Agenda packet, regular meeting — Monterey City Council, December 20, 2022

Council Chamber, 580 Pacific
St., and Zoom Teleconference
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember, District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember, District 2
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 REQUIRED 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 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
 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 using or updating Zoom? 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 ***

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements in 4th Quarter 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
12/20/2022 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: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. 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 / Aprobación de Actas

2. December 6, 2022 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) / Aprobación de Actas - 6 de diciembre de 2022 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061)

3. December 12, 2022 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) / Aprobación de Actas - 12 de diciembre de 2022 Reunión del Consejo Municipal de Monterey (no se trata de un proyecto sujeto a la CEQA según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y según la regla general, artículo 5, sección 15061)
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 Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period January 6, 2023 through January 19, 2023 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)

5. Amend Resolution 22-020 to Approve an Amendment to the Construction Contract with Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, by Increasing the Contract Amount from $1,125,103.50 to $1,150,103.50 ***Measure S*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)

6. Approve Removal of the South Crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)

7. Approve the Annual Report for the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) under the Property and Business Improvement District law of 1994 as Prepared by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau Committee for 12/20/2022 4:00:00 PM
3 Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Authorize an Agreement with Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. for the Purchase of Cloud Hosted Recreation Software and Professional Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Approve the FY 2022/23 Salary Schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Classifications (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding with Police Lieutenants’ Management Association for a 2% Increase to Base Salaries Effective November 16, 2022. (Not A Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $18,600 to Supplement the Budget for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy and Environmental Review from the Planning Office Professional Services Budget and Amend the Contract and Issue Payment to BFS Upon Completion of the Work (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Loan with MidPen Housing, Sign Deed Documents to Secure the Loan and Guarantee a Loan Obligation ($56,754) for an Affordable Housing Project at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) Other

13. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 285 Figueroa Street (Monterey Beach Station); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Cheryl Cox and Debbie Young (Cox & Young Ventures, LLC); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per 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.

14. Appoint 2023 Representatives to Outside Agencies and City Committees (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

15. Measure P and S (Special Sales Tax) Annual Report on Conformity with Requirement that Expenditures be used Exclusively for the Rehabilitation, Repair, and Improvement of City Streets, Sidewalks, and Strom Drains and Disabled 12/20/2022 4:00:00 PM
4 Access Improvements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Council will adjourn to closed session no later than 5:00 p.m.

RECESS 5:30 p.m.

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

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

16. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the City of Monterey’s Intention to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID), to Levy an Assessment on Lodging Businesses Within Such District; and Fixing the Time and Place of a Public Hearing Thereon and Giving Notice Thereof; and Adopt a Resolution Requesting Consent of the County of Monterey and cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID); and Adopt a Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines for the Formation of Property and Business Improvement Districts Under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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). 12/20/2022 4:00:00 PM
5 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
INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

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

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

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared by: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Clerk
SUBJECT: Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements in 4th Quarter 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

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

VALUE DRIVER:

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

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

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

All funding associated with recognizing City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements has been budgeted as part of the FY 2022/23 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is fortunate to have many retirees and staff who are career employees and have served the community for decades. The Mayor and City Council will recognize City employees who have retired with 20 years of service or greater, in addition to employees who have reached their work anniversary with 20, 25, 30, or 35 years of service.

Milestone Anniversaries in 2022 4th Quarter:
 Nate Cota, Recreation Specialist, Parks & Recreation Department Celebrating 20 years of service
 Jeff Glass, Streets & Utilities Supervisor, Public Works Department Celebrating 20 years of service
 Chad Ventimiglia, Officer, Police Department
Celebrating 20 years of service
Retirements in 2022 4th Quarter:
 Paul Abadilla, Building Division, Community Development Department Retiring with 33 years of service
 Doug Phillips, General Manager, Monterey Conference Center, City Manager’s Office Retiring with 6.2 years of service
The staff members listed above will be recognized by their department heads at the Monterey City Council meeting on December 20, 2022. Not all staff members may be able to attend the meeting.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Administrative Analyst (Housing), Senior Engineer, Fleet Manager, Associate Planner, Administrative Assistant, Associate Planner, Police Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Senior Administrative Analyst, Administrative Analyst/Public Information Officer, Administrative Assistant (City Clerk's Office), Administrative Assistant (City Manager's Office), Environmental Regulations Manager
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. 22-149 C.S.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Councilmembers

Present: Haffa, Smith, Roberson

Absent: None
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for in-person attendance.

ROLL CALL - 2020-2022 CITY COUNCIL
City Clerk Klein called the roll with the full 2020-2022 Council present in the Chamber as highlighted above.

The newly seated Council made brief remarks thanking the public, the voters, and their families and supporters.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of Former Councilmember Dan Albert (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized former Councilmember Dan Albert
City Manager Uslar made a verbal presentation highlighting former Councilmember Albert's service to the City of Monterey.

Public comment relating to Councilmember Albert was not received.

The Mayor and Council made comments recognizing Mr. Albert's actions and virtues.

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
2 2. Recognition of Mayor Clyde Roberson (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized Mayor Clyde Roberson for his service to the City of Monterey City Manager Uslar gave a presentation briefly detailing Mayor Clyde Roberson's many accomplishments and years of service to the City in various roles. He shared that Congressman Panetta had presented Mayor Roberson with a Congressional record in his honor.

Public comment praising and congratulating Mayor Roberson on his legacy of public service was received from: California State Senator John Laird, who presented Mayor Roberson a resolution on behalf of the State Senate; Julie Packard, Monterey Bay Aquarium; Colleen Courtney on behalf of Monterey County Supervisor Mary Adams; Monterey County Supervisor Wendy Root Askew, who presented a resolution from the Monterey County Board of Supervisors; Former Councilmember Carl Outzen; Former Director of Community Development Bill Wojtkowski; City of Seaside Mayor Ian Oglesby; Dominic Mercurio; and Mayor-Elect Tyller Williamson.

Councilmember Haffa and Vice Mayor Smith shared anecdotes and thanked and recognized Mayor Roberson.

Mayor Roberson told stories about his years of service; praised his family members for their support and love; thanked the public, community stakeholders, City commissioners, Councilmembers, and staff; and made remarks supporting the Mayor- and CouncilmembersElect.

ELECTION CERTIFICATION AND COUNCIL INSTALLATION

3. Adopt a Resolution Reciting the Results of the November 8, 2022 Consolidated General Municipal Election and Installing Newly Elected Officers (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-150 C.S.

City Clerk Klein made a brief verbal presentation.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-150 C.S. Reciting the Results of the November 8, 2022 Consolidated General Municipal Election:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Smith, Roberson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Williamson
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council recessed at 5:10 p.m. and reconvened at 5:22 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
3 City Clerk Klein made remarks about the importance of the Oath of Office. Vice Admiral Ann Rondeau, President of the Naval Postgraduate School, gave the ceremonial oath to newly elected Mayor Tyller Williamson. Monterey County Supervisor, District 4, Wendy Root Askew gave the ceremonial oath to newly elected Councilmember, District 1, Kim Barber. City Clerk Klein gave the oath to newly reelected Councilmember, District 2, Ed Smith.

ROLL CALL - 2022-2024 CITY COUNCIL
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Clerk Klein called the roll with the full, newly seated 2022-2024 Council present in the Chamber as highlighted above.

The newly-seated Council and Mayor made brief remarks thanking residents and voters, supporters and colleagues, their own families and loved ones, and City staff and community partners, and spoke about their views about the future of Monterey.

Public comment was received from: Ivan Quiroz Bautista, Ryan Williamson, and Terry Williamson, who spoke warmly about Mayor Williamson and his supporters.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was not received at this time in the meeting, but was made during Item 1 by Tammy Jennings.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

4. Appoint Alan Haffa as Vice-Mayor for 2023 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed Alan Haffa as Vice-Mayor for 2023
City Clerk Klein gave a brief verbal report explaining the Council's recent practice of rotating the seat of Vice-Mayor on an annual basis.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council appointed Alan Haffa as Vice-Mayor for 2023:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Roberson
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECESS
The Council recessed at 5:53 p.m.

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:02 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
4 *** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

CONSENT ITEMS
Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS:

5. November 16, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Resolutions

6. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period December 17, 2022 through January 5, 2023 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. 22-151 C.S.

7. Authorize Amendment to the Agreement with Trinity Source Group, Inc. for Remediation of Groundwater Contamination at 951 Del Monte Avenue to Increase the Contract Amount from $996,195 to $1,056,160 ***CIP*** (Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-152 C.S.

8. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and Authorize an Increase of FY23 Revenue and Appropriation of $25,000 in Grant Reimbursement Funds to the Urban Stormwater Diversion Project in the Capital Projects Fund ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-153 C.S.

9. Request Appropriation of $26,266.82 in Donated Funds to the 2022-2023 Library Trust Fund Budget, Accept and Appropriate $30,000 in Grant Funds from the Community Foundation for Monterey County to the 2022-23 Museum Trust Fund Budget for the Walking the Path of History in the 21st Century Project (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-154 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
5 10. Ratify $33,504.42 Payment to National Auto Fleet Group for the Purchase of Four (4) 2023 Ford Police SUV Interceptors in Addition to the $209,442.36 Payment Authorized in Resolution 22-066 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-155 C.S.

11. Designate the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Finance Director as Agents for the City of Monterey to Act on Behalf of the City for the Purpose of Obtaining Financial Disaster Assistance (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-156 C.S.

12. Amend Resolution 22-135 to Include the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant Project in the Capital Improvement Program Budget and Authorize an Increase in FY23 Revenue and an Appropriation of $177,952 in Grant Reimbursement Funds to the Project in the Capital Projects Fund ***CIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-157 C.S.

13. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Monterey Peninsula Foundation; Amend Resolution 22-135 to Include the Sollecito Ballpark Improvements Project and Authorize an Increase in FY23 Revenue and an Appropriation of $100,000 in Grant Funds to the Sollecito Ballpark Improvements Project in the Capital Projects Fund ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-158 C.S.
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
The Council adjourned to the Ocean View Community Services District meeting.

Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda

14. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
Public comment was received from Bob Faulis, who reported on the legal status of a case relating to the District.

Adjourn to City Council Meeting
The District Board adjourned to the City Council meeting.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was not received.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
6 PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

15. Review Qualified Applications Received and Provide Direction to Staff on the Process to Fill Current At-Large Short-Term City Council Seat Vacancy (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) / Revisar las solicitudes calificadas recibidas, y proporcionar instrucciones al personal sobre el proceso de cubrir la vacante actual de un puesto a corto plazo en el ayuntamiento (no es un proyecto bajo la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California, (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general) Action: On consensus, provided staff with detailed direction for Council special meeting(s) to be held the week of December 12, 2022
City Manager Uslar made a brief verbal report, reminding the Council and public of the history of the at-large short-term Council seat that was vacated by former Councilmember Albert pursuant to Charter section 2.8. and the application process directed by Council on November 1, 2022. He informed the Council and public of the results of the application process, namely that 20 applications were issued to residents, 12 applications were received with voter signatures, and 11 qualified applications were received with sufficient verified voter signatures as certified by the Monterey County Elections Department. He reminded the Council that the deadline for the Council to fill the vacancy would be December 19, 2022, or the responsibility to appoint would transfer to the Mayor pursuant to Charter sec. 2.5.

The Council stated its desire to make an appointment before December 19, 2022 to fill the Council vacancy. Comments were made in favor of all four Councilmembers reviewing applicants in a full City Council special meeting rather than convening a subcommittee. It was proposed to hold a special meeting the following week for applicant interviews, and reserve another date the same week for a second special meeting if needed for further deliberation and an appointment.

The Council discussed interview questions and question-asking protocol. It was proposed to hear a three-minute presentation from each applicant, and that the Council have freedom to ask questions in the moment.

Public comment was received from: Bob Faulis, who urged Council to appoint someone they can work well with; Marta Kraftzeck, who urged the Council to appoint Jean Rasch; vacancy applicant Kevin Dayton, who shared techniques used by other local government agencies for filling vacancies; vacancy applicant Laura Nagel, who spoke in favor of appointing a resident of District 4, citing a historical lack of representation in that area; vacancy applicant Dan Presser, who asked the Council to interview the applicants one at a time without the other applicants the room; Nina Beety, who echoed Mr. Presser's remarks and said that the public should have a way to ask the applicants a question; Lori Mazzuca, who echoed the call for applicants to be in front of the Council without other applicants present and made further suggestions; Tom Rowley, who stressed that the appointee should have experience with and knowledge about City business; and Luis Osorio, who spoke about a need for diversity and representation that he said has been lacking in the past.

The Council discussed the matter. On question, City Attorney Davi said that the City cannot ask anyone not to participate in a public meeting. It was stated by Council that they would like to have a standard set of questions, with the ability to ask follow-up questions. It was proposed to provide the questions from the staff report and attachment to all applicants in advance of the interviews.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes December 6, 2022
7 On consensus, the Council directed that applicant interviews would be held on December 12, 2022 at 6 p.m. using the following process: qualified applicants' names to be drawn at random to establish the order of interviews; a maximum of three minutes for each applicant to make a verbal presentation to the Council; each applicant to answer one question from each Councilmember, with a maximum of one minute in which to answer; a maximum of one minute to answer any follow-up question received; and public comments to be received after the completion of applicant presentations and interviews. On consensus, the Council directed staff to incorporate into the interview questions the concepts of effective teamwork and the Council's strategic direction, and to provide the applicants with the City Council's mission, vison, and value drivers and priorities matrix documents. On consensus, the Council determined that if a second meeting were to be needed to complete the process, it would be held on December 15, 2022 at 6 p.m. It was stated that during Council's upcoming deliberations, weight would likely be given to the matter of district representation.

Mayor Williamson reopened the public comment period, and comment was received from vacancy applicant Gino Garcia, who asked for clarification on whether public comment will be directed to candidates, and Bob Faulis, who proposed that a subcommittee could conduct a second meeting. On question, the Council clarified that the applicants would not be asked further questions after public comment was received.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Smith congratulated his newly elected colleagues and expressed excitement about the upcoming application review process.

Mayor Williamson thanked the Monterey community for electing diverse representatives.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar reported on high flu, COVID-19, and RSV cases at Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. He announced the upcoming Christmas in the Adobes and said that the Recreation Department would be offering children's programming and deals on Monterey Sports Center membership. He encouraged all to donate toys to the Fire Department's toy drive.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 8:19 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 Reunión del ayuntamiento de Monterey: 6 de diciembre de 2022 Extracto del acta, traducido al español

15. Revisar las solicitudes calificadas recibidas, y proporcionar instrucciones al personal sobre el proceso de cubrir la vacante actual de un puesto a corto plazo en el ayuntamiento (no es un proyecto bajo la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California, (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general) Acción: Por consenso, proporcionar al personal instrucciones detalladas para la(s) reunión(es) extraordinaria(s) del ayuntamiento que se celebrará(n) la semana del 12 de diciembre de 2022
El administrador municipal Uslar hizo un resumen verbal, recordando al ayuntamiento y al público la historia del puesto de ayuntamiento a corto plazo que dejó vacante el exconcejal Albert de conformidad con la sección 2.8 de los estatutos y el proceso de solicitud dirigido por el ayuntamiento el 1 de noviembre de 2022. Informó al ayuntamiento y al público de los resultados del proceso de solicitud, a saber, que 20 solicitudes fueron entregadas a los residentes, 12 solicitudes fueron recibidas con firmas de votantes, y 11 solicitudes calificadas fueron recibidas con suficientes firmas de votantes verificadas según lo certificado por el Departamento de Elecciones del Condado de Monterey. Recordó al ayuntamiento que la fecha límite para que éste ocupe la vacante sería el 19 de diciembre de 2022, o la responsabilidad de nombrar pasaría al alcalde de conformidad con la sección 2.5 de los estatutos.

