because the restaurant operating at 902 Lighthouse Avenue is entirely within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the factual basis supporting the prior revenue sharing joint resolutions with the City of Pacific Grove no longer exists, and therefore revenue sharing with Pacific Grove is neither equitable nor legally supportable; 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:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The City Council hereby provides notice of its intent to repeal Resolutions 82-4 and 82-5 at its regular meeting on June 21, 2022, with an effective date of June 30, 2022.

3. The City Council hereby provides notice of its intent that effective July 1, 2022, sales tax, business license tax, and utility user’s taxes generated from APN 001014004000 will not to be shared with the City of Pacific Grove, and shall be collected pursuant to Monterey City Code sections 19-4 et seq. [business license tax], Section 35-40 et seq. [Public Utilities Use Tax], Section 35-3 et seq. [sales and use tax], as those sections may be amended or superseded.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 59 3 4. The City Clerk is directed to send this Resolution to the City of Pacific Grove, and to the property owner and to the business owner for 902 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, within three days of its passage.

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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 60

PARCEL OU EST
SCALE: 1 IN.=1OO FT.
6-74 ,,
0 t.) �
f;: ::J
C � t :::,
E-..
0 t1
•
6-23

71. / / / /
/ / / / /
,, ,, ,, / c/ ,, ,,
/ / /
,, ,,
/
/
/
,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,,
,, ,, / ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
,, ,, ,, ,,
134.3 6' 54.36
·o
� - 0
� 13
3 WORK

TAX CODE AREA

MONTEREY
,--------------7
BAY I

50.0 50.0
11 ,, " I -'2,
,, ,, / 4,, I " ,, 8,,
,,
I ,, 6 ,, I ,, , ,1 ,,
/ .,( ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 0
/ " } " I ,, ,,g �4 ® oi
_, I ,, ,, I ,1 / ,, -\:!,)
,, Y ,, 1" ✓ I,,
"
,,"I
,,"
,,1 ,," y" ,,"

25.0 25.0
16 : 14 I 12

CANNERY
I
I '----, :@
I Retail I
1Space A 1
ROW
.0 1 0.0 62.0±
7 8
0: I

50.0 @
5 3

50.0 6 4
®
0 ici CX)

75.0 /1i\l o
@: �

37.50 3 .50 40.56
®© I
5 3
I �
:r7"
<rc&
I��
:®
C!,
z
> 0
� ui - CX)

50.0 18
10p.o
0: I
•

50.0 50.0
16 14
I I I
I I I

WAVE ST

50.0 17 I 15 13
0 1
� 12 6 <=!18 I 16 I 14
I @:

50.0 50.0 50.0
<O Ul
I
@:

I
I
163.16

FOAM ST
10 8
0�
1 2

50.0 1qo.o
10 I 8
®: 13
150.0

60.0 8
®

TRACT HERRMANN SURVEY
LOTS 8, C BLOCKS 1 ,2,3 12, 13, 14
07 THIS MAP IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY
6 ®
6 5
6 4
0 200.0
126.0
l�I e,
3 150.0
4 150.0

90.0 4
I
:@
1 2
1 50.0
2 0
,rj CX)
0 ,rj (0
0 0
®�
E-t
E-t
0 u
r:n
�
�
i:l.t
UNTY
AS
BOOK 1
®
240.0

OF MONTEREY

OR'S MAP
GE 01
0 0 ,-
02 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 61 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared by: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 2
nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards (MCC 38-112.6) (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, 15282(h) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment to regulations for accessory dwelling units as proposed.

VALUE DRIVER:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region. The Council embraces efforts that provide equitable access to affordable housing, including balanced approaches to increase housing supply, rental resources and assistance, and housing rehabilitation grants to homeless, low-income, senior and disabled individuals.

One of the City’s strategic priorities is to “support affordable housing through modern zoning policies/ordinances, ADU policies, housing grants, review of density requirements, and consideration of City-owned sites for affordable housing.” POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Section 65852.2 of the Government Code does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Construction of accessory dwelling units may affect property taxes.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey has determined that the adoption of these provisions is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and by CEQA Guidelines Article 18, Section 15282.h, because it is the adoption of an ordinance by a city to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The purpose of the meeting is to consider proposed amendments to existing regulations for accessory dwelling units. Although the first reading of the ordinance passed, the City Council requested the opportunity to review alternative language to consider limiting potential impacts to R-1 zoned lots and to prohibit future garage conversions for habitation. Staff’s findings are discussed below.

Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 62 DISCUSSION:

On April 19, 2022, the City Council considered the following amendments to the City’s ADU ordinance:
 Allow ADUs to be constructed above carports in the R-3 zone. On November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3641, which allowed ADUs to be constructed above garages. The amendment currently before the City Council adds carports and increases the height to 25 feet with Architectural Review Committee (ARC) discretionary review and approval;
 Expand current development standard exemptions (for lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, size) for 800 square-foot ADUs exceeding 16 feet (up to 25 feet) in the R-3 zone. Current requirements limit exemptions for ADUs up to 16 feet in height;  Clarify requirements for historically designated properties;  Allow a process for ARC to review alternative roof pitch and form; and,  Clarify sewer lateral requirements.