El ayuntamiento manifestó su deseo de hacer un nombramiento antes del 19 de diciembre de 2022 para cubrir la vacante del ayuntamiento. Se hicieron comentarios a favor de que los cuatro concejales examinaran a los solicitantes en una reunión especial del ayuntamiento en pleno en lugar de convocar un subcomité. Se propuso celebrar una reunión especial la semana siguiente para entrevistar a los solicitantes, y reservar otra fecha la misma semana para una segunda reunión especial si es necesario para una mayor deliberación y un nombramiento.

El ayuntamiento ha debatido las preguntas de la entrevista y el protocolo de formulación de preguntas. Se propuso que cada candidato hiciera una presentación de tres minutos y que el ayuntamiento tuviera libertad para hacer preguntas en el momento.

Se recibieron comentarios del público de: Bob Faulis, quien instó al ayuntamiento a nombrar a alguien con quien puedan trabajar bien; Marta Kraftzeck, quien instó al ayuntamiento a nombrar a Jean Rasch; el solicitante de la vacante Kevin Dayton, quien compartió las técnicas utilizadas por otras agencias gubernamentales locales para llenar vacantes; la solicitante de la vacante Laura Nagel, quien habló a favor de nombrar a un residente del distrito 4, citando una falta histórica de representación en esa área; el solicitante de la vacante Dan Presser, quien pidió al ayuntamiento entrevistar a los solicitantes uno a la vez sin los otros solicitantes en la sala; Nina Beety, quien se hizo eco de las observaciones del Sr. Presser y dijo que el público debería tener una manera de hacer preguntas a los solicitantes; Lori Mazzuca, quien hizo eco de la petición de que los solicitantes estuvieran frente al ayuntamiento sin los otros solicitantes presentes e hizo más sugerencias; Tom Rowley, quien hizo énfasis en que el designado debe tener experiencia y conocimientos sobre los negocios de la ciudad; y Luis Osorio, quien habló de la necesidad de la diversidad y la representación que, según él, ha faltado en el pasado.

El ayuntamiento debatió el asunto. En la pregunta, el abogado municipal Davi dijo que la ciudad no puede pedir a nadie que no participe en una reunión pública. El ayuntamiento declaró que le gustaría tener un conjunto estandarizado de preguntas, con la posibilidad de hacer preguntas Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 2 de seguimiento. Se propuso proporcionar las preguntas del informe del personal y el anexo a todos los solicitantes antes de las entrevistas.

Por consenso, el ayuntamiento decidió que las entrevistas a los solicitantes se realizarían el 12 de diciembre de 2022 a las 6 p.m. utilizando el siguiente proceso: los nombres de los solicitantes calificados se escogerían aleatoriamente para establecer el orden de las entrevistas; un máximo de tres minutos para que cada solicitante hiciera una presentación verbal ante el ayuntamiento; cada solicitante respondería a una pregunta de cada concejal, con un máximo de un minuto para responder; un máximo de un minuto para responder a cualquier pregunta adicional; y los comentarios del público se recibirían después de la finalización de las presentaciones y entrevistas de los solicitantes. Por consenso, el ayuntamiento dio instrucciones al personal para que incorporara en las preguntas de la entrevista los conceptos de trabajo eficiente en equipo y dirección estratégica del ayuntamiento, y para que proporcionara a los solicitantes los documentos de la misión, visión, impulsores de valores y matriz de prioridades del ayuntamiento. Por consenso, el ayuntamiento determinó que, en caso de que fuera necesaria una segunda reunión para completar el proceso, ésta se celebraría el 15 de diciembre de 2022 a las 6 p.m. Se afirmó que, durante las próximas deliberaciones del ayuntamiento, probablemente se daría importancia a la representación de los distritos.

El alcalde Williamson volvió a abrir el turno de comentarios del público, y se recibieron comentarios del solicitante de la vacante Gino García, quien pidió que se aclarara si los comentarios del público se dirigirían a los candidatos, y de Bob Faulis, quien propuso que un subcomité podría celebrar una segunda reunión. En respuesta a una pregunta, el ayuntamiento aclaró que no se formularían más preguntas a los candidatos una vez recibidos los comentarios del público.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Monday, December 12, 2022
6:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber*, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, City Clerk
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. 22-151 C.S.

CALL TO ORDER / LLAMADA AL ORDEN
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 as highlighted above.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / JURAMENTO A LA BANDERA
Mayor Williamson led the Pledge.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE / COMPARECENCIA PUBLICA

1. Interview Qualified Council Vacancy Applicants, Discuss and Deliberate, Appoint to fill the Short-Term At-Large Council Vacant Seat, and Install the Appointed Councilmember (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) / Entrevistar a candidatos calificados para la vacante del ayuntamiento, discutir y deliberar, nombrar para cubrir la vacante a corto plazo en el ayuntamiento, e incluir al concejal nombrado (no es un proyecto bajo la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California, (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
Action: Appointed and installed Gene "Gino" Garcia to the short-term at-large City Council seat
City Clerk Klein gave a brief staff presentation outlining the interview process to be conducted as directed by the Council at the December 6, 2022 meeting. She stated that the City Council's appointment of a qualified candidate to a vacant seat would be made without regard to race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military status, veteran status, or age.

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes December 12, 2022
2 City Clerk Klein showed the public and Council that each of the 101 qualified applicants' names appeared on an identically sized yellow slip of paper. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira folded each slip of paper in the same manner and dropped all 10 folded slips in the clear vase.

City Clerk Klein randomly selected from the vase the name of each applicant to present and be interviewed.

The applicants approached the Council in the following randomly selected order: Connie Haugh, Beth Fabinsky, Anne ("Annie") Michaels Seavey, Kevin Dayton, Jean Rasch, Laura O.

Nagel, Jennifer Haydu, Daniel Presser, and Gene “Gino” Garcia. Each gave a verbal presentation not exceeding three minutes outlining his or her qualifications for and interest in being appointed to the Council vacancy, then each was asked one question by each Councilmember and given one minute per question to answer. Between Kevin Dayton and Jean Rasch, Jack E. Fields was randomly called upon to approach the Council but was not present at the meeting in person or on Zoom teleconference.

The Council recessed at 7:38 p.m. and reconvened at 7:44 p.m.

Jack E. Fields arrived at the Council Chamber during the recess and when the Council reconvened they discussed whether to interview him out of order. On consensus, the Council determined that they would interview Mr. Fields in the interest of inclusivity, and said that they would take his late arrival into consideration. Mr. Fields gave his presentation and answered the Councilmembers’ interview questions.

Public comment was received from: Marta Kraftzeck, Luis Osorio, Jeana Jett, Pat Venza, Susan Nine, John Sovereign, Ray Meyers, and Libby Downey in favor of the appointment of Jean Rasch; Shane Strong in favor of the appointment of Daniel Presser; Leila Falmson in favor of the appointment of Beth Fabinsky; Veronica Miramontes, Esther Malkin, and Kala Fossum in favor of the appointment of Gino Garcia; Tom Rowley in favor of the appointment of Jean Rasch or Kevin Dayton; Mitchell Sawhney in favor of the appointment of Kevin Dayton; Gabe, urging the Council to appoint someone who demonstrates critical and innovative thinking; and Kent Glenzer, urging diversity as a focus in the Council's appointment considerations.

The Council deliberated on the applicants and their merits. It was stated that residents of Districts 1 and 2 could have run for Council seats in the recent election, and it was stated that the fact weighed heavily on the Council that District 4 is not known to have ever had Council representation. It was urged to focus on Districts 3 and 4 for the appointment, because those districts would be up for election in 2024 when the vacant term ends. The Council stated that in the applicant interviews they paid attention to the applicants' passion and the diversity, conciseness, insightfulness, and depth of their answers, and looked for individuals who were well balanced and truly qualified, and who understand the issues.

Each member of the Council stated his/her top three applicants, and Gene "Gino" Garcia was the only applicant in the top three for all four members of the Council. The Council discussed Mr. Garcia's qualifications and remarked positively on his performance during the interview. It was stated that his experience would result in a short, successful learning curve upon joining the Council.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to appoint Gene "Garcia" Garcia to fill the at-large short-term Council vacancy. 1 Qualified applicant Nicholas Cina emailed the City Clerk on Friday, December 9, 2022 to withdraw from consideration for the vacancy.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes December 12, 2022
3 The Council made positive remarks about Mr. Garcia and his imminent appointment. The other applicants were encouraged to stay involved in the City, attend meetings, apply for board and commission vacancies, and run for elective office.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
City Clerk Klein gave the oath to swear Gene "Gino" Garcia into appointive office, and he was seated at the Council dais.

ADJOURNMENT / SE LEVANTA LA SESIÓN
The Council adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19 ACTA
REUNIÓN EXTRAORDINARIA DEL AYUNTAMIENTO

CIUDAD DE MONTEREY
Lunes, 12 de diciembre de 2022
6:00 PM
CÁMARA DEL AYUNTAMIENTO, 580 PACIFIC ST., Y TELECONFERENCIA POR ZOOM

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Concejales
presentes: Barber*, Haffa, Smith, Williamson
Ausentes: Ninguno
* Asistió remotamente por teleconferencia
Personal
municipal
presentes:

Administrador municipal, asistente del administrador municipal, abogado municipal, director financiero, secretaria municipal
Esta reunión se celebró con una combinación de asistencia presencial y por teleconferencia, de conformidad con la Ley Ralph M. Brown, Calif. Sección 54953(e)(1)(C) del Código de Gobierno y la Resolución N.o 22-151 C.S.

LLAMADA AL ORDEN
El alcalde Williamson abre la sesión a las 6:02 p.m.

La secretaria municipal Klein explicó al público cómo participar en la reunión de forma virtual y las normas de seguridad para la asistencia presencial. Pasó lista con la presencia del ayuntamiento en pleno, tal y como se ha destacado anteriormente.

JURAMENTO A LA BANDERA
El alcalde Williamson pronunció el juramento.

COMPARECENCIA PUBLICA

1. Entrevistar a candidatos calificados para la vacante del ayuntamiento, discutir y deliberar, nombrar para cubrir la vacante a corto plazo en el ayuntamiento, e incluir al concejal nombrado (no es un proyecto bajo la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California, (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) según el artículo 20, sección 15378 y el artículo 5, sección 15061 del reglamento general)
Acción: Nombramiento y toma de posesión de Gene “Gino” García como miembro a corto plazo del ayuntamiento
La secretaria municipal Klein hizo una breve presentación del personal en la que resumió el proceso de entrevistas que se llevaría a cabo según lo dispuesto por el ayuntamiento en la reunión del 6 de diciembre de 2022. Afirmó que el nombramiento por parte del ayuntamiento de un candidato calificado para un puesto vacante se realizaría sin tener en cuenta la raza, color, nacionalidad, ascendencia, sexo, género, identidad de género, expresión de género, orientación sexual, religión, discapacidad mental, discapacidad física, condición médica, información genética, estado civil, estado militar, condición de veterano o edad.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 20 Acta del Ayuntamiento 12 de diciembre de 2022
2 La secretaria municipal Klein mostró al público y al ayuntamiento que cada uno de los nombres de los 10 candidatos calificados aparecía en un papel amarillo del mismo tamaño. La asistente del administrador municipal, Rojanasathira, dobló cada hoja de papel de la misma manera y las colocó en un jarrón transparente. La secretaria municipal Klein seleccionó aleatoriamente del jarrón el nombre de cada candidato para presentarlo y ser entrevistado.

Los candidatos se dirigieron al ayuntamiento en el siguiente orden elegido aleatoriamente:

Connie Haugh, Beth Fabinsky, Anne (“Annie”) Michaels Seavey, Kevin Dayton, Jean Rasch, Laura O. Nagel, Jennifer Haydu, Daniel Presser y Gene “Gino” Garcia. Cada uno de ellos hizo una presentación oral de no más de tres minutos en la que expusieron sus cualidades y su interés en ser nombrados para ocupar una vacante en el ayuntamiento y, a continuación, cada uno de ellos recibió una pregunta de cada uno de los concejales y dispuso de un minuto por pregunta para responder. Entre Kevin Dayton y Jean Rasch, Jack E. Fields fue llamado de forma aleatoria para dirigirse al ayuntamiento, pero no estuvo presente en la reunión presencialmente ni teleconferencia por Zoom.

El ayuntamiento entra en receso a las 7:38 p.m. y se reúne de nuevo a las 7:44 p.m.

Jack E. Fields llegó a la cámara del ayuntamiento durante el receso y cuando el ayuntamiento volvió a reunirse discutió si entrevistarle o no fuera de orden. Por consenso, el ayuntamiento decidió entrevistar al Sr. Fields en pro de la inclusión y dijo que tendría en cuenta su llegada tardía. El Sr. Fields hizo su presentación y respondió a las preguntas de los concejales.

Se recibieron comentarios del público de: Marta Kraftzeck, Luis Osorio, Jeana Jett, Pat Venza, Susan Nine, John Sovereign, Ray Meyers y Libby Downey a favor del nombramiento de Jean Rasch; Shane Strong a favor del nombramiento de Daniel Presser; Leila Falmson a favor del nombramiento de Beth Fabinsky; Veronica Miramontes, Esther Malkin y Kala Fossum a favor del nombramiento de Gino Garcia; Tom Rowley, a favor del nombramiento de Jean Rasch o Kevin Dayton; Mitchell Sawhney, a favor del nombramiento de Kevin Dayton; Gabe, instando al ayuntamiento a nombrar a alguien que demuestre un pensamiento crítico e innovador; y Kent Glenzer, instando a que se preste atención a la diversidad en las consideraciones del ayuntamiento relativas a los nombramientos.

El ayuntamiento ha deliberado sobre los candidatos y sus méritos. Se afirmó que los residentes de los distritos 1 y 2 podrían haberse presentado como candidatos al ayuntamiento en las recientes elecciones, y se afirmó que pesaba mucho en el ayuntamiento el hecho de que no se tiene constancia de que el distrito 4 haya tenido nunca representación en el mismo. Se instó a centrarse en los distritos 3 y 4 para el nombramiento, porque esos distritos serían objeto de elecciones en 2024, cuando finalice el período vacante. El ayuntamiento declaró que en las entrevistas a los candidatos se prestó atención a la pasión de éstos y a la diversidad, concisión, perspicacia y profundidad de sus respuestas, y se buscaron personas bien equilibradas y verdaderamente calificadas, y que entendieran los temas.