The Council requested staff to explore alternatives that would limit the impacts of tall (up to 25 feet building height) ADU additions above garages, carports, or other residential buildings in the R-3 zone, specifically near neighboring single-family zoned (R-1) lots. Note that, under the current ADU ordinance, some lots are already able to be developed with 25-foot tall ADU additions, as close at 4 feet to rear and side lot lines.

Staff prepared a GIS map (Attachment 4) to analyze the geographic relationship between R-1 and R-3 zoned lots. Of the nearly 4,400 R-1 zoned lots, 140 lots (~3%) share property lines with R-3 lots and about another 140 R-1 lots are located across the street from R-3 lots (note: Staff selected R-1 lots within 60 feet of R-3 lots, except for lots with shared lot lines).

Staff considered development standards that would apply to ADUs on R-3 lots directly adjacent to, or across the street from, single family zoned R-1 lots. Staff has concluded that imposing alternative standards such as greater setbacks from R-1 zoned lots, or increased floor area ratio or lot coverage requirements for R-3 lots near R-1 lots, is probably not necessary given the fact that any proposed project would be required to have story poles show the roof height and the ARC’s discretionary review and approval at a public meeting with notice to properties within 100 feet of the project site. Additionally, the State legislation limits the City’s ability to impose setbacks greater than 4 feet from side or rear lot lines.

The following could be added to the draft Section 38-112.6(2)(d)(ii):
(6) the R-3 parcel does not share property lines with an R-1 parcel. (7) the R-3 parcel is located within 60 feet of an R-1 parcel.

Another approach is to repeal the current ADU ordinance allowance to develop ADUs up to 25 feet in the R-3 zone in an effort to limit height and massing impacts to R-1 zoned lots.

The Council also mentioned exploring a new restriction that if an ADU is developed above a carport or garage that the City should deed restrict the parking to be kept in perpetuity. The premise is that if the City is approving the additional ADU height to preserve parking that a regulation should be developed to ensure the parking is preserved. The efficacy of a deed restriction is questionable as explained below.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 63 If the property contains a single family home on a R-3 parcel, only one ADU would be allowed on site. If a garage is attached to the single family home, a Junior ADU (JADU) can be developed in the garage in addition to an ADU above the garage, however replacement parking could be required because the JADU is responsible for the removal of parking.

If the property contains multifamily units, the City limits the number of ADUs to one ADU per lot unless the ADUs are developed within existing space (including garages) or two new detached ADUs. The City’s zoning allows for new construction above the garage regardless of the ADU ordinance, therefore, an owner could develop more “existing space” above the garage and convert both the above space and the garage. This addition would be subject to the City’s typical development standards (i.e. no exemptions to setbacks, floor area, lot coverage, open space or other that may be applicable to ADUs) and review processes for additions above the first story.

The following could be added to the ordinance Section 38-112.6(2)(d)(ii) (6) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall prohibit use of the garage as habitable space.

Conclusion
Staff’s recommendation is approval of the proposed ordinance as drafted and set forth in Attachment 1.

KC/CS
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City of Monterey Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units

2. Draft Ordinance Amendment Text with Strikethrough/Underline

3. Public Comments from Sharon Dwight and Nancy/Gari Soule

4. R-1/R-3 Zoned Lot ADU Study
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 64 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AMENDING CHAPTER 38 OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY CODE
RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (MCC SEC. 38-112.6) WHEREAS, California is experiencing a housing crisis, with housing demands outstripping supply. The California State Legislature brought forward several bills in 2019 relating to the planning and permitting of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to address the housing supply crisis. In October 2019, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 68, AB 881, and Senate Bill (SB) 13. Additionally, AB 68 amended standards for Junior ADUs (JADUs), and SB 13 made additions to the State Health and Safety Code (added new Section 17980.12).

The new laws took effect on January 1, 2020;
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 require cities to adopt ADU zoning regulations consistent with the new state law. In the absence of a valid local ordinance, the new state law provides a set of default standards governing local agencies’ regulation and approval of ADUs;
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3641, to amend the City Code to include ADU zoning regulations consistent with Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22;
WHEREAS, City staff has identified opportunities to clarify the ADU zoning regulations and to allow development standard exemptions for ADUs up to 25’ that are constructed above garages and carports;
WHEREAS, ADUs may share a sewer lateral line with the main residence as long as the sewer lateral meets City standards and specifications, at a substantially reduced cost; WHEREAS, the 2015-2023 Housing Element Goal b is to broaden the choice of rental housing types available to residents of Monterey in all price ranges and for all family sizes while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and, where possible, using second units to encourage owner opportunities;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the amendment is consistent with the purposes of the General Plan, the purposes of the Municipal Code, and other applicable City ordinances;
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendments;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly public hearing on April 19, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey City Council has determined that the adoption of those provisions is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 65 2 provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and by CEQA Guidelines Article 18, Section 15282.h, because it is the adoption of an ordinance by a city to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. 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.

SECTION 2. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(d)(ii), Second Story Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Above Garage is hereby amended to read as follows:
ii. Second Story Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Above Garage or Carport. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit exceeds the maximum permitted height set forth in subsection (2)(d)(i) above, the applicant may apply for an exception through the discretionary architectural review process pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 38, Article 25 if:
(1) The total height of the building, as defined in Section 38-11 (Height, Building), is 25 feet or less;
(2) The parcel is within the R-3 zone;
(3) The garage or carport is at the ground level
(4) No windows or openings are permitted for that portion of the building that is closer than four feet to a property line; and
(5) Any window parallel to an adjoining property line and closer than 10 feet shall be either:
a. Opaque and inoperable; or
b. Clerestory windows with a minimum height no less than six feet above floor level.

SECTION 3. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(e) is hereby amended to read as follows:
e. Limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and size must permit or shall be waived to allow a detached or attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, with a maximum floor area of 800 square feet, maximum height of 25 feet, and minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks, if the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is in compliance with all other development standards, including but not limited to front yard setbacks.

SECTION 4. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(h), Historic Review is hereby amended to delete the heading “Historic Review” and replace it with the heading “Properties with Historic Overlay Zoning or Historic Zoning.” The remainder of the subsection remains unchanged.

SECTION 5. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(3)(b), Roof Pitch is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. Roof Pitch. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall match the roof pitch and roof form of the primary dwelling in order to blend with the architecture of the primary dwelling. The applicant may apply for an exception through the discretionary architectural review process pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 38, Article 25. The Architectural Review Committee may grant such an exception if it finds that an alternative roof pitch and form design are compatible with the primary structure and neighborhood.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 66 3 SECTION 6. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(5)(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Except as provided in subsection (5)(b), below, an accessory dwelling unit shall provide a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility, unless the applicant has obtained a sewer lateral inspection performed by a licensed plumber which demonstrating that the sewer lateral meets the City’s standards and specifications. Proof that the sewer later meets the City’s requirements shall be submitted on a sewer lateral inspection form provided by the City and completed by the professional who completed the inspection. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water submeters shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit, except that separate water meters shall be required for accessory dwelling units if and when California American Water is allowed to connect new water meters.

SECTION 7. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(6)(a)(iii) is hereby amended to read as follows:
iii. The applicant requests discretionary architectural review for an accessory dwelling unit more than 16 feet high and/or for alternative roof pitch/form, as provided in Section 112- 6(2)(d)(ii) or (6)(3)(b), above.

SECTION 8. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

SECTION 11. Publication. Pursuant to Charter section 4.4, this ordinance shall be published in the Monterey County Herald, a newspaper printed and published in the County of Monterey, at least three days before its adoption.

SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall send a copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption, as required by State law.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 67 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of _____, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 68 ATTACHMENT 2
1 DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WITH STRIKETHROUGH/UNDERLINE SECTION 2. Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(d)(ii), Second Story Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Above Garage is hereby amended to read as follows:
ii. Second Story Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Above Garage or Carport. If an Accessory Dwelling Unit exceeds the maximum permitted height set forth in subsection (2)(d)(i) above, the applicant may apply for an exception through the discretionary architectural review process pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 38, Article 25 if:
(1) The total height of the building, as defined in Section 38-11 (Height, Building), is 25 feet or less;
(2) The parcel is within the R-3 zone;
(3) The garage or carport is at the ground level
(4) No windows or openings are permitted for that portion of the building that is closer than four feet to a property line; and
(5) Any window parallel to an adjoining property line and closer than 10 feet shall be either:
a. Opaque and inoperable; or
b. Clerestory windows with a minimum height no less than six feet above floor level.

SECTION 3 Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(e) is hereby amended to read as follows:
e. Limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and size must permit or shall be waived to allow an 800 square foot a detached or attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, with a maximum floor area of 800 square feet, maximum height of 16 25 feet, and high with minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks, if the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is in compliance with all other development standards, including but not limited to front yard setbacks.

SECTION 4 Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(2)(h), Historic Review is hereby amended to delete the heading “Historic Review” and replace it with the heading “Historically Zoned.” The remainder of the subsection remains unchanged.

SECTION 5 Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(3)(b), Roof Pitch is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. Roof Pitch. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall match the roof pitch and roof form of the primary dwelling in order to blend with the architecture of the primary dwelling. The applicant may apply for an exception through the discretionary architectural review process pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 38, Article 25. The Architectural Review Committee may grant such an exception if it finds that an alternative roof pitch and form design are compatible with the primary structure and neighborhood.

SECTION 6 Monterey City Code, Section 38-112.6(5)(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Except as provided in subsection (5)(bd), below, of this section, an accessory dwelling unit may be required to have shall provide a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility, unless the Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 69 ATTACHMENT 2
2 applicant has obtained a sewer lateral inspection performed by a licensed plumber demonstrating that the sewer lateral meets the City’s standards and specifications. Proof that the sewer later meets the City’s requirements shall be submitted on a sewer lateral inspection form provided by the City and completed by the professional who completed the inspection. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water submeters shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit, except that separate water meters shall be required for accessory dwelling units if and when California American Water is allowed to connect new water meters.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 70

SHARON DWIGHT
Monterey, CA 93940
March 5, 2022
Planning Commission
City Hall
Monterey, California 93940
Dear Planning Commissioners:

As a long-time resident of Monterey, involved for many years in helping to develop city policy that protects neighborhood context, I am concerned that the proposed amendments are abandoning what little local design control is left to us by the State.
1) I am concerned with the potential visual effect of allowing 25’ height atop carports or garages close to the street.