Cada miembro del ayuntamiento declaró a sus tres mejores candidatos, y Gene “Gino” García, fue el único candidato entre los tres primeros para los cuatro miembros del ayuntamiento. El ayuntamiento debatió las cualidades del Sr. García y valoró positivamente su actuación durante la entrevista. Se afirmó que su experiencia resultaría en una curva de aprendizaje corta y exitosa al unirse al ayuntamiento.

Una moción fue presentada por el concejal Haffa, y secundada por el concejal Smith, para Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 21 Acta del Ayuntamiento 12 de diciembre de 2022
3 nombrar a Gene “García” García para llenar la vacante a corto plazo del ayuntamiento.

El ayuntamiento hizo comentarios positivos sobre el Sr. García y su inminente nombramiento.

Se animó a los demás solicitantes a seguir participando en la ciudad, asistir a las reuniones, postularse para vacantes en juntas y comisiones y presentarse a cargos electivos.

La moción se aprueba por la siguiente votación nominal:

A FAVOR: 4 CONCEJALES: Barber, Haffa, Smith, Williamson EN CONTRA: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
AUSENTES: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
ABSTENCIÓN: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
RECUSADOS: 0 CONCEJALES: (Ninguno)
La secretaria municipal Klein pronunció el juramento para que Gene “Gino” García tomara posesión de su cargo por designación, y éste se sentó en el estrado del ayuntamiento.

SE LEVANTA LA SESIÓN
El ayuntamiento levanta la sesión a las 9:05 p.m.

Respetuosamente, Aprobado,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
Secretaria municipal Alcalde
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 22 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period January 6, 2023 through January 19, 2023 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)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider the state of the COVID-19 emergency and adopt a resolution to authorize remote teleconference attendance for all public meetings of City of Monterey legislative bodies under emergency-specific Brown Act provisions for the period of January 6, 2023 through January 19, 2023. This action is required to comply with the Brown Act.

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.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

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

Government Code section 54953(e)(3) requires the city to consider the circumstances of the state of emergency and make the following findings by majority vote: (1) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person; and/or (2) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Furthermore, it is consistent with the City’s Strategic Priority to “ensure the health and wellness of the community including the COVID-19 pandemic response through emergency operations, clear communication with the public, delivering vaccinations, supporting testing efforts, issuing emergency orders, managing social distancing regulations, adopting eviction protections, hosting blood drives, and providing food security.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no new or additional cost associated with offering free and secure teleconferencing participation in the City’s public meetings through toll-free telephone and internet-based ZoomGov webinars and free live-streamed meeting observation on cable access television and/or on the internet via YouTube when possible. The City currently pays $5,133 annually for the ZoomGov webinar accounts and toll-free phone access used for public meetings. Live streaming of public meetings on Comcast Channel 25 is provided under an ongoing public, Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 23 educational, and government (“PEG”) cable access agreement with Access Monterey Peninsula, Inc. In 2021, the City contributed around $240,000 towards Access Monterey Peninsula and has contributed $294,600 in the first half of 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Upon consideration of the state of emergency, the Council may choose not to authorize emergency teleconference attendance of meetings. This would mean that meetings held after January 5, 2023 (the expiration date of Resolution No. 22-151 C.S.) would be subject to Government Code section 54953(b)(3) pre-COVID-19 Brown Act noticing and quorum requirements for teleconference attendance at public meetings by elected and appointed officials of the City’s legislative bodies.

DISCUSSION:

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

In September 2021, the Brown Act was amended by Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), authorizing the city and other public agencies to continue to allow teleconference attendance at public meetings if the legislative body makes certain findings. This authorization is in effect until January 1, 2024. Accordingly, the City Council has adopted resolutions with the required findings at least every 30 days from October 5, 2021 to December 6, 2022. During this period, attendance was primarily conducted in a hybrid format, allowing both in-person and teleconference attendance. This flexibility has ensured transparent, healthy, and safe public access to the city’s meetings and meetings of its legislative bodies. The current teleconferencing authorization is effective through January 5, 2023. Findings regarding the COVID-19 state of emergency will continue to be agendized for Council consideration at least every 30 days as required by State law while the state of emergency is in place and until the Council determines conditions are safe to return to non-pandemic Brown Act provisions for the city’s public meetings.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 24 The ZoomGov platform currently used by the City for teleconference meeting attendance allows for participation that is free, broadly accessible, safe, and secure. The Council and public can attend meetings remotely using any internet-accessible device or by dialing toll-free on the telephone and remain socially distanced while engaging in important public discourse.

State of Emergency Expiration
On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that he plans to terminate the COVID-19 State of Emergency on February 28, 2023. The provisions of AB 361, which expire December 31, 2023, apply to meetings held during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor.

Therefore, at such time that the proclaimed state of emergency has ended, provisions of AB 361 will cease to provide a pandemic-specific teleconferencing option for City Council and board/commission meetings.

Current Findings
At the present time, AB 361 provisions are still able to be utilized to support allowing teleconference attendance to protect the public health. Facts supporting continued authorization for teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code section 54954(e)(3)(B)(i) are:
 The Omicron variant of the virus was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the CDC on December 1, 2021, and sixteen lineages of the Omicron variant constituted 99.8% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as of November 26, 2022, as reported by the CDC on December 16, 2022.  According to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Biweekly Update updated on December 15, 2022, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 7.3 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 7.1% (7-day average for both statistics), with 21 people currently hospitalized.

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the current state of the COVID-19 emergency and, in order to protect the health and safety of public meeting attendees, adopt the attached resolution to authorize emergency teleconference attendance of public meetings through January 19, 2023.

CBK
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
cc: All City boards, commissions, and committees
Neighborhood Associations
Business Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 6, 2023 THROUGH JANUARY 19, 2023 PURSUANT TO AB 361 RALPH M. BROWN ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered to take actions necessary to protect and has an important governmental interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of those who participate in meetings of the City Council and its legislative bodies subject to California Government Code sections 54950-54963 (the Ralph M. Brown Act, or “Brown Act”); WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 7, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 15, 2022, March 23, 2022, April 19, 2022, May 17, 2022, June 7, 2022, June 29, 2022, July 19, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 6, 2022, October 4, 2022, November 1, 2022, November 16, and December 6, 2022, the City Council adopted resolutions authorizing teleconference attendance of public meetings for the City Council and Boards, Commissions and Committees due to the imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees relating to in-person meeting attendance; WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of the COVID-19 emergency;
WHEREAS, the Omicron variant of the virus was classified by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) as a Variant of Concern on November 26, 2021, was identified in the United States as reported by the CDC on December 1, 2021, and 16 lineages of the Omicron variant constituted 99.8% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as of November 26, 2022, as reported by the CDC on December 16, 2022;
WHEREAS, according to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Biweekly Update updated on December 15, 2022, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 7.3 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 7.1% (7-day average for both statistics), with 21 people currently hospitalized;
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Health Department continues to recommend that physical and social distancing strategies be practiced in Monterey County, which includes remote meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies, to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 26 2 Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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

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

3. The City Council authorizes remote teleconferencing public meetings of the City Council and city boards, commissions, and committees pursuant to Government Code section 59453(e)(1). This Resolution expires on January 19, 2023.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Megan Beckman, Support Analyst
SUBJECT: Amend Resolution 22-020 to Approve an Amendment to the Construction Contract with Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, by Increasing the Contract Amount from $1,125,103.50 to $1,150,103.50 ***Measure S*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council amend Resolution 22-020 and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 to the contract with Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, increasing the contract amount from $1,125,104 to $1,150,104, an increase to the contract of $25,000.

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:

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

On March 15, 2022, Council awarded a construction contract to Precision Grade, Inc in the amount of $959,185, and authorized staff to expend an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies (Reso 22-020). The City of Monterey and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) agreed to work cooperatively to design the proposed improvements, the City entered into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College for the construction of the Project.

On September 6, 2022, Council amended Reso 22-020 to increase the contract value by $70,000 due to change orders requested by MIIS. This authorization was fully reimbursable Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 through the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City and Middlebury College, Van Buren Street Improvements (Ag-10966).

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract $ 959,185
Construction Contingency, 10% $ 95,919
Original Estimated Construction Cost $1,055,104
Amendment 1 $ 70,000
Amended Estimated Construction Cost $1,125,104
Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $ 40,000 Materials Testing $ 20,000
Amended Estimated Total Project Cost to Complete the Project $1,185,104 Estimated Construction Cost for the Additional Work:

Additional Work (This Authorization) $ 25,000
Total Cost of the Project $1,210,104
Funding Sources:

Measure P/S Pavement (35c1553) $3,519,760
Measure P/S ADA (35c1555) $8,380,937
Sufficient funding is available to fund the additional work.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project proposes the removal and Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 replacement of concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, storm drainage, signage and striping, isolated street surface repairs, street reconstruction, adjustment of utilities, and hot mix asphalt pavement; therefore, no new expansion will take place.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to amend the construction contract for the project; however, this is not recommended, as this funding is necessary to finalize the work on Van Buren.

DISCUSSION:

On March 15, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22-020, awarding a construction contract to Precision Grade, Inc for the Grand Total Bid for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 in the amount of $959,185, and authorized staff to expend an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies. The scope of this project included ADA upgrades along Van Buren Street, beginning at Jefferson Street and ending at West Franklin Street.

The scope of the improvements along Van Buren Street offered the potential to partner with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) to ‘bundle’ improvements required by MIIS’ site development plan. The project plans and specifications included additive Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 alternatives that capture MIIS’s required elements. Therefore, the true costs of the work to be performed could be accounted for and thus be reimbursed by MIIS. The specific improvements consist of an improved parking lot entrance and an improved mid-block pedestrian crossing.

The Cooperative Funding Agreement with MIIS allowed the college to initiate change orders for additional work for field design changes during construction. Per the agreement, MIIS was responsible for any and all costs related to these change orders. MIIS requested approximately $70,230 for additional work to include irrigation changes, additional curb gutter demo and replacement, and relocation of ITS communication conduits. On September 6, 2022, Council authorized Amendment 1 to the construction contract with Precision Grade, Inc. increasing the contract amount from $1,055,104 to $1,125,104, an increase to the contract of $70,000. This authorization was fully reimbursable through the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City and Middlebury College, Van Buren Street Improvements (Ag-10966).

During the course of construction, the contractor encountered utility conflicts with the proposed design that necessitated additional field work and increased quantities were required to address ADA compliance within the project area. The project has reached substantial completion. The cost of the additional work exceeds the available construction contingency by $25,000, of which approximately $3,400 is reimbursable through the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City and Middlebury College, Van Buren Street Improvements (Ag-10966).

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council amend Resolution 22-020 and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 to the contract with Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, increasing the contract amount from $1,125,104 to $1,150,104, an increase to the contract of $25,000.

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

Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) 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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMEND RESOLUTION 22-020 TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH PRECISION GRADE, INC. FOR THE CITYWIDE ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 3, BY INCREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $1,125,103.50 TO $1,150,103.50 ***MEASURE S***
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of March 2022, Council adopted Resolution 22-020, awarding a construction contract to Precision Grade, Inc for the Grand Total Bid for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3 in the amount of $959,185, and authorized staff to expend an additional 10% for unforeseen construction contingencies; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) agreed to work cooperatively to design the proposed improvements, and the City of Monterey entered into a cooperative funding agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College (MIIS);
WHEREAS, the Cooperative Funding Agreement allowed MIIS to initiate change orders for additional work for field design changes during construction. Per the agreement, MIIS is responsible for any and all costs related to these change orders; WHEREAS, on the 6th day of September 2022, Council amended Reso 22-020 to increase the contract value by $70,000 due to change orders requested by MIIS. This authorization was fully reimbursable through the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City and Middlebury College, Van Buren Street Improvements (Ag-10966); WHEREAS, during the course of construction, the contractor encountered utility conflicts with the proposed design that necessitated additional field work and increased quantities were required to address ADA compliance within the project area. The cost of the additional work exceeds the available construction contingency by $25,000; WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available to complete the additional work in the Measure P/S Pavement account (35c1553) and Measure P/S ADA account (35c1555), and $3,400 is reimbursable through the Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City and Middlebury College, Van Buren Street Improvements (Ag-10966); and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project proposes ADA upgrades along Van Buren from beginning at Jefferson Street and ending at W Franklin. The scope of work involves the removal and replacement of existing concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, storm drainage, signage and striping, isolated street surface repairs, street reconstruction, adjustment of utilities, and hot mix asphalt pavement. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a- Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 2 may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a - Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

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

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

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would not occur.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends Resolution 22-020 and authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 to the contract with Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, increasing the contract amount from $1,125,104 to $1,150,104, an increase to the contract of $25,000.

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.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 33 3 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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 34 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Approve Removal of the South Crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the removal of the south crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This action is consistent with the City Council’s Vision and Strategic Initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents by maintaining our existing infrastructure” and consistent with past practices of removing crosswalks for safety reasons.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Removing the crosswalk will require the removal of existing crosswalk markings. This work is expected to cost $10,250 for the traffic signal modification and crosswalk removal. The traffic signal modification will be funded through Measure X (CIP2012) and the crosswalk removal will be funded through the general fund within the existing Street Division Number (101-310-3151).

As of November 21, 2022, there is sufficient funding available to complete this work. No additional appropriations are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the proposed project would involve the removal an existing crosswalk and traffic signal equipment, which would require minimal ground disturbance. The project would also include the installation of a pedestrian barricade with signs that prohibit crossing. The project location is completely paved and urbanized; therefore, no significant environmental effects are anticipated.

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

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 35 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. Exception a — Location — does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant because excavation associated with the new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below the current sidewalk surface. In addition, the project location is paved and urbanized.

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 would be no significant effect because excavation associated with new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below current sidewalk surface. in addition, the project location is paved and urbanized.

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 location would not be visible from scenic highways; therefore, no impacts would occur to scenic highways.

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 location is not a hazardous waste site on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

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 location does not contain historic buildings because the location is limited to the right-of- way; therefore, there would be no impacts to aboveground historic resources. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant because excavation associated with the new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below current sidewalk surface. In addition, the project location is paved and urbanized. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered, the City's typical archaeological procedures shall be followed.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose to not approve the removal of the crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue; however, this is not recommended because this it would not address the visibility concern with the crosswalk.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 36 DISCUSSION:

The City continuously looks for opportunities to increase pedestrian safety. The presence of crosswalks is used as a guide for pedestrians to signify the best crossing location and a way to communicate crossings to motorists. As shown in Attachment 2, there are currently four marked, controlled crossings at the intersection of Lighthouse and Prescott Avenues.

The south crosswalk, crossing Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue, is proposed to be removed. The location of the crosswalk, in combination with the street grade on Prescott Avenue, alignment of the sun as it sets, and glare from the surrounding building provides crosswalk visibility concerns. This concern is present in the afternoon in the Fall season, from late October to mid-December, and applies to the conflicting movement of left-turning vehicles from Prescott turning onto southbound Lighthouse Avenue. For this brief period of the year, the south crosswalk does not meet the intent of a marked crosswalk, which is to signify the best crossing location and a way to communicate crossings to motorists.

The removal of the crosswalk also results in other benefits to pedestrians and drivers. The intersection of Lighthouse and Prescott Avenues experiences a large volume of right turns from Prescott Avenue onto southbound Lighthouse Avenue (from the adjacent neighborhood and Presidio of Monterey) as well as a large volume of left turns from Prescott onto Lighthouse southbound (from the secondary parking garage exit and Cannery Row). When a pedestrian is crossing, the drivers that are making a right turn from the neighborhood and drivers making a left turn must wait until the pedestrian has cleared the crosswalk. This creates long delays in clearing Prescott Avenue and creates a condition in which drivers often block the intersection.

This delay and long queues cause driver frustration, and it can lead to low tolerance on the part of drivers waiting for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk before proceeding.

Removing this crosswalk will benefit traffic signal operations as well as minimize conflict between drivers who do not wait for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk before proceeding through the intersection. Pedestrians will be able to cross the intersection by using the remaining north crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue. While it may not be as convenient, it is a safer crossing.

Staff discussed the crosswalk removal with representatives of the Cannery Row Business Association, New Monterey Business Association, and New Monterey Neighborhood Association to propose this crosswalk removal and the benefits to the neighborhood as well as the business community. Support letters and correspondence with the neighborhood are attached.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 21950.5 (a) states that “An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.” The notice of proposed removal of the crosswalk was posted at the site on November 18, 2020 and this meeting provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed action.

Therefore, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the removal of the south crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 37 MG/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Lighthouse and Prescott Exhibit

3. Notice of Crosswalk Removal

4. Letter of Support from Cannery Row Business Association

5. Letter of Support from New Monterey Business Association

6. Correspondence with New Monterey Neighborhood Association e: New Monterey Business Association
Cannery Row Business Association
New Monterey Neighborhood Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 38 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22

APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE SOUTH CROSSWALK ON LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE AT PRESCOTT AVENUE (EXEMPT FROM CEQA, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1) WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 21950.5, Removal of Marked Crosswalk, requires notice and opportunity to be heard by the public a minimum of 30 days prior to scheduled date for removal, and the notice be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal; WHEREAS, the notice of proposed removal was posted at the site on November 18, 2022, and the public was given an opportunity to provide written or oral comments at the December 20, 2022 City Council meeting;
WHEREAS, removing this crosswalk will greatly minimize conflict between drivers and pedestrians; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the proposed project would involve the removal an existing crosswalk and traffic signal equipment, which would require minimal ground disturbance. The project would also include the installation of a pedestrian barricade with signs that prohibit crossing. The project location is completely paved and urbanized; therefore, no significant environmental effects are anticipated.

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. Exception a — Location — does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant because excavation associated with the new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below the current sidewalk surface. In addition, the project location is paved and urbanized.

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 would be no significant effect because excavation associated with new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below current sidewalk surface. in addition, the project location is paved and urbanized.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 39 2 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 location would not be visible from scenic highways; therefore, no impacts would occur to scenic highways.

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 location is not a hazardous waste site on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

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 location does not contain historic buildings because the location is limited to the right-of- way; therefore, there would be no impacts to aboveground historic resources. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant because excavation associated with the new pedestrian barricade and signage would occur in previously disturbed soils to depths less than two feet below current sidewalk surface. In addition, the project location is paved and urbanized. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered, the City's typical archaeological procedures shall be followed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that 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 it hereby approves the removal of the existing south crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 40 Crosswalk to
be Removed
Crosswalk
Removal
Posting
Existing Crosswalk
to Remain
Existing Crosswalk
to Remain
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 41

NOTICE OF CROSSWALK REMOVAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21950.5, Removal of Marked Crosswalk Notification, “an existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal”. The scheduled removal of the existing south crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue will not take place prior to December 31, 2022
The public will have the opportunity to provide input at the December 20, 2022 City Council meeting. The City Council meeting begins at 4:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California.

COMMENT ON THIS NOTICE: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the City Council meeting or by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:

City of Monterey
City Hall
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Attn: Public Works - Engineering
If any individual or group challenges the proposed action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the meeting described in the notice or in written correspondence submitted at, or prior to, December 20, 2022.

An opportunity will be given at said meeting for all interested persons to be heard.

Questions regarding this may be directed to Engineering Admin, City of Monterey at [email protected] or (831) 646-3921.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 42 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 43 October 24, 2022
Andrea Renny
City Traffic Engineer
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA
RE: Removal of Crosswalk on Lighthouse at Prescott
Ms. Renny,
On behalf of the New Monterey Business Association, I am writing to express our support for the removal of the crosswalk on Lighthouse at Prescott (on the south side).

Removing the crosswalk will address the concern about visibility and pedestrian safety as well as provide similar benefits to the crosswalk removal in 2019 at the intersection at Lighthouse and Hoffman. The benefits included improved pedestrian safety from impatient drivers waiting for a long period of time and turning too close to pedestrians or drivers blocking the crosswalk by queueing over it.

We urge you to carefully consider this opportunity to improve the safety of our residents and visitors.

Sincerely,
Peter Cofresi
Administrator
New Monterey Business Association
New Monterey Business Association | 98 Del Monte Ave, Suite 201, Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 655-8070 | [email protected] ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 44 5/11/22, 4:46 PM Mail - Marissa Garcia - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGUwZTcyYWYzLTUzMWQtNGIzYy05YmU4LTEyZDgxMTIyODM0NwAQAOncqiGJwh5Gh7SQzJXp… 1/3 Re: Lighthouse/Prescott Crosswalk Removal Request
Marissa Garcia <[email protected]>
Wed 5/11/2022 11:09 AM
To:

Thank you for collecting the feedback from the neighbors, I will include this when we bring the item before council in the late summer.

I can send you an email when we have a proposed meeting date so you can share it with the the neighbors.

Thanks,
Marissa
Marissa Garcia, EIT
Public Works - Engineering
580 Pacific St | Monterey CA, 93940
Main: (831) 646-3921 | Direct: (831) 646-3924
From: Robert Evans
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:10 PM
To: Marissa Garcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lighthouse/Prescott Crosswalk Removal Request You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [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.]
Hi Marissa - Attached are the responses to my request for input on the crosswalk removal (see my email to the members below). Most are in favor but there are number of caveats.

My personal take is that removing the crosswalk will not change much in the way of human behavior. Unfortunately without enforcement we will continue have the same problems. NM residents don’t usually turn left but go straight up the hill and we have learned to cope with the sun in our eyes. Visitors in cars want to head out of town. Visitors who park in the neighborhood are on their way to the Aquarium, why cross two streets versus one? Locals will simply ignore the change. They have crossed there before and will weave through the traffic.

As I was approaching to spot from where I took the picture of Lighthouse and Hoffman a woman walked by me and crossed Lighthouse where there was no crosswalk. Then she crossed Hoffman and proceeded down Hoffman - go figure.

Hope that helps!
Bob
Hello all,
The City Traffic Engineering Department has received a request from the Police Department to consider the removal of the crosswalk at Prescott and Lighthouse (see attached picture below) due to vis bility concerns during the Fall season after a traffic collision. There is a visibility concern due to the roadway geometry (the slope of Prescott) and the position of the sun such that there is a glare right over the crosswalk that makes pedestrians difficult to see. Although this seems to be restricted to the fall season, it is not feasible to remove a crosswalk for a few months of the year.

The other issue that occurs is the queuing of vehicles over the crosswa k so pedestrians have to weave through the cars to get to through the crosswalk.

The removal of the crosswalk would address the concern about pedestrian safety as well as provide similar benefits as the crosswalk removal that was done a few years ago at the intersection at Lighthouse and Hoffman (see picture below). The benefits included improved pedestrian safety from impatient drivers waiting for a long period of time and turning too close to pedestrians or drivers blocking the crosswalk by queueing over it.

The Traffic Engineering Department would l ke the New Monterey Neighborhood Association to consider supporting this request.

Please email me within the next 10 days to let me know if you support this request or have questions or would like more information.

Thank you,
Bob
Lighthouse & Prescott intersection:

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 45 5/11/22, 4:46 PM Mail - Marissa Garcia - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGUwZTcyYWYzLTUzMWQtNGIzYy05YmU4LTEyZDgxMTIyODM0NwAQAOncqiGJwh5Gh7SQzJXp… 2/3 Lighthouse & Hoffman intersection:

On May 5, 2022, at 3:04 PM, Marissa Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Bob,
The request by the police department was not as a result of the right turning vehicles but rather the left turning vehicles driving uphill from Cannery Row. There is a visibility concern where due to the roadway geometry (the slope of Prescott) and the position of the sun that there is a glare right over the crosswalk that makes pedestrians difficult to see. Although this seems to be restricted to the fall season, it is not feasible to remove a crosswalk for a few months of the year.

The other issue that occurs is the queuing of vehicles over the crosswalk so pedestrians have to weave through cars to get to through the crosswalk. This is similar to the removal that was one on Lighthouse and Hoffman.

Marissa Garcia, EIT
Public Works - Engineering
580 Pacific St | Monterey CA, 93940
Main: (831) 646-3921 | Direct: (831) 646-3924
From: Robert Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:51 PM
To: Marissa Garcia <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Lighthouse/Prescott Crosswalk Removal Request You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 46 5/11/22, 4:46 PM Mail - Marissa Garcia - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGUwZTcyYWYzLTUzMWQtNGIzYy05YmU4LTEyZDgxMTIyODM0NwAQAOncqiGJwh5Gh7SQzJXp… 3/3 [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.] Hello Marissa - I will be happy to circulate this to the neighborhood but would like a bit more about the rational. It seems counter intuitive that removing the crosswalk will prevent anxious drivers from turning right without looking for pedestrians. As on who uses that corner often it seems there must be a better way.

I think we want people, me included, to get out of our cars and walk more. How do we do both: encourage walking by keeping routes short and get drivers to pay attention to pedestrians? Thanks,
Bob
On May 3, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Marissa Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Hambro,
We received a request that we would l ke the support of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association on, which is the request for the removal of a crosswalk at the intersection of Lighthouse and Prescott (picture below for reference). We would like the take this crosswalk removal to council some time in the Fall, likely September, but first we would like to have input from neighborhood before the the summer busy season. <image.png>
For background on the crosswa k removal, we received the request from the Police Department if we would consider the removal of the crosswalk due to vis bility concerns during the Fall season after a traffic collision. Due to the road geometry and the position of the sun, there were concerns that was a glare that made pedestrians difficult to see, even if this condition only occurs for a short period of the day for a limited time of the year.

The removal of the crosswalk would address this concern about pedestrian safety as well as provide similar benefits as the crosswalk removal that was done a few years ago at the intersection of Lighthouse and Hoffman.

The benefits were improving pedestrian safety from impatient drivers waiting for long period of time and turning too close to pedestrians or drivers blocking the crosswalk by queueing over it.

Could you please bring this before the New Monterey Neighborhood Association board to consider supporting the request?
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like more information to share with the neighborhood before considering to support the request.

Thank you,
Marissa
Marissa Garcia, EIT
Public Works - Engineering
580 Pacific St | Monterey CA, 93940
Main: (831) 646-3921 | Direct: (831) 646-3924
www.monterey.org
www.monterey.org
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 47 ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 48 ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 49 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared By: Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve the Annual Report for the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 as Prepared by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau Committee for Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the Advisory Board Annual Report and the attached Resolution for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Approval of the Annual Report by the City Council is required by the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code §36650 et. Seq.).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Countywide Tourism Improvement District collections are estimated at $4,270,801 for fiscal year 2022-2023 with approximately forty-five percent (43%) coming from lodging within the City of Monterey. The City is entitled to 1% of the assessments collected to defer its costs related to collection of this proposed assessment.

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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve the annual report as filed, or modify and approve as modified.

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 50 DISCUSSION:

Purpose of the MCTID
The MCTID was first established in 2006 because the region’s hospitality industry recognized that TIDs create a reliable funding source for destination marketing while relying less on voluntary funding from municipalities’ Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue. The first TID Management Plan acknowledged that “The TOT can be seen as a tax that primarily funds necessary infrastructure (e.g., police, fire, public works) used by visitors during their visit.” Nevertheless, municipalities in the county have historically demonstrated a commitment to fund tourism promotion to supplement TID revenue.

Voluntary Contributions from the City of Monterey
The TID revenue in the City of Monterey totals approximately $1,850,000, which accounts for 43% of the $4,270,801 collected District-wide. Separate from the TID, the City of Monterey provides voluntary funding of up to $1.8 million annually to fund tourism promotion. The City’s General Fund contribution is equivalent to approximately 6% of TOT revenue. The City of Monterey’s voluntary contribution is 6% of TOT, compared to the other cities, including Carmelby-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina, and Salinas, which contribute 3% of TOT.

The City of Monterey’s TID and TOT equate to approximately 35% - 40% of the overall MCCVB revenues.

City staff continue to work collaboratively with MCCVB staff to ensure equity, fairness, and proportionate benefit to the City of Monterey from the funds invested by Monterey taxpayers.

Noteworthy, in 2014, the MCCVB agreed to voluntarily contribute $250,000 annually for a period of 20 years towards the Monterey Conference Center reconstruction project.

MCTID Formation, Boundaries, and Annual Report
The Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), in partnership with the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, surrounding communities and lodging establishments; formed the Tourism Improvement District pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law) on January 1, 2019. The City Council adopted the levy of assessment for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023 on November 6, 2018 per Resolution No. 18-207. The ’94 Law replaced the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law) which was formed in 2006 and disestablished on December 31, 2018 per Resolution No. 18-181 dated October 16, 2018. The City of Monterey is the lead agency for the MCTID, and as such, the Monterey City Council is responsible for receiving and reviewing the annual report.

The boundaries of the MCTID are the boundaries of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Del Rey Oaks, the City of Marina, the City of Monterey, the City of Pacific Grove, the City of Salinas, Sand City, the City of Seaside, and the unincorporated area of the County of Monterey.

The assessment on lodging businesses within the MCTID is split into two (2) zones. Zone 1 is $2.00 per occupied room night for full-service lodging businesses and $1.00 per occupied room night for limited-service lodging businesses, Zone 2 (within the City of Salinas) is $2.50 and $1.50 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 51 respectively. Funds may only be used to administer marketing programs to promote the County of Monterey as a tourism destination and to fund projects, programs and activities that benefit lodging businesses within the boundaries of the district.

The Tourism Improvement District, as required by the ’94 Law, shall prepare an annual report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected.