New Monterey Area Plan and the City’s Single-Family Design Guidelines directed that two-story elements be set back from the front wall of the building to retain pedestrian scale of architecture. If the carport or garage upon which the ADU is proposed to be constructed is positioned at the front of the property, is this policy not allowing the two-story element to defy the architectural principle we adopted for our city? I believe location of the carport or garage matters. I oppose such a change at the front of a property. Architecturally, it will loom over the street and be out of character with the built environment.

Let us not forget that much of our city is built on hillsides. Not all ADUs will be built on flat lots. 2) Allowing roof design that differs from that of the existing structure is also a slippery slope.

I immediately think of an ADU constructed in Pacific Grove that is behind a charming house – the new unit is a two-story box with flat roof. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original house and is an aberration in the neighborhood.

There needs to be guidance in our policy.
3) As you consider amendments to the ADU ordinance, I request that you also incorporate language that requires notification to adjacent properties, informing them of the addition of an ADU on the property.

So far, creation of some ADUs may be reviewed and approved by staff without requiring disclosure to neighbors and the community. The staff report for ARC review of an ADU does not always disclose that an ADU is being constructed within a ‘remodel.’
When our local government is discussing legalizing an intensification of use on a property, an increase of density on the block, near-by owners who have invested significant funds to purchase properties deserve to know of the change. It is a courtesy. It is expected that our city would not keep secret a legally-required development review from its citizens.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Sharon Dwight
Monterey Resident
3-8-22
Agenda
Item 3.

Consider Recommending an Ordinance Amendment to the City Council Amending Chapter 38 of the City of Monterey Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards (MCC 38-112.6) (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, 15282(h) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17) ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 71 1 Oncall Planning
From: Nancy Soulé < >
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 3:54 PM
To: Oncall Planning
Cc: Gari Soulé
Subject: Planning Meeting March 8, 2022 - ADUs
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] While we understand the reasons for considering an extension of height above garages and carports to accommodate parking needs, the proposed wording in section 38-112.6(2)(e) should therefore allow the increase in height and floor area of 800 square feet to only be allowed when above an existing or new garage or carport, therefore insuring that the intent to preserve parking is actually part of the new code. Parking issues are already extremely impacted in the R1-3 neighborhoods. We must ensure that parking is included when we allow further height considerations. We strongly recommend the section should read:
"Limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and size must permit or shall be waived to allow a detached or attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, with a maximum floor area of 800 square feet, maximum height of 25 feet, minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks, only in cases where the ADU is built above a new or existing garage or carport, does not eliminate the parking space, and if the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is in compliance with all other development standards, including but not limited to front yard setbacks." Additionally, when reviewing the proposals, I hope the planning commission does ensure that the size and height do not block views and is compatible with the neighboring properties.

Thank you for considering this and your hard work for our community.

Nancy and Gari Soulé
Monterey, CA 93940

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 72 Legend
R-1 Lots
R-3 Lots
R-1 Lots Adjacent to R-3 Lots
R-1 Lots Across Streets from R-3 Lots
R-1/R-3 Zoned Lot ADU Study
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 73 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared by: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 Section 38-15 to Establish a Bicycle/Equipment Rentals Use Classification and Section 38-44 to Add Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as a Principally Permitted Use in the Open Space Zoning District and Adopt Resolutions Amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan to Allow Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as a Principally Permitted Use; Applicants Mark Marquez and Joaquin Sullivan; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance amending Monterey City Code (MCC) sections 38-15 and 38-44, and adopt resolutions amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan to add bicycle/equipment rentals as a principally permitted land use.

VALUE DRIVERS:

The amendments would align with the City’s established Value Drivers, including:

Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety initiatives.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Approval of a use permit would not be required for bicycle/equipment rentals in an Open Space zone or in the Downtown and Lighthouse specific plan areas. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the definition of bicycle/equipment rentals specifically excludes Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 312.5.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct fiscal implications to or from the City through approval of the application.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance and specific plan amendments to allow bicycle/equipment Date: 5/3/2022
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 74 rentals in zones with existing recreational uses or developed commercial areas, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. 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 an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because bicycle/equipment rentals would occur from existing buildings. If a new building was proposed, it would undergo its own environmental review.

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. No cumulative impact would occur because allowing limited bicycle/equipment rentals from existing developed property would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns.

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. There are no unusual circumstances with this project due to its limited scope. Therefore, no significant effect would occur.

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 project is purely a zoning amendment, which would not damage scenic resources. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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 project is purely a zoning amendment. Therefore, impacts to hazardous waste sites would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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. The project is purely a zoning amendment. Therefore, impacts to historic resources would not occur as existing buildings are re-utilized for a new purpose. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The purpose of the meeting is to consider the application for proposed amendments regarding bicycle/equipment rentals.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 75 DISCUSSION:

Mark Marquez from Epicenter Cycling and Joaquin Sullivan from Big Sur Adventures jointly applied for this amendment. Epicenter Cycling, located at 230 Lighthouse Avenue, is an existing business with inventory and business space to support bicycle rental uses. 230 Lighthouse Avenue is located within the Lighthouse Specific Plan area. Big Sur Adventures does not yet have a location but is primarily looking at a City-owned site located at 401 Camino El Estero, which is zoned Open Space “O” District. If the 401 Camino El Estero location becomes infeasible, Big Sur Adventures would like to pursue another presently-unknown site within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Existing bicycle rental shops are located in zoning districts that allow hotel accessory uses (VAF zoning – 210 Alvarado Street), have obtained Use Permits (685 Cannery Row), or were established prior to current zoning standards (299 Cannery Row).