The annual report presented here is prepared by the MCCVB and the designated advisory board for the MCTID. This annual report includes no changes to the boundaries of the District; a list of the improvements and activities to be provided for the year; an estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities; the method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against their business for the year (no changes for fiscal year 2022-23); the amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from the previous year and the amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied. (Attachment 2 & 3)

RTK/ss
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. MCTID Annual Report to the City of Monterey FY 2022-23

3. MCCVB TID Reporting FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23

4. Boundary Map
c: MCTID Executive Director, MCCVB
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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 52 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12

APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey (the “City Council”) by Resolution No. 18-207 established the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (“MCTID”) on November 6, 2018, for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2019, and ending December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established the MCTID pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36650 et seq., which authorizes cities to establish business improvement areas for the purpose of promoting tourism; and
WHEREAS, the assessments levied for the MCTID have been and will be applied towards sales and marketing programs to market Monterey County lodging businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations, and other improvements and activities as set forth in the Management District Plan (“Plan”) adopted and approved by City Council Resolution No. 18- 207;
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (“MCCVB”) was designated as the MCTID Owner’s Association, which is required to prepare an annual report for each fiscal year except the first year, as described in California Streets and Highways Code Section 36650; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has received the MCTID Owner’s Association Annual Report, which includes the required information and indicates no changes to the boundaries of the MCTID or to the original method and basis of levying the assessment; and WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36650 requires that the City Council approve the Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 53 2 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby approves the fiscal year 2022-2023 Annual Report for the MCTID and the continued levy and collection of the assessments for the 2022-2023 fiscal year in accordance with the assessment formula as provided for in the Annual Report and Plan on file with the City Clerk, and that said method and basis of calculating the assessments to be levied against each business in the MCTID has not been changed, increased, or modified from those previously adopted.

3. The boundaries of the MCTID shall remain the same, as established in City Council Resolution No. 18-207.

4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments against lodging businesses within the MCTID are tourism promotions and marketing programs to promote Monterey County as a tourism destination, and projects, programs, and activities that benefit lodging businesses located and operating within the boundaries of the district. There are no substantial changes in the improvements or activities for the MCTID in the Annual Report.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 54 Page | 1 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com FY2022-23 MCTID Annual Report to the City of Monterey
The Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is a partnership led by Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), the Owner’s Association, and includes the cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina, Sand City, Salinas, and Monterey County. There are no proposed changes to the boundaries of the MCTID or in any benefit zone or classification of businesses within the district for fiscal year 2022-23.

The MCTID Oversight Committee is an Advisory Committee to the MCCVB Board of Directors, Chaired by a lodging member of the MCCVB Board of Directors and is comprised of lodging representatives from within the MCTID boundaries. Voting committee seats are allocated per jurisdiction based on contribution level by jurisdiction. The MCTID Oversight Committee has full decision making authority over all programs funded by the MCTID in accordance with the 2019-23 MCTID Management District Plan (MDP). MCTID expenditures must provide benefit to the payers, i.e. must generate overnight stays for properties collecting and remitting the MCTID and must be done so in compliance with the MDP.

MCTID funds are combined with jurisdiction investments, federal stimulus funds, and private revenue generated by MCCVB to execute a robust regional tourism development and marketing program for Monterey County. MCCVB will be carrying over from FY2021-22 approximately $323,453 in unspent MCTID assessments; this will be spent on programs outlined in the FY2022-23 Business Plan.

MCTID assessments collected by lodging properties are based on occupied room nights and are submitted to the lodging property’s corresponding jurisdiction and then to the MCCVB (minus a 1% administrative fee.) The assessment is levied on all eligible lodging businesses (exclusions apply), existing and future, within the MCTID boundaries based upon a flat fee of $2.00 per occupied paid room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per occupied paid room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and an additional .50 per occupied room in Zone 2 (in addition to the $2 or $1 respectively).

MCTID projected revenues per zone for FY2022-23 are as follows:

MCTID ZONES:

FY2021-22
Actual
FY2022-23
Projected
ZONE 1 - MCCVB (Includes Monterey County and the cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina, and Salinas)
$3,977,061 $4,142,871
ZONE 2 - City of Salinas (additional .50 per occupied room) $119,193 $127,929 Total MCTID Revenue $4,096,254 $4,270,801
The MCTID is a critical component of MCCVB’s Business Plan. The FY2022-23 Business Plan and Budget is developed by MCCVB, the MCTID Oversight Committee and County-wide stakeholders. The Business Plan will be approved by the MCCVB Board of Directors on June 23, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 55 Page | 2 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com Zone 1 – MCCVB: Initiatives supported in whole or part by MCTID:

Group Business Development: $1,812,757 The focus of MCCVB’s Group Business Development department is to create and cultivate revenue opportunities through groups, meetings and conferences for the benefit of our hotel community and other related members that increase revenue from conference and meeting attendees. Meetings and conferences are highly valued for a variety of reasons – chief among them is the ability to attract such business in ‘need’ periods where they can fill rooms and create increased rate compression that benefits the hosting hotel as well as other lodging properties in the area.

Strategic Priorities

1. Recalibrate the Compass – tighten focus on business mix for the destination • Targeting higher value, 'best fit' groups and conferences • Prioritize off-season, mid-week

2. Leverage Partnerships –
• Visit CA, SF Travel, HelmsBriscoe, ConferenceDirect, etc. • Use partnerships as force multipliers

3. Expand Reach & Resources – reach into new territory, expand client services Tactical Considerations
 Re-imagine in-person FAMs, sales missions, collaborative events, etc.  Continue “All-in” group incentive to secure off peak and mid-week time periods  Hire in market group BDE in Texas and Southwest to engage with evolving corporate market in this key area and grow client services team to support meeting planners  Secure at least 2 key events to host in-market to educate and grow consideration with meeting planners to book Monterey; Host 3 meeting planner FAMs in Monterey to grow awareness and consideration to book meetings; Continue inperson CAB meetings  Re-engage international representation (UK, Mexico and/or Canada) to extend our reach
Marketing Communications: $1,996,132 The primary goal of MCCVB’s Marketing Communications department is to inspire and increase overnight visitation amongst Leisure, Group and International travelers. Driving inspiration is the result of brand-based Content Marketing, which includes synergizing advertising, public relations and social media to develop and distribute compelling, targeted content.

Strategic Priorities

1. Prioritize High Value Travel:
• Visitors when we need them most – off-season, mid-week • Visitors who stay longer, do more, spend more

2. Sustain Sustainable Messaging: Infuse aspects of sustainable and responsible travel into all programming

3. Drive Demand: Create new awareness and reinforce familiarity Tactical Considerations
 Drive engagement and active consideration in drive and fly markets  Develop integrated campaigns across Paid, Owned, Earned and Shared channels to maximize reach and efficiencies
 Bring the Monterey County brand to life through foundational destination content, amplified member content and UGC
 Swiftly adapt to crisis and events that disrupt travel, including health and safety issues, wildfires, economic challenges, etc.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 56 Page | 3 MCCVB PO Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93942 P: 831-657-6400 www.SeeMonterey.com Community Relations $5,029: MCCVB’s Community Relations department aligns with the MCCVB’s strategic direction to promote inclusion between residents, local government and small business and the hospitality and tourism sectors. Attracting visitors to stay in the destination overnight directly affects the economic impact throughout Monterey County.

Under the Community Relations umbrella are the Membership and Visitor Services programs. Many small businesses do not have the resources or bandwidth to maintain marketing programs of their own and depend on the MCCVB to promote them. Relationships with local businesses allow MCCVB to promote goods and services that enhance the visitors experience that in turn help local businesses sustain vibrant operations.

Strategic Priorities

1. Expand & Intensify Community Relationships

2. Transform Membership Program

3. Extend the Stay
Tactical Considerations
 Formation of Community Relations Committee
 Community Workshops (e.g. Social Media 101, other)
 Partnership with Monterey Peninsula Chamber
 Next Evolution for SeeMonterey App
 Engage Community on spreading Sustainable/Responsible messaging  Partnership with MCHA on Community Impact Study
 Develop new Community Engagement metrics
General Administration $652,406: Expenses are required to support all departments’ programs and staffing. MCCVB adheres to industry best practices throughout its operations and financial management of the organization.

Zone 2 - City of Salinas: Initiatives supported in whole or part by MCTID:

The MCTID is a critical component of the City of Salinas’s visitor services initiatives.

The City will invest in the operation of the Welcome Center located in the Freight Building. The Welcome Center provides directions, maps, and suggestions on things to see and do in Salinas and the surrounding area, distributes brochures, guided walking tours of the historic downtown area, and concierge services. The Welcome Center offers referrals to local tours, guides, and contacts local and out of the area hotels and restaurants for reservations on behalf of visitors.

The Welcome Center has racks displaying Salinas and Monterey County information.

The Welcome Center solicits to receive and distribute brochures and guides from area attractions.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 57 FY 2021-22 TID Zone 1 TID Zone 2
Incremental TID from FY 2020-21 $ - 0
TID Revenue FY 2021-22 $ 3,977,061 $ 119,193
Total TID Revenue $ 3,977,061
Group Sales Expense $ 1,358,694
Marketing Communications Expense $ 1,757,037
Community Relations Expense $ 7,675
Visitor Services Expense $ 7,888
Administration Expense $ 522,314
Total Expense $ 3,653,607 $ 119,193
FY 2022-23 TID Zone 1 TID Zone 2
Incremental TID from FY 2021-22 $ 323,453
TID Revenue FY 2022-23 $ 4,142,871 $ 127,929
Total TID Revenue $ 4,466,325
Group Sales Expense $ 1,812,757
Marketing Communications Expense $ 1,996,132
Community Relations Expense $ 5,029
Visitor Services Expense $ -
Administration Expense $ 652,406
Total Expense $ 4,466,324 $ 127,929

MCCVB CWC
Incremental TID from FY 2021-22 $ 323,453
TID Revenue FY 2022-23 $ 4,142,871 $ 127,929
Other Revenue (TOT, ARPA, Private) $ 4,309,704
Total Revenue $ 8,776,029
Group Sales Expense $ 3,334,007
Marketing Communications Expense $ 4,317,905
Community Relations Expense $ 336,692
Visitor Services Expense $ 13,950
Administration Expense $ 1,339,850
Total Expense $ 9,342,404 $ 127,929
Loss made up by other carry forward $ (566,375)
Total Budget Supported by TID, Jurisdiction Investment
(TOT) and Private Revenue
Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau
TID Reporting for FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23
11/18/2022 4:11 PM PHM TID Report 2122 2223
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 58 MCTID Management District Plan 7
October 23, 2018
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 59 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Assistant Director of Information Resources and Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize an Agreement with Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. for the Purchase of Cloud Hosted Recreation Software and Professional Services (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 to authorize an agreement with Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. for purchase of Cloud Hosted Recreation Software and Professional Services.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The choice of Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. (Amilia) as the solution vendor for SmartRec services is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive, quality and costeffective information technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Staff has negotiated a new service and support agreement. The proposed three-year cost for the Smart Rec solution is $99,300 plus costs associated with Paysafe credit card and automated clearing house (ACH) / echeck fees.

The Paysafe fees associated with the acceptance of ACH and credit cards online and in person are collected by Amilia and forwarded to Paysafe. As a merchant services provider, Paysafe offers payment processing that integrates with SmartRec, allowing us to accept different payment methods. Paysafe handles online, in-person and mobile transactions. Their fees are based on our monthly transaction volume and these transaction amounts are not static. The annual estimate of merchant fees for the first year of this agreement is approximately $75,618 based on a revenue estimate of $3,471,636. The City entered into a separate agreement with Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 60 Paysafe in order to receive merchant identification, credit card terminals, and online account access. No fees are being paid directly to Paysafe.

The software and support services from Amilia is considered a sole source purchase because they are the only provider of support and services for their products; as such, no formal competitive process for this purchase was necessary.

Funding for this purchase is available in the Information Services and Parks and Recreation Department fund. Software expenditures will be charged to the ISD contractual services account 710-030-0340-0000-4220 and merchant service fees will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Department account 101-500-5110-0000-4241.

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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to renew services with Amilia. This action is not recommended due to SmartRec meeting all of the criteria and functionality needed for providing parks and recreation services for the entire Department. This alternative would leave the Parks and Recreation Department without the ability to accept registrations, credit cards, and ACH payments both inperson and online.

DISCUSSION:

Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. is the provider of the SmartRec software product. SmartRec is an eCommerce platform for enrichment activities, classes, camps, and programs across the Parks and Recreation enterprise, including the Recreation Division and Monterey Sports Center.

This solution allows residents and customers to more easily find, register, pay for, and manage services offered by the City of Monterey.

SmartRec offers the following services and benefits:
 Management and Scheduling
 Online Registration
 Payment
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 61  Facility Management
 Reporting
 Activities
 Memberships
 Private Lessons
 Online Facility Bookings
 Accounting Reports
 Recurring Payments
 Personal Account
 Access Management
 Facility Management and Scheduling
 Client Database
 Online Configurable Registration Forms
 Attendance
 Activity Reports
 Calendar Management
 Reconciliations
 Tech support-live chat feature
 Knowledge base available to both staff and customers
 Staff availability/scheduling feature
 Autopay feature-fully automated
 GIS or Community Segment (verifies residency/non residency)  Member can upload own photo
 Cloud-based SaaS system
 Latest technology and security including PCI and ADA compliance The City originally purchased SmartRec on August 1, 2021. That agreement was extended and expires December 31, 2022 (Ag-10553). The proposed three-year cost for the new agreement for the SmartRec solution is $99,300 plus costs associated with Paysafe credit card and ACH fees. This agreement includes the purchase of cloud-hosted recreation software and professional services for three years and with Council approval the option to renew annually thereafter from Amilia Technologies USA, Inc. The SmartRec software originally launched to the public in December 2022.

NR/ab/sl
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director
Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director
Andrea Willer, Sports Center Manager
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 62 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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 63 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH AMILIA TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. FOR PURCHASE

OF CLOUD HOSTED RECREATION SOFTWARE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, the City originally purchased SmartRec on August 1, 2021 and that agreement expires on December 31, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Department proposes authorizing a new three-year agreement for recreation software services that provides an eCommerce platform for activities and recreation allowing the community to find, register and pay for activities online;
WHEREAS, staff has negotiated a service and support agreement with Amilia Technologies USA, Inc., the three-year cost renewal for the SmartRec solution is $99,300 plus costs associated with credit card and ACH fees;
WHEREAS, staff has negotiated reasonable and competitive rates for credit card and ACH service/transaction fees;
WHEREAS, the software and support services from Amilia is considered a sole source purchase because they are the only provider of support and services for their products; as such, no formal competitive process for this purchase was necessary; WHEREAS, the funding for this purchase is available in the Information Services and Parks and Recreation Department fund. Software expenditures will be charged to the ISD contractual services account 710-030-0340-0000-4220 and merchant service fees will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Department account 101-500-5110-0000-4241; 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; 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 it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a professional Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 64 2 services agreement with Amilia Technologies USA Inc. for purchase of cloud hosted recreation software and professional services for a period of three years with the option to renew annually thereafter.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 65 Date: <MEETING_DATE>
Item No: <#>
Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Gina Russo, Assistant Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Approve the FY 2022/23 Salary Schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Classifications (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the salary schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time classifications.

VALUE DRIVER:

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time salary schedule is a fluid document that needs to be updated periodically to ensure compliance with State law as well as remain competitive in the temporary seasonal part-time market. This is consistent with previous City practice.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact to adopting the salary schedule. The FY22/23 Adopted Budget included appropriations for PTS wages including the increase in minimum wage. Staff is not requesting any additional appropriations as departments will manage their budgets for PTS employees and absorb any increases.

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 Guideline 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:

There are no alternatives.

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 66 DISCUSSION:

PTS employees work no more than 1,000 hours per fiscal year and are eligible only for those benefits required by applicable state and federal law. PTS employees are paid on an hourly basis. The Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Salary Schedule (Exhibit A) reflects proposed rates for PTS employees as defined by Section 25.241 of the City Code to be effective January 1, 2023.

As allowed by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 13(a)(3), organized camp positions can be paid at a weekly rate and are not subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions.

Please see the schedules outlined below:

The Temporary / Seasonal Part-Tine Salary Schedule
New Classification Title Starting Hourly Increments Ending Hourly Steps Accounting Technician $21.02 5% $32.61 10
Administrative Clerk $21.02 5% $32.61 10
Aquatics Specialist $15.50 $0.25 $19.00 15
Artifact Specialist $19.39 5% $23.57 5
Camp Cook $15.50 $0.25 $20.00 19
Camp Director / Assistant Camp
Director
$16.00 $.25 $22.00 25
Community Svc Officer Intern $16.00 $1.00 $25.00 10
Desk Attendant $15.50 $0.25 $19.25 16
Facility Worker $20.87 5% $32.38 10
Fire Inspector $32.19 5% $49.94 10
Guest Services Attendant $23.36 5% $28.39 5
Harbor Attendant $22.48 5% $27.32 5
Human Resources Technician $25.81 5% $31.37 5
Intern $16.00 $1.00 $25.00 10
Janitorial Worker $17.76 5% $21.59 5
Library Clerk $20.03 5% $31.07 10
Library Page $15.90 5% $19.33 5
Lifeguard $15.50 $0.25 $19.00 15
Litter Control Worker $15.65 5% $19.02 5
Maintenance Worker $20.87 5% $32.38 10
Military Affairs Coordinator $59.37 5% $72.16 5
Museum Attendant $15.88 5% $20.27 7
Park Assistant $22.46 5% $27.30 5
Parking Facility Attendant $16.33 5% $19.85 5
Parking Enforcement
Representative
$22.48 5% $27.32 5
Personal Trainer $20.00 $1.00 $44.00 25
Police Officer Trainee $41.96 N/A N/A N/A
Preschool Instructor $19.00 $0.25 $22.00 13
Recreation Assistant $20.00 $1.00 $26.00 7
Reference / Children’s Librarian $27.37 5% $33.27 5
Senior Aquatics Specialist $34.35 5% $41.75 5
Senior Facility Specialist $34.35 5% $41.75 5
Senior Human Resources
Technician
$28.63 5% $34.80 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 67 Senior Recreation Leader /
Recreation Leader
$15.50 $0.25 $20.00 19
Senior Sports Specialist $34.35 5% $41.75 5
Specialty Class Instructor (617) $20.00 $1.00 $44.00 25 Specialty Class Instructor (618) $30.00 $0.50 $34.50 10 Specialty Class Instructor (619) $35.00 $1.00 $44.00 10 Sports Official $17.00 $1.00 $35.00 19
Support Analyst $33.98 5% $41.30 5
Support Preschool Instructor $15.50 $0.25 $20.00 19
Wharf Attendant $21.51 5% $26.15 5
Temporary / Seasonal Part-time Weekly Ranges
Current Proposed
Assistant Camp Cook $720.00 $760.00 $744.00 $792.00
Camp Counselor $720.00 $760.00 $744.00 $792.00
Camp Director $815.00 $915.00 $840.00 $936.00
Camp Assistant Director $765.00 $865.00 $792.00 $888.00 Camp Cook $765.00 $865.00 $792.00 $888.00
Camp Craft Leader $535.00 $575.00 $552.50 $586.50
Camp Support Staff $510.00 $550.00 $527.00 $561.00
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time Salary Schedule 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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 68 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

Date: <MEETING_DATE>
Item No: <#>

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12
APPROVE THE FY 2022/23 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR TEMPORARY/ SEASONAL PARTTIME CLASSIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the compensation of Temporary / Seasonal Part-Time classifications of the City of Monterey is set forth in the attached Salary Schedule (Exhibit A); 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; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the salary schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-time job classification titles and hourly rates, and the salary schedule for Temporary / Seasonal Part-time jobs classification titles and weekly rates, effective January 1, 2023, is adopted and attached hereto as Exhibit A:

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 69 City of Monterey
Part-Time
Salary Schedule
Effective: 01-01-23 to 12-31-23
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 70 Unrepresented: PTS
Part-Time Seasonal
Effective: 01-01-23 to 12-31-23
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 71 City of Monterey
Part-Time
Salary Schedule
Effective: 01-01-23 to 12-31-23
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 72 Unrepresented: PTS
Part-Time Seasonal
Effective: 01-01-23 to 12-31-23
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 73 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN pts Step: 1 21.02 588
pts Step: 2 22.07
pts Step: 3 23.17
pts Step: 4 24.33
pts Step: 5 25.55
pts Step: 6 26.83
pts Step: 7 28.17
pts Step: 8 29.58
pts Step: 9 31.06
pts Step: 10 32.61
9320 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK ptsn pt 724Step: 1 21.02 724
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 2 22.07
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 3 23.17
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 4 24.33
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 5 25.55
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 6 26.83
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 7 28.17
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 8 29.58
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 9 31.06
9320 ptsn pt 724Step: 10 32.61
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 1 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 74 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9523 AQUATICS SPECIALIST ptsn pt 579Step: 17 15.50 579
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 18 15.75
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 19 16.00
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 20 16.25
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 21 16.50
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 22 16.75
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 23 17.00
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 24 17.25
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 25 17.50
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 26 17.75
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 27 18.00
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 28 18.25
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 29 18.50
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 30 18.75
9523 ptsn pt 579Step: 31 19.00
9534 ARTIFACT SPECIALIST ptpts 434Step: 1 19.39 434
9534 ptpts 434Step: 2 20.36
9534 ptpts 434Step: 3 21.38
9534 ptpts 434Step: 4 22.45
9534 ptpts 434Step: 5 23.57
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 2 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 75 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9545 CAMP COOK ptsn pt 542Step: 3 15.50 542
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 4 15.75
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 5 16.00
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 6 16.25
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 7 16.50
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 8 16.75
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 9 17.00
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 10 17.25
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 11 17.50
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 12 17.75
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 13 18.00
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 14 18.25
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 15 18.50
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 16 18.75
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 17 19.00
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 18 19.25
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 19 19.50
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 20 19.75
9545 ptsn pt 542Step: 21 20.00
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 3 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 76 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9535 CAMP DIRECTOR/ASSIST CAMP DIR ptsn pt 605Step: 1 16.00 605 9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 2 16.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 3 16.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 4 16.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 5 17.00
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 6 17.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 7 17.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 8 17.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 9 18.00
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 10 18.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 11 18.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 12 18.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 13 19.00
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 14 19.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 15 19.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 16 19.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 17 20.00
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 18 20.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 19 20.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 20 20.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 21 21.00
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 22 21.25
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 23 21.50
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 24 21.75
9535 ptsn pt 605Step: 25 22.00
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 4 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 77 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9243 COMMUNITY SVC OFFICER INTERN ptsn pt 480Step: 2 16.00 480 9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 3 17.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 4 18.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 5 19.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 6 20.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 7 21.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 8 22.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 9 23.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 10 24.00
9243 ptsn pt 480Step: 11 25.00
9540 DESK ATTENDANT ptsn pt 583Step: 19 15.50 583
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 20 15.75
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 21 16.00
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 22 16.25
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 23 16.50
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 24 16.75
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 25 17.00
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 26 17.25
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 27 17.50
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 28 17.75
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 29 18.00
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 30 18.25
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 31 18.50
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 32 18.75
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 33 19.00
9540 ptsn pt 583Step: 34 19.25
9546 EXTRA-HELP RETIRED ANNUITANT ptpts 410Step: 1 15.50 410 9546 ptpts 410Step: 5 78.46
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 5 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 78 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9421 FACILITY WORKER ptsn pt 510Step: 1 20.87 510
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 2 21.91
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 3 23.01
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 4 24.16
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 5 25.37
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 6 26.64
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 7 27.97
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 8 29.37
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 9 30.84
9421 ptsn pt 510Step: 10 32.38
9216 FIRE INSPECTOR I ptpts 401Step: 1 32.19 401
9216 ptpts 401Step: 2 33.80
9216 ptpts 401Step: 3 35.49
9216 ptpts 401Step: 4 37.26
9216 ptpts 401Step: 5 39.13
9216 ptpts 401Step: 6 41.08
9216 ptpts 401Step: 7 43.14
9216 ptpts 401Step: 8 45.29
9216 ptpts 401Step: 9 47.56
9216 ptpts 401Step: 10 49.94
9419 GUEST SERVICES ATTENDANT ptsn pt 508Step: 1 23.36 508 9419 ptsn pt 508Step: 2 24.53
9419 ptsn pt 508Step: 3 25.75
9419 ptsn pt 508Step: 4 27.04
9419 ptsn pt 508Step: 5 28.39
9340 HARBOR ATTENDANT ptsn pt 725Step: 1 22.48 725
9340 ptsn pt 725Step: 2 23.60
9340 ptsn pt 725Step: 3 24.78
9340 ptsn pt 725Step: 4 26.02
9340 ptsn pt 725Step: 5 27.32
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 6 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 79 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN ptsn Step: 1 25.81 447
ptsn Step: 2 27.10
ptsn Step: 3 28.46
ptsn Step: 4 29.88
ptsn Step: 5 31.37
9413 INTERN ptsn pt 662Step: 2 16.00 662
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 3 17.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 4 18.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 5 19.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 6 20.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 7 21.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 8 22.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 9 23.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 10 24.00
9413 ptsn pt 662Step: 11 25.00
9379 JANITORIAL WORKER ptsn pt 727Step: 1 17.76 727
9379 ptsn pt 727Step: 2 18.65
9379 ptsn pt 727Step: 3 19.58
9379 ptsn pt 727Step: 4 20.56
9379 ptsn pt 727Step: 5 21.59
9314 LIBRARY CLERK ptsn pt 716Step: 1 20.03 716
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 2 21.03
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 3 22.08
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 4 23.18
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 5 24.34
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 6 25.56
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 7 26.84
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 8 28.18
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 9 29.59
9314 ptsn pt 716Step: 10 31.07
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 7 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 80 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9311 LIBRARY PAGE ptpts 403Step: 2 15.90 403
9311 ptpts 403Step: 3 16.70
9311 ptpts 403Step: 4 17.53
9311 ptpts 403Step: 5 18.41
9311 ptpts 403Step: 6 19.33
9524 LIFEGUARD ptsn pt 578Step: 16 15.50 578
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 17 15.75
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 18 16.00
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 19 16.25
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 20 16.50
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 21 16.75
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 22 17.00
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 23 17.25
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 24 17.50
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 25 17.75
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 26 18.00
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 27 18.25
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 28 18.50
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 29 18.75
9524 ptsn pt 578Step: 30 19.00
9613 LITTER CONTROL WORKER ptpts 435Step: 1 15.65 435
9613 ptpts 435Step: 2 16.43
9613 ptpts 435Step: 3 17.25
9613 ptpts 435Step: 4 18.12
9613 ptpts 435Step: 5 19.02
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 8 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 81 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9315 MAINTENANCE WORKER ptsn pt 717Step: 1 20.87 717
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 2 21.91
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 3 23.01
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 4 24.16
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 5 25.37
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 6 26.64
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 7 27.97
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 8 29.37
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 9 30.84
9315 ptsn pt 717Step: 10 32.38
9350 MILITARY AFFAIRS COORDINATOR ptsn pt 712Step: 1 59.37 712 9350 ptsn pt 712Step: 2 62.34
9350 ptsn pt 712Step: 3 65.46
9350 ptsn pt 712Step: 4 68.73
9350 ptsn pt 712Step: 5 72.16
9316 MUSEUM ATTENDANT ptsn pt 718Step: 2 15.88 718
9316 ptsn pt 718Step: 3 16.67
9316 ptsn pt 718Step: 4 17.51
9316 ptsn pt 718Step: 5 18.38
9316 ptsn pt 718Step: 6 19.30
9316 ptsn pt 718Step: 7 20.27
9342 PARK ASSISTANT ptsn pt 719Step: 1 22.46 719
9342 ptsn pt 719Step: 2 23.58
9342 ptsn pt 719Step: 3 24.76
9342 ptsn pt 719Step: 4 26.00
9342 ptsn pt 719Step: 5 27.30
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 9 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 82 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9343 PARKING ENFORCEMENT REPRESENT ptsn pt 720Step: 1 22.48 720 9343 ptsn pt 720Step: 2 23.60
9343 ptsn pt 720Step: 3 24.78
9343 ptsn pt 720Step: 4 26.02
9343 ptsn pt 720Step: 5 27.32
6619 PARKING FACILITY ATTENDANT ptsn pt 715Step: 1 16.33 715 6619 ptsn pt 715Step: 2 17.15
6619 ptsn pt 715Step: 3 18.00
6619 ptsn pt 715Step: 4 18.90
6619 ptsn pt 715Step: 5 19.85
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 10 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 83 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
PERSONAL TRAINER ptsn Step: 1 20.00 728
ptsn Step: 2 21.00
ptsn Step: 3 22.00
ptsn Step: 4 23.00
ptsn Step: 5 24.00
ptsn Step: 6 25.00
ptsn Step: 7 26.00
ptsn Step: 8 27.00
ptsn Step: 9 28.00
ptsn Step: 10 29.00
ptsn Step: 11 30.00
ptsn Step: 12 31.00
ptsn Step: 13 32.00
ptsn Step: 14 33.00
ptsn Step: 15 34.00
ptsn Step: 16 35.00
ptsn Step: 17 36.00
ptsn Step: 18 37.00
ptsn Step: 19 38.00
ptsn Step: 20 39.00
ptsn Step: 21 40.00
ptsn Step: 22 41.00
ptsn Step: 23 42.00
ptsn Step: 24 43.00
ptsn Step: 25 44.00
9217 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE ptsn pt 453Step: 1 41.96 453 ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 11 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 84 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9341 PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 721Step: 1 19.00 721
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 2 19.25
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 3 19.50
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 4 19.75
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 5 20.00
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 6 20.25
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 7 20.50
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 8 20.75
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 9 21.00
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 10 21.25
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 11 21.50
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 12 21.75
9341 ptsn pt 721Step: 13 22.00
9422 RECREATION ASSISTANT ptsn pt 722Step: 1 20.00 722
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 2 21.00
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 3 22.00
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 4 23.00
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 5 24.00
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 6 25.00
9422 ptsn pt 722Step: 7 26.00
9321 REFERENCE/CHILDRENS LIBRARIAN ptsn pt 723Step: 1 27.37 723 9321 ptsn pt 723Step: 2 28.74
9321 ptsn pt 723Step: 3 30.18
9321 ptsn pt 723Step: 4 31.69
9321 ptsn pt 723Step: 5 33.27
9416 SENIOR AQUATICS SPECIALIST ptsn pt 505Step: 1 34.35 505 9416 ptsn pt 505Step: 2 36.07
9416 ptsn pt 505Step: 3 37.87
9416 ptsn pt 505Step: 4 39.76
9416 ptsn pt 505Step: 5 41.75
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 12 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 85 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9417 SENIOR FACILITY SPECIALIST ptsn pt 506Step: 1 34.35 506 9417 ptsn pt 506Step: 2 36.07
9417 ptsn pt 506Step: 3 37.87
9417 ptsn pt 506Step: 4 39.76
9417 ptsn pt 506Step: 5 41.75
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES TECH ptsn Step: 1 28.63 448
ptsn Step: 2 30.06
ptsn Step: 3 31.56
ptsn Step: 4 33.14
ptsn Step: 5 34.80
SENIOR SPORTS SPECIALIST ptsn Step: 1 34.35 507
ptsn Step: 2 36.07
ptsn Step: 3 37.87
ptsn Step: 4 39.76
ptsn Step: 5 41.75
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 13 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 86 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9530 SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 617Step: 1 20.00 617 9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 2 21.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 3 22.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 4 23.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 5 24.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 6 25.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 7 26.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 8 27.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 9 28.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 10 29.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 11 30.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 12 31.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 13 32.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 14 33.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 15 34.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 16 35.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 17 36.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 18 37.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 19 38.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 20 39.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 21 40.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 22 41.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 23 42.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 24 43.00
9530 ptsn pt 617Step: 25 44.00
9530 SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 618Step: 1 30.00 618 9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 2 30.50
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 3 31.00
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 4 31.50
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 5 32.00
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 6 32.50
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 7 33.00
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 14 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 87 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9530 SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 618Step: 8 33.50 618 9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 9 34.00
9530 ptsn pt 618Step: 10 34.50
9530 SPECIALTY CLASS INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 619Step: 1 35.00 619 9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 2 36.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 3 37.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 4 38.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 5 39.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 6 40.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 7 41.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 8 42.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 9 43.00
9530 ptsn pt 619Step: 10 44.00
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 15 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 88 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9537 SPORTS OFFICIAL ptsn pt 560Step: 1 17.00 560
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 2 18.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 3 19.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 4 20.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 5 21.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 6 22.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 7 23.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 8 24.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 9 25.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 10 26.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 11 27.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 12 28.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 13 29.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 14 30.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 15 31.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 16 32.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 17 33.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 18 34.00
9537 ptsn pt 560Step: 19 35.00
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 16 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 89 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9548 SR REC LEADER/REC LEADER ptsn pt 729Step: 3 15.50 729 9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 4 15.75
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 5 16.00
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 6 16.25
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 7 16.50
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 8 16.75
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 9 17.00
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 10 17.25
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 11 17.50
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 12 17.75
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 13 18.00
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 14 18.25
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 15 18.50
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 16 18.75
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 17 19.00
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 18 19.25
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 19 19.50
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 20 19.75
9548 ptsn pt 729Step: 21 20.00
9322 SUPPORT ANALYST ptsn pt 726Step: 1 33.98 726
9322 ptsn pt 726Step: 2 35.68
9322 ptsn pt 726Step: 3 37.46
9322 ptsn pt 726Step: 4 39.34
9322 ptsn pt 726Step: 5 41.30
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 17 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 90 12/14/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 1/01/2023 Through 12/31/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9527 SUPPORT PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR ptsn pt 502Step: 11 15.50 502 9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 12 15.75
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 13 16.00
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 14 16.25
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 15 16.50
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 16 16.75
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 17 17.00
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 18 17.25
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 19 17.50
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 20 17.75
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 21 18.00
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 22 18.25
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 23 18.50
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 24 18.75
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 25 19.00
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 26 19.25
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 27 19.50
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 28 19.75
9527 ptsn pt 502Step: 29 20.00
9831 WHARF ATTENDANT ptpts 705Step: 1 21.51 705
9831 ptpts 705Step: 2 22.59
9831 ptpts 705Step: 3 23.71
9831 ptpts 705Step: 4 24.90
9831 ptpts 705Step: 5 26.15
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 18 of 18 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 91 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Gina Russo, Assistant Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding with Police Lieutenants’ Management Association for a 2% Increase to Base Salaries Effective November 16, 2022. (Not A Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a side letter agreement with the Monterey Police Lieutenants’ Management Association (PLMA) to implement a 2% increase to base salaries effective November 16, 2022. A 4/5ths vote of the City Council is required for this item to pass pursuant to City Charter section 5.3.