The applicants state a need for allowing bicycle rental uses, specifically within the Open Space Zoning District, Lighthouse Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan areas.

The Open Space Zoning District allows for “Commercial Recreation and Entertainment” with a Use Permit, though the uses included under this designation (roller rink, bowling alley, etc.) do not include the rental of any equipment that may be taken offsite. The Lighthouse Specific Plan (pg. 105) allows “Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental” and “Outdoor Sales” through a Use Permit process; however, these use classifications do not allow for bicycle rentals from an existing structure. The Downtown Specific Plan allows “Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental” and “Outdoor Sales” through the Use Permit process in the Pearl District; however, bicycle rentals from an existing structure are not allowed.

The proposed ordinance and specific plan amendments include updating the list of principally permitted uses to include bicycle/equipment rentals. The ordinance would specifically include amendments to MCC sections 38-15 (Commercial Use Classifications) and 38-44 (Land Use Regulations for the Open Space District), the Lighthouse Specific Plan, and the Downtown Specific Plan. As proposed, the bicycle/equipment rentals use would be limited in scope, in that it would be focused entirely on bicycles and electric bicycles, including the use of associated equipment, such as helmets and gloves, along with repair and maintenance of the rental fleet.

The amendments would not allow the rental of other modes of transport such as scooters or quadricycles/surreys. Finally, the amendments would restrict the storage and advertisement of bicycle rental locations to the interior of the existing structures, unless a sign permit is obtained for outdoor displays.

MCC Section 38-195(B) states, “Amendments to the zoning regulations shall be initiated by motion of the City Council or the Planning Commission, action of the Public Works Director, or by application of any resident, property owner or business owner in the city.” This application was initiated by business owners within the City and is consistent with this standard.

MCC Section 38-198(B) details that specific findings must be made by the Commission to determine whether the proposed zoning regulation amendments are consistent with the policies Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 76 and purpose of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the associated Specific Plans and zoning districts which govern development and uses throughout the City.

Both the Lighthouse Specific Plan (pgs. 97-98) and Downtown Specific Plan (pgs. 259-260) state that their purpose is to streamline the approval process for development within the Specific Plan areas. The Lighthouse and Downtown Specific Plans state that over time sections of the Specific Plan may need to be revised, and the revisions must be consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. Amendments to the Specific Plans that involve changes to the permitted uses (such as the proposed amendments), are considered significant revisions that require approval by the City Council.

The following discussion addresses the purposes of each of these governing documents. Some language has been excerpted or summarized for clarity:

The City of Monterey General Plan/Circulation Element specifies that the City shall:

Goal d: Promote a pedestrian/bicycle-friendly environment where public spaces, streets, and off-street paths offer a level of convenience, safety, and attractiveness that encourage and reward the use of alternative modes of transportation.

Policy d.1: Build on the success of the Recreation Trail to make walking and bicycling through Monterey safe and enjoyable.

Program d.1.1: Implement and maintain the continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways specified in the City's Bikeways Plan to provide a viable alternative to making short vehicle trips.

Policy d.8: Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities that provide a viable alternative to auto travel into and throughout the city.

The amendments would align with the City’s Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) initiative, including its intent to reduce and prevent obesity by engaging municipal leaders to champion healthy eating and active living in their communities through adoption of policy and promotion of opportunities for residents and municipal employees.

Expanding access to bicycles in our community would meet our City's General Plan vision of a community that supports multiple transportation choices.

Open Space (O) Zoning District
The specific purposes of the O Zoning District are defined by MCC Section 38-42, to (a) “Provide a suitable classification for large public or private sites permanently designated for open space use or currently in an open space use”, and to (b) “Protect public health and safety by limiting lands subject to flooding, slides, or other hazards to open space use.” Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 77 The amendments would facilitate access to the City’s existing open space areas and trails via the use of bicycles. The ordinance would provide another form of recreation for those that currently use the City’s open space areas and enable those that cannot or will not own a bicycle to rent a bicycle and use the City’s existing open space areas. The ordinance does not require use-specific parking requirements as people currently travel to open space areas for similar recreational opportunities using existing parking provided throughout the City’s open space areas. The amendments would not increase the area of lands subject to flooding, slides, or other hazards that may affect public health or safety.

Lighthouse Specific Plan
Policies within the Lighthouse Specific Plan that address bicycles, rental, and business uses include Policy G.2.20, which states, “Enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections wherever feasible”.

The proposed amendments facilitate the use of bicycles. Circulation, Parking, and Streetscape objectives include creating bicycle access and improving bicycle parking. The amendments would increase bicycle access in the City. Furthermore, the amendments would facilitate access to the City’s existing bicycle circulation pathways highlighted within the Lighthouse Specific Plan area, including the Recreation Trail, Wave Street, and Laine Street.

Downtown Specific Plan
Policies within the Downtown Specific Plan that address bicycles, rental, and business uses include the following.

Downtown Specific Plan Goal 1.c states, “Develop and implement pedestrian, transit (bus, trolley and shuttle), and bicycle friendly strategies which will encourage people to get out of their cars and walk the Downtown after parking in parking structures around the periphery of the Downtown.” The proposed amendments would increase the use of bicycles and encourage visitors to use bicycles in the Downtown area. Policy G.2.20 states, “Enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections wherever feasible.” The amendments facilitate the use of bicycles. Goal 3.a states, “Develop and define an inventory of desirable and high quality business activities which are compatible with the Vision and which will attract visitors and encourage pedestrians to use the Downtown.” The proposed amendments would enable new business opportunities within the Downtown area that would encourage multi-modal travel. Finally, the Downtown Specific Plan notes that, “several recreational-oriented businesses have opened adjacent to the Monterey Sports Center and Jacks Park. There are additional business opportunities that could capitalize on the local, regional, and national events.” The amendments would further diversify the types of downtown businesses and support bicycles as a recreational opportunity in the downtown area.

Electric Bicycles
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 78 The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on March 8, 2022 and April 12, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the proposed amendments for bicycle/equipment rentals as a principally permitted use as a recommendation to the City Council. Concerns were raised regarding the use of bicycles on the Recreation Trail, specifically unsafe riding and bicycles that can travel at higher speeds. Staff provided additional information at the April 12, 2022 hearing on electric bicycles and considered limitations on electric bicycles that are capable of being propelled at higher speeds. The typical bicycle rider can accelerate up to approximately 20 miles per hour, and per state law (California Vehicle Code Section 312.5) electric bicycles that reach no greater than 20 miles per hour are considered “low-speed”; as such, bicycle speeds greater than 20 miles per hour were considered a higher speed.

California Vehicle Code Section 312.5 defines electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. In California, electric bicycles are required to display a prominent label that describes the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle. Electric bicycles are further subdivided into Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 bicycles, as defined below.  Class 1 “Low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle”: A bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.  Class 2 “Low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle”: A bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.  Class 3 “Speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle”: A bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.

Class 3 electric bicycles are prohibited from use on Class I or Class IV bikeways, which includes the Recreational Trail and the North Fremont Median Bike Lanes. Bikeway transportation facility classifications include Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV bikeways. Class I bikeways are shared-use and separated from main roadways, and includes the Monterey Recreational Trail.

Class IV bikeways are similarly separated from main roadways though are exclusively intended for use by bicycles, and includes the North Fremont Median Bike Lanes. Pamphlets with this information are currently distributed to bicycle rental businesses within the City.

At the April 12, 2022 hearing, concerns were raised regarding Class 2 electric bicycles.

Specifically, the exclusive use of a throttle to propel a bicycle results in a different perception of riding a bicycle. This different perception can cause unsafe riding that increases the potential for safety hazards on shared bikeways with pedestrians.

Following these discussions, both Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles are not included in the proposed amendments. To adopt the amendments that would allow for bicycle/equipment Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 79 rentals in each respective area, specifically excluding Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, approval by the City Council is required.

The amendments would diversify the types of businesses in the City and support bicycles as a recreational opportunity. Excluding Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles would reduce the potential for illegal riding on Class I bikeways such as the Monterey Recreational Trail, and would otherwise alleviate potential safety concerns due to the higher maximum speed of Class 3 electric bicycles and different riding style of Class 2 electric bicycles.

Conclusion
Staff’s recommends the City Council introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance amending Monterey City Code (MCC) sections 38-15 and 38-44, and adopt resolutions amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan to add bicycle/equipment rentals as a principally permitted land use.

KC/mb
Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Monterey City Code Section 38-15 to Establish a Bicycle/Equipment Rentals Use Classification and Section 38-44 to Add Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as a Principally Permitted Use in the O District

2. Resolution Amending the Downtown Specific Plan to Create a Bicycle/Equipment Rentals Definition and Allow Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as Principally Permitted in all Downtown Specific Plan Districts

3. Resolution Amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan to Create a Bicycle/Equipment Rentals Definition and Allow Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as Principally Permitted in all Lighthouse Specific Plan Districts e: Project Applicant, Mark Marquez
Project Applicant, Joaquin Sullivan
Michelle Knight
Kyle Wareham, Adventures by the Sea
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, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 80 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 38-15 TO ESTABLISH A BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT RENTALS USE CLASSIFICATION AND SECTION 38-44 TO ADD

BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT RENTALS AS A PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE O

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

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Bicycle/Equipment Rentals, as defined below, is a recreational use that fits well with the Open Space District objectives;
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to provide a suitable classification for large public or private sites permanently designated for open space use or currently in an open space use, and to protect public health and safety by limiting lands subject to flooding, slides, or other hazards to open space use; WHEREAS, the ordinance amendments would facilitate access to the City’s existing open space areas and trails via the use of bicycles. The ordinance would provide another form of recreation for those that currently use the City’s open space areas, and enable those that cannot or will not own a bike to rent a bike and use the City’s existing open space areas. The ordinance amendments would not increase the area of lands subject to flooding, slides, or other hazards that may affect public health or safety;
WHEREAS, the ordinance is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element goals, policies, and programs, including:

Policy d.1: Build on the success of the Recreation Trail to make walking and bicycling through Monterey safe and enjoyable.