VALUE DRIVER:

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is consistent with closed session direction. The attached resolution authorizes the City Manager to sign a side letter agreement to the MOU with PLMA. It is practice for Council to authorize the City Manager to amend MOUs after staff and the bargaining groups have reached agreement through the meet and confer process. The meet and confer process, regarding items that Council provided direction to staff on, have concluded with the recommendations described herein.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The 2% increase to PMLA’s base salary is approximately $15,150 and has been included in the FY 2022-23 adopted budget.

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 Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 92 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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

No alternatives have been considered. The staff recommendation is consistent with previous City Council guidance.

DISCUSSION:

After meeting and conferring in good faith regarding wage adjustments pursuant to the reopener clause as contained in the MOU effective June 1, 2022 through July 30, 2024, the parties have agreed to the provision included in the side letter agreement. Effective November 16, 2022, the City will provide a two percent (2%) increase to the base salaries of members in PLMA. This authorization also allows the salary schedule to be amended to reflect the increased salaries.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
Exhibit A – Side Letter Agreement
c: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 93 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH POLICE LIEUTENANTS’ MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (PLMA) REGARDING 2% INCREASE TO BASE SALARIES EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 16, 2022
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Monterey and the Police Lieutenants’ Management Association (PLMA) expires on June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Monterey and the Police Lieutenants’ Management Association (PLMA) has a reopener clause; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the Police Lieutenants’ Management Association (PLMA) have negotiated the following terms and conditions contained in the attached side letter (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Effective November 16, 2022, The City will provide a two percent (2%) increase to the base salaries of members in PLMA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a side letter agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Police Lieutenants’ Management Association (PLMA) to implement the 2% increase to base pay effective November 16, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of _________ by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 94 2 ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 95

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 96 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $18,600 to Supplement the Budget for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy and Environmental Review from the Planning Office Professional Services Budget and Amend the Contract and Issue Payment to BFS Upon Completion of the Work (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the appropriation of funds in the amount of $18,600 to supplement the budget for the Laguna Grande Regional Trail Maintenance Strategy and environmental review from the Planning Office Professional Services Budget and amend the contract and issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects upon completion of the work.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The project supports a collaborative, regional effort to maintain Laguna Grande Regional Park.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The original contract cost was $109,965 for the trail maintenance strategy and environmental review. The original contract divided costs between the three agencies as follows: Cities of Seaside and Monterey $24,982.50 each, and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District $60,000. Due to discrepancies in the project area boundary and resulting delays that staff and the consultants had to resolve, the consultant scope of work is proposed to be amended and the cost increase is $18,600. Staff recommends that the City of Monterey cover this cost increase and request that the other agencies contribute to the increased cost. While a shared cost for this increase is not guaranteed, staff hopes that in good faith, the other agencies will cost share with the City of Monterey.

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) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA 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 Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 97 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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may deny the request or wait for our partner agencies to split the costs upfront.

DISCUSSION:

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency (JPA) includes a representative from the City of Monterey, City of Seaside, and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. The JPA was re-invigorated in 2019. In 2021, the JPA adopted Resolution 2021-01 awarding the contract to BFS to prepare a trail maintenance strategy and environmental document to address some of the community concerns about the south end of the park. The original contract of $109,965 divided costs between the three agencies as follows: Cities of Seaside and Monterey $24,982.50 each, and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District $60,000.

The Draft Trail Maintenance Strategy was approved by the JPA for environmental review. The environmental review is almost complete. However, discrepancies in the park boundary and ownership was discovered during the project’s environmental review. The consultant indicates the cost to correct the documents and conduct additional site research will cost $18,600. To complete this phase of the project, staff recommends that the City Council authorize an additional $18,600 from the Planning Office’s professional services budget to cover the cost.

City staff has approached the City of Seaside and Regional Park District staff, and they are going to approach their groups about splitting this cost. City staff does not want to delay this project any further, so Monterey City staff are suggesting that the City fund the full amount and request reimbursement.

As noted in previous staff reports, the JPA hopes to achieve a certified environmental document through this process. If successful, the JPA or appropriate government agency would then pursue permits for the project from various resource agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. Additional permits are estimated to cost between $20,000 to $30,000 in the future, and funding these permits will be brought forward to the member agencies at the appropriate time. Maintenance permits can only commence after all permits are obtained.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the appropriation of funds in the amount of $18,600 to supplement the budget for the Laguna Grande Regional Trail Maintenance Strategy and environmental review from the Planning Office Professional Services Budget and issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects upon completion of the work.

Attachment: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Resolution 21-067
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 98 e: Rafael Payan, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Daniel Meewis, Recreation Director, City of Seaside
Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association
Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director, City of Monterey Louie Marcuzzo, Parks Operations Manager, City of Monterey Stephen Cry
Scott Waltz
Fred Watson
Esther Malkin
Mike Zeller, TAMC
Beth Matz, BFS Landscape Architects
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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 99 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12
AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,600 TO

SUPPLEMENT THE BUDGET FOR THE LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL TRAIL

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY AND CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FROM THE

PLANNING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUDGET AND AMEND THE CONTRACT

AND ISSUE PAYMENT TO BFS UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK
WHEREAS, the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency desired to create a trail maintenance strategy and conduct environmental review of this proposal; WHEREAS, after a competitive RFP process, the JPA selected BFS Landscape Architects to perform the work. The cost of the work was $109,965 and it was funded with member agencies contributing as follows: the City of Monterey contributed $24,982.50, the City of Seaside contributed $24,982.50, and the Monterey Regional Park District contributed $60,000;
WHEREAS, the JPA adopted Resolution 2021-01 awarding the contract to BFS Landscape Architects and authorizing the City of Monterey to collect payment from JPA member entities and to issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects when payment is due; WHEREAS, the Trail Maintenance Strategy and environmental review is almost completed. The project scope needed to be amended due to discrepancies in the park boundary that require additional modifications to both the strategy and environmental document; 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, the City Council authorizes:

1. Increase the appropriation by $18,600 to supplement the budget for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy and Environmental Review from the Planning Office Professional Services Budget (expenditure account 101-400- Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 100 2 4400-0000-4240) and amend the contract and issue payment to BFS upon completion of work;

2. The Finance Director to issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects in the amount of $18,600 when payment is due.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 101 RESOLUTION NO. 21-067 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $109,965 TO CREATE

A TRAIL MAINTENANCE STRATEGY AND CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR LAGUNA GRANDE PARK; AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN REVENUE BY $84,982.50 FROM

THE LAGUNA GRANDE JOINT POWERS AUTHORTIY MEMBER ENTITIES (CITY OF SEASIDE $24,982.50 AND MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT $60,000); ALLOCATE $24,982.50 FROM THE GENERAL FUND; AND ISSUE PAYMENT TO BFS

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK
WHEREAS, the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Power Agency desires to create a trail maintenance strategy and conduct environmental review of this proposal; WHEREAS, after a competitive RFP process, the JPA selected BFS Landscape Architects to perform the work. The cost of the work is $109,965 and it will be funded with member agencies contributing as follows: the City of Monterey contributing $24,982.50, the City of Seaside contributing $24,982.50, and the Monterey Regional Park District contributing $60,000;
WHEREAS, the JPA adopted Resolution 2021-01 awarding the contract to BFS Landscape Architects and authorizing the City of Monterey to collect payment from JPA member entities and to issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects when payment is due; 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: EE4F6548-E567-4A35-A538-648072209400 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 102 2 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 City Council authorizes:

1. Increase appropriation of $109,965 to the expenditure account 101-400-4400-0000- 4240, Professional Services account, for the plan development and environmental work for the JPA;

2. The Finance Director to receive funds from the member entities as follows: Seaside $24,982.50, and Park District $60,000, and to deposit revenue to the 101-400-4400- 3890, Other Revenue, account;

3. The Finance Director to allocate $24,982.50 from the General Fund, fund balance;

4. The Finance Director to issue payment to BFS Landscape Architects in the amount of $109,965 when payment is due.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 15th day of June, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE4F6548-E567-4A35-A538-648072209400 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 103 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Loan with MidPen Housing, Sign Deed Documents to Secure the Loan and Guarantee a Loan Obligation ($56,754) for an Affordable Housing Project at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a loan with MidPen Housing, sign deed documents including a deed of trust to secure the loan, and guarantee the loan obligation ($56,754) for an affordable housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street.

VALUE DRIVER:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Using Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds for Predevelopment Costs Related to Development of Affordable Housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street supports the City’s ongoing housing efforts, including those intended to serve extremely low, very low and low-income residents. Completing predevelopment studies is a necessary step to support the City’s efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, should any new housing units result from the subsequent Development and Disposition Agreement and ground lease.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council approved Resolution 22-126 that committed $56,754 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds to the affordable housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren and 424 and 450 Madison. These funds were budgeted for predevelopment costs related to affordable housing development in the City’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant application to the State. The State is requiring that these funds be provided as a loan recorded against the property. In addition, the loan must be guaranteed. This City Council action will authorize the loan and require the City to guarantee the loan of $56,754.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project proposes to issue loan documents and guarantee a loan to gather information and research about specific parcels for affordable housing development in the City of Monterey. Furthermore, Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 104 the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. No impacts are anticipated because this is a study to gather information. It will help identify particularly sensitive environments.

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

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The property is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65962.5. No impacts are anticipated because this is a study to gather information.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could decide not to authorize or guarantee the loan for the use of Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds for predevelopment costs related to development of affordable housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street. However, not committing the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds would effectively stop predevelopment activities resulting in the development effort not moving forward.

DISCUSSION:

On July 19th, 2022, the City Council approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with MidPen Housing for Development of Affordable Housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 105 and 424 and 450 Madison Street. Per the exclusive Negotiating Agreement, MidPen has 240 days, with a one-year extension option, to complete a series of predevelopment studies and negotiate a development agreement with the City. The City has granted an extension.

On July 21, 2020, the Council authorized submission of an application to the State for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation funding program. The application budget included that 65% of the funds would be used for predevelopment for affordable rental housing on the City’s four development sites at the time (417 Figueroa Street, 442 Adams Street, 438 Calle Principal, and Madison Street between Dutra Street and Van Buren Street). The City was successful in receiving an award of $116,419. On September 20, 2022, the City Council awarded $56,754 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds to MidPen Housing as part of MidPen’s $131,545 budget to prepare predevelopment studies including an appraisal, historical assessment, soils report, biotic assessment, surveying, and architectural and engineering work.