Program d.1.1: Implement and maintain the continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways specified in the City's Bikeways Plan to provide a viable alternative to making short vehicle trips.

Policy d.8: Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities that provide a viable alternative to auto travel into and throughout the city; WHEREAS, expanding access to bicycles in our community would meet our City's General Plan vision of a community that supports multiple transportation choices; Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 81 2 WHEREAS, the ordinance would align with the City’s established Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities, including:

Quality of Life Strategic Priority: Foster opportunities for the public to stay physically and mentally active through activities and services in our parks, trails, beaches, campgrounds, sports center, and community centers.

Active Mobility Value Driver: Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety features; WHEREAS, the ordinance would align with the City’s Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) program, including its intent to reduce and prevent obesity by engaging municipal leaders to champion healthy eating and active living in their communities through adoption of policy and promotion of opportunities for residents and municipal employees; WHEREAS, Bicycle/Equipment Rentals would not create any significant negative impacts to adjacent uses, Open Space Districts, or surrounding residential districts; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2022, took public testimony, held a discussion, considered the proposed amendment as a recommendation to the City Council, and directed City staff to consider limitations on higher-speed electric bicycles due to safety concerns and public comment; WHEREAS, electric bicycles are categorized into three general types, including Class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 provides pedal assistance up to 20 miles per hour; Class 2 provides throttle assistance up to 20 miles per hour, and Class 3 provides pedal assistance up to 28 miles per hour;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles would not be principally permitted to be rented due to the following reasons. The throttle assist provided by Class 2 electric bicycles would provide a different sensation that may result in unsafe driving on the City’s bikeways that are shared with pedestrians. The higher speed Class 3 electric bicycles are not allowed on the Recreation Trail and renting these types of electric bicycles within the City would result in a higher potential for unsafe riding; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2022, took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to recommend City Council adoption of the Zoning Ordinance amendment with revisions;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance and specific plan amendments to allow bicycle/equipment rentals in zones with existing recreational uses or developed commercial areas, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. 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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 9, Packet Page 82 considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because bicycle/equipment rentals would occur from existing buildings. If a new building was proposed, it would undergo its own environmental review.

SECTION 2: 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.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 15 is hereby amended to read as follows:
38-15 Commercial Use Classifications
OO. Bicycle/Equipment Rentals. Rental of bicycles, electric bicycles, and associated equipment (e.g., helmets, bike gloves, etc.), including storage and repairs. A bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels, propelled by human power through a system of belts, chain, or Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 10, Packet Page 83 4 gears. This definition excludes scooters and quadricycles/surreys. For purposes of this Use Classification, the term “electric bicycle” encompasses Class 1 electric bicycles only, and does not include Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, as these classes are defined under California Vehicle Code section 312.5.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 44 is hereby amended to read as follows:
38-44 O Open Space District

O DISTRICTS LAND USE REGULATIONS
Bicycle/Equipment Rentals P See Note 8
Notes:
8 No parking spaces are required.

SECTION 5: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 6: 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 _____, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 11, Packet Page 84 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREATE A BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT

RENTALS DEFINITION AND ALLOW BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT RENTALS AS PRINCIPALLY

PERMITTED IN ALL DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 2013, establishes use and design standards and guidelines for development in the downtown area, WHEREAS, the specific plan area is divided into distinct character areas (districts), each with distinct goals and objectives for future development, WHEREAS, the applicant desires to use property in the Downtown Specific Plan Planning Area for a bicycle rental business,
WHEREAS, the Downtown Specific Plan does not explicitly permit such use, and the applicant has applied for a specific plan amendment that would allow the use, WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element goals, policies, and programs, including:

Policy d.1: Build on the success of the Recreation Trail to make walking and bicycling through Monterey safe and enjoyable.

Program d.1.1: Implement and maintain the continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways specified in the City's Bikeways Plan to provide a viable alternative to making short vehicle trips.

Policy d.8: Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities that provide a viable alternative to auto travel into and throughout the city; WHEREAS, expanding access to bicycles in our community would meet our City's General Plan vision of a community that supports multiple transportation choices, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Specific Plan vision for multi-modal transportation,
WHEREAS, the ordinance would align with the City’s established Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities, including:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 12, Packet Page 85 2 Quality of Life Strategic Priority: Foster opportunities for the public to stay physically and mentally active through activities and services in our parks, trails, beaches, campgrounds, sports center, and community centers.

Active Mobility Value Driver: Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety features, WHEREAS, the ordinance would align with the City’s Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) program, including its intent to reduce and prevent obesity by engaging municipal leaders to champion healthy eating and active living in their communities through adoption of policy and promotion of opportunities for residents and municipal employees, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the proposed amendment as a recommendation to the City Council, and directed City staff to consider limitations on higher-speed electric bicycles due to safety concerns and public comment,
WHEREAS, electric bicycles are categorized into three general types, including Class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 provides pedal assistance up to 20 miles per hour; Class 2 provides throttle assistance up to 20 miles per hour, and Class 3 provides pedal assistance up to 28 miles per hour,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles would not be principally permitted to be rented due to the following reasons. The throttle assist provided by Class 2 electric bicycles would provide a different sensation that may result in unsafe driving on the City’s bikeways that are shared with pedestrians. The higher speed Class 3 electric bicycles are not allowed on the Recreation Trail and renting these types of electric bicycles within the City would result in a higher potential for unsafe riding, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the proposed amendment with revisions as a recommendation to the City Council,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance and specific plan amendments to allow bicycle/equipment rentals in zones with existing recreational uses or developed commercial areas, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 13, Packet Page 86 3 significant. No cumulative impact would occur because allowing limited bicycle/equipment rentals from existing developed property would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends the Downtown Specific Plan as follows:

1. Add the following definition to the Definitions section:

Bicycle/Equipment Rentals: Rental of bicycles, electric bicycles, and associated equipment (e.g., helmets, bike gloves, etc.), including storage and repairs. A bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels, propelled by human power through a system of belts, chain, or gears. This definition excludes scooters and quadricycles/surreys. For purposes of this Use Classification, the term “electric bicycle” encompasses Class 1 electric bicycles only, and does not include Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, as these classes are defined under California Vehicle Code Section 312.5.

2. In the Land Use and Development section’s use chart, add Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as principally permitted in all districts.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 14, Packet Page 87 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of ___, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 15, Packet Page 88 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

AMENDING THE LIGHTHOUSE SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREATE A BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT

RENTALS DEFINITION AND ALLOW BICYCLE/EQUIPMENT RENTALS AS PRINCIPALLY

PERMITTED IN THE LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE AND FOAM STREET CHARACTER AREAS WHEREAS, the Lighthouse Specific Plan, adopted in 2016, establishes use and design standards and guidelines for development in the Lighthouse Specific Plan Planning Area, WHEREAS, the specific plan area is divided into two distinct character areas, each with distinct goals and objectives for future development,
WHEREAS, the applicant desires to use property in the Lighthouse Specific Plan Planning Area for a bicycle rental business,
WHEREAS, the Lighthouse Specific Plan does not explicitly permit such use, and the applicant has applied for a specific plan amendment that would allow the use, WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element goals, policies, and programs, including:

Policy d.1: Build on the success of the Recreation Trail to make walking and bicycling through Monterey safe and enjoyable.

Program d.1.1: Implement and maintain the continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways specified in the City's Bikeways Plan to provide a viable alternative to making short vehicle trips.

Policy d.8: Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities that provide a viable alternative to auto travel into and throughout the city, WHEREAS, expanding access to bicycles in our community would meet our City's General Plan vision of a community that supports multiple transportation choices, WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Specific Plan vision for multi-modal transportation,
WHEREAS, the amendment would align with the City’s established Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities, including:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 16, Packet Page 89 2 Quality of Life Strategic Priority: Foster opportunities for the public to stay physically and mentally active through activities and services in our parks, trails, beaches, campgrounds, sports center, and community centers.

Active Mobility Value Driver: Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety features, WHEREAS, the ordinance would align with the City’s Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) program, including its intent to reduce and prevent obesity by engaging municipal leaders to champion healthy eating and active living in their communities through adoption of policy and promotion of opportunities for residents and municipal employees, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the proposed amendment as a recommendation to the City Council, and directed City staff to consider limitations on higher-speed electric bicycles due to safety concerns and public comment,
WHEREAS, electric bicycles are categorized into three general types, including Class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 provides pedal assistance up to 20 miles per hour; Class 2 provides throttle assistance up to 20 miles per hour, and Class 3 provides pedal assistance up to 28 miles per hour,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles would not be principally permitted to be rented due to the following reasons. The throttle assist provided by Class 2 electric bicycles would provide a different sensation that may result in unsafe driving on the City’s bikeways that are shared with pedestrians. The higher speed Class 3 electric bicycles are not allowed on the Recreation Trail and renting these types of electric bicycles within the City would result in a higher potential for unsafe riding, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2022, took public testimony, and considered the proposed amendment with revisions as a recommendation to the City Council,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance and specific plan amendments to allow bicycle/equipment rentals in zones with existing recreational uses or developed commercial areas, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 17, Packet Page 90 3 significant. No cumulative impact would occur because allowing limited bicycle/equipment rentals from existing developed property would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends the Lighthouse Specific Plan as follows:

1. Add the following definition to the Definitions section:

Bicycle/Equipment Rentals: Rental of bicycles, electric bicycles, and associated equipment (e.g., helmets, bicycle gloves, etc.), including storage and repairs. A bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels, propelled by human power through a system of belts, chain, or gears. This definition excludes scooters and quadricycles/surreys.

For purposes of this Use Classification, the term “electric bicycle” encompasses Class 1 electric bicycles only, and does not include Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, as these classes are defined under California Vehicle Code Section 312.5.

2. In the Land Use and Development section’s use chart, add Bicycle/Equipment Rentals as principally permitted in both the Foam Street Character Area and Lighthouse Avenue Character Area.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 18, Packet Page 91 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of ___, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/3/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 19, Packet Page 92

Monterey City CouncilMay 3, 2022

Monterey City Council
May 3, 2022