The City is in the process of preparing the various legal documents to comply with the use of the $56,754 in PHLA funding. The State of California is requiring that the grant funds be dedicated to the project via a loan that is secured through deeds to the property. Since MidPen does not own the property, the City will need to file various deed documents against its own property.

This agenda report seeks Council authorization for the City Manager to sign the loan documents and prepare/record the necessary deeds of trust/security documents. In addition, the State is requiring that the loan be repaid to the City’s PHLA program if the project does not proceed.

So, the State is looking for the City to guarantee the loan. Staff is not requesting any money to secure this loan and there appears to be a high likelihood that the project will proceed.

However, if these efforts fail, the City would be required to repay $56,754 to the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Fund account.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a loan with MidPen Housing, sign deed documents including a deed of trust, and guarantee the loan obligation ($56,754) for an affordable housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street.

Attachment: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Monterey Neighborhood Associations
Monterey Business Associations
Housing Outreach List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 106 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LOAN WITH MIDPEN HOUSING, SIGN

DEED DOCUMENTS TO SECURE THE LOAN AND GUARANTEE A LOAN OBLIGATION ($56,754) FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT 587 AND 593 VAN BUREN STREET AND 424 AND 450 MADISON STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey currently experiences both high housing costs and a low inventory of affordable housing units;
WHEREAS, in 2019 the City Council reviewed City owned properties to determine their potential to be developed for affordable housing in support of the City’s on-going housing efforts, including those intended to serve extremely low, very low and low-income residents; WHEREAS, this review showed the potential to support the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, should any new housing units results from this effort; WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019 and September 3, 2019, the City Council received a report on a site analysis of City owned properties for affordable housing development. The Council directed staff to focus on potential sites located on Figueroa Street, Calle Principal, Adams Street and Van Buren/Madison Streets;
WHEREAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals on July 20, 2020 to solicit proposals to develop affordable housing on four City owned sites consisting of properties located at 417 Figueroa Street, 442 Adams Street, 438 Calle Principal, 587 and 593 Van Buren Street, and 424 and 450 Madison Street;
WHEREAS, proposals were due on October 2, 2020, and the City received responsive proposals from five developers;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey received a responsive proposal for 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street from MidPen Housing Corporation that proposes to use 100% of the property area for the development of affordable housing, providing that 100% of the proposed units will be permanently affordable housing, with an affordability mix of units at 30% AMI, 40% AMI, 50% AMI, and 60% AMI;
WHEREAS, the Council directed staff to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with MidPen Housing Corporation for 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street;
WHEREAS, the City authorized an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with MidPen Housing on July 19, 2022 Corporation for development of affordable housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street, 424 and 450 Madison Street;
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 107 2 WHEREAS, MidPen Housing prepared a budget for predevelopment studies and requested the City contribute $56,754 towards the cost of predevelopment studies; WHEREAS, the City received a Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant award in the amount of $116,419, with a budget dedicating 65% of the funds be used for predevelopment costs related to affordable housing development on City owned properties; WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution 22-126 that committed $56,754 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds to the affordable housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren and 424 and 450 Madison Streets. These monies were budgeted for predevelopment costs related to affordable housing at this site.

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project proposes to issue loan documents and guarantee a loan to gather information and research about specific parcels for affordable housing development in the City of Monterey. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. No impacts are anticipated because this is a study to gather information. It will help identify particularly sensitive environments.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The property is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65962.5. No impacts are anticipated because this is a study to gather information.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 108 3 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 it hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a loan with MidPen Housing, sign deed documents including a deed of trust, and guarantee the loan obligation of $56,754 for an affordable housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren and 424 and 450 Madison Streets.

The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents necessary to comply with the Permanent Local Housing Allocating Funding program’s funding requirements to effectuate this housing project.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 109 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 285 Figueroa Street (Monterey Beach Station); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Cheryl Cox and Debbie Young (Cox & Young Ventures, LLC); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint agency negotiators for a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss and provide confidential direction regarding a lease amendment for the premises located at 285 Figueroa Street.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Council approval is required for real estate transactions. Closed session confidential review of real estate matters is allowed.

The Surplus Land Act does not apply since there is no disposition as defined under the Act.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the recommendation to appoint agency negotiators.

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.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 110 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to appoint negotiators or appoint different negotiators. This is not recommended by staff. It is appropriate that the Council appoint agency negotiators and authorize a confidential discussion regarding the lease amendment.

DISCUSSION:

Cox & Young Ventures, LLC (“Cox & Young”) has occupied the building located at 285 Figueroa Street since August 2019 when it was assigned the lease between the City of Monterey and Central Coast Events. The building is commonly referred to as the Monterey Beach Station.

Cox and Young have been in business for over 15 years and operates two other successful event venues in the City of Monterey; The Perry House at the corner of Van Buren Street and Scott Street and The Barns at Cooper Molera on Polk Street. 285 Figueroa Street
Under the current lease agreement, the lessee is required to provide two public restrooms seven days per week between the hours of 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM. The public restrooms are located at the exterior southwest corner of the building. The tenant receives a flat monthly rent credit to repair, maintain, clean, stock and open/close the public restrooms.

The tenant has notified City staff of numerous challenges with maintaining public restrooms at this location. The restrooms are often vandalized, requiring plumbing fixtures to be replaced; toilets are clogged with foreign objects, creating sewer backups; continual graffiti; and even an individual locking himself in the restroom and refusing to leave when the tenant was attempting Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 111 to lock the restrooms at the end of the day. This required the tenant to call the Police Department for assistance in having the individual removed from the premises.

The tenant requests the City Council consider amending the lease to remove the public restroom requirement. Public restrooms are available at the beginning and end of Municipal Wharf No. 2; at the Harbormaster’s office, and portable restrooms are in two different locations on Municipal Wharf No. 2.

City Council approval is required for this type of lease transaction. Closed session discussions are allowed and appropriate for confidential direction in real estate matters of this type.

JA/ad
e: Cheryl Cox, Cox & Young Ventures, LLC
Debbie Young, Cox & Young Ventures, LLC
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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 112 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appoint 2023 Representatives to Outside Agencies and City Committees (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint representatives to outside agencies and City committees for the calendar year 2023.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Charter section 4.5(a)(3) provides: “[t]he Council shall appoint by a vote of three of its members, all members of municipal boards, commissions and committees and representatives of the City to other agencies.” Charter section 4.9 provides: “Councilmembers may be members of the governing body of any board, commission, agency or other intergovernmental agency to which the City is entitled to appoint a representative. A Councilmember shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 113 cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None.

DISCUSSION:

In addition to their duties on the City Council, Councilmembers serve on the boards and committees of various outside agencies and on City committees. It has been the Council’s past practice to review these assignments annually and make appointments for the upcoming calendar year. Historically, the Council has distributed outside agency assignments among Councilmembers according to their areas of interest and expertise.

It is recommended that the Council make appointments for 2023 as appropriate (worksheet included as Attachment 1), including, if desired, appointing alternates as appropriate.

Appointments for calendar year 2022 are included for reference (Attachment 2).

CBK
Attachment: 1. 2023 Appointments Worksheet

2. 2022 Appointments
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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 114 2023 Appointments to Outside Agencies and City Committees ATTACHMENT 1 Approved [mtg. date]
Legend: R = Representative; a = alternate; V = Voting Member; L = Liaison/Observer

OUTSIDE AGENCIES, APPOINTED BY COUNCIL
(stipend, if applicable)
Role Meeting Date/Time
of ea. mo. unless specified
Barber Garcia Haffa Smith Williamson Staff
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Board of Directors ($50/mtg. stipend) V
2 nd Wed. or as sched.
6:00 p.m. Cole
Cannery Row Business Improvement District L
2 nd Wed.
8:30 a.m. Roveri
Central Coast Community Energy
Policy Board
Seats rotate per MOU between Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-theSea, and Monterey (Ag-10560). For the two-year term 1/2023- 12/2024, Monterey holds alternate seats on both boards. a
3x/yr. and as sched.
9:00 a.m. Uslar
Community Human Services
Board of Directors V
3 rd Thurs.
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Leonard
Monterey County Fair
Fairgrounds Subcommittee L 2-3x/yr. as needed Cole
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Agency
Board of Directors
V As needed Rojanasathira,
Larson
Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority
Board of Directors
($50/mtg. stipend plus mileage); MST Administers
V 1x/yr. M. Garcia
Monterey One Water
Board of Directors ($100/mtg. stipend) V
Last Mon.
6:00 p.m. Cole
Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Liaison, Council of Monterey Business Associations V
4x/yr. on a Thurs.
2:00-3:00 p.m. Cole, Uslar
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Policy Advisory Committee V As needed Cole
Monterey Salinas Transit
Board of Directors ($100/mtg. stipend plus mileage) V
2 nd Mon.
10:00 a.m.

M. Garcia – a
Renny – a2
New Monterey Business Association
Board of Directors L
1 st Thurs.
9:00 a.m. Buggert
North Fremont Business District
Advisory Committee L
3 rd Wed.
9:00 a.m. Schmidt
Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement Dist.

Board of Directors
($100/mtg stipend) Current four-year term to end Jan. 2, 2024 V
2 nd Tue., or as sched.
12:00 p.m.

Diane deLorimier n/a
Old Monterey Business Association
Board of Directors V
2 nd Wed.
3:30 p.m. Sabdo
ReGen Monterey
(formerly Monterey Regional Waste Mgmt. District)
Board of Directors ($100/mtg. stipend – Chair add’l $100) Four year term to end 12/2026 even if elected office ends prior to expiration of term. Legislation does not allow for alternates.

V
3 rd Fri. (alt 4th Fri.)
9:00 a.m. Terrasas
Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster
Board of Directors Two year term ends 12/2023 V
1 st Wed. or as sched.
2:00 p.m. Harty, Hennings
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Board of Directors $50/mtg. stipend V
4 th Wed. or as sched.
9:00 a.m.

M. Garcia – a2
Renny – a3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 115 2023 Appointments to Outside Agencies and City Committees ATTACHMENT 1 Approved [mtg. date]
Legend: R = Representative; a = alternate; V = Voting Member; L = Liaison/Observer

OUTSIDE AGENCIES, APPOINTED EXTERNALLY
Included in this chart for informational purposes only; City Council does not make these appointments.

Any appointment of a City official made by the City Selection Committee will be added to this section.

Role Meeting Date/Time
of ea. Mo. Unless specified
Barber Garcia Haffa Smith Williamson Staff
City Selection Committee (Monterey County)
City is represented by Mayor (CA Gov Code § 50270) V Early Jan. and as sched. n/a Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau
Board of Directors
City representative is nominated and elected through an application process. Current two-year term ends June 2024.

V
Last Thurs. or as sched.
3:00-5:00 p.m. R
Uslar,
Conference Ctr.

General Mgr.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Board of Directors
($135/mtg. stipend)
The City Selection Committee, comprised of the mayors of each city within the county, will appoint one individual to this seat. (City of Monterey is not guaranteed a representative.)
V
3 rd Mon., or as sched.
6:00 p.m. Cole
CITY COMMITTEES, APPOINTED BY COUNCIL Meeting Date/Time Barber Garcia Haffa Smith Williamson Staff Monterey Conference Center (MCC) Advisory Board 3rd Thurs., or as sched. 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Uslar,
Conf. Ctr. GM
Subcommittee on Commission Appointments
City representative is the Mayor per Council policy. As needed R Klein Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program
(NCIP) Committee As needed Harty, Paulding
STAFF ACTS AS CITY REPRESENTATIVE, APPOINTED BY CITY MANAGER:

Access Media Productions – Board of Directors – V, 3rd. Mon. quarterly, 12:00-1:00 p.m. – Uslar, Huelga Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments – Admin. Committee – V – Cole Central Coast Community Energy – Operations Board – a – Uslar (see rotation notes above under Policy Board) Coalition of Homeless Service Providers – Board of Directors, Housing Pipeline Committee, Leadership Council – L, as needed – Leonard Monterey Bay Defense Alliance – Uslar
Monterey Bay Regional Climate Action Compact – L, as needed – Terrasas Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force – V, as needed – Terrasas Monterey County Veterans Issues Advisory Committee – V, 4th Thurs. 3:00 p.m. – Rojanasathira Monterey Peninsula Airport District – L, as needed – Roveri Monterey Peninsula Water Management District – Technical Advisory Committee – V, as needed – Cole Presidio Municipal Services Agency – V, as needed – Uslar, Renny Transportation Agency for Monterey County – Technical Advisory Committee – V, 1st Thurs. 9:30 a.m. – M. Garcia – R, Renny – a1, Roveri – a2 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 116

OUTSIDE AGENCIES
(stipend, if applicable)
Role Meeting Date/Time
of ea. mo. unless specified
Albert Haffa Roberson Smith Williamson Staff
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Board of Directors ($50/mtg. stipend) V
2 nd Wed. or as sched.
6:00 p.m. a R
Cole
(Admin. Comm. – V)
Cannery Row Business Improvement District L
2 nd Wed.
8:30 a.m. R Schmidt
Community Human Services
Board of Directors V
3 rd Thurs.
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. a R Leonard
Monterey County Fair
Fairgrounds Subcommittee
L 2-3x/yr. as needed R Cole
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Agency V As needed a R
Rojanasathira,
Larson
Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau
Board of Directors
City representative is elected through an application process.

Current rep. term ends June 2022.

V
Last Thurs. or as sched.
2:00-5:00 p.m. R Uslar, Phillips
Monterey One Water
Board of Directors
($100/mtg. stipend)
V
Last Mon.
6:00 p.m. a R Buggert
Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Liaison, Council of Monterey Business Associations V
4x/yr. on a Thurs.
2:00-3:00 p.m. R Cole
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Board of Directors
$135/mtg. stipend
Mayoral rep, appointed by Mont. Co. City Selection Committee V
3 rd Mon. or as sched.
6:00 p.m. R Cole
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Policy Advisory Committee V As needed R Cole
Monterey Regional Waste Management District
($100/mtg. stipend – Chair receives add’l $100 for
board mtgs.)
Four year term to end Dec. 2022 even if elected office ends prior to expiration of term. Legislation does not allow for alternates.

V
3 rd Fri. (alt 4th Fri.)
9:00 a.m. R Cole, Terrasas
Monterey Salinas Transit
Board of Directors
($100/mtg. stipend plus mileage)
V
2 nd Mon.
10:00 a.m. R Renny - a
Monterey Salinas Transit - Regional Taxi Authority
Board of Directors
($50/mtg. stipend plus mileage)
V 1x/yr. R Renny
New Monterey Business Association
Board of Directors L
1 st Wed.
9:00 a.m. R a Sabdo
North Fremont Business District
Advisory Committee L
3 rd Wed.
9:00 a.m. a R Buggert
Old Monterey Business Association
Board of Directors V
1 st Thurs.
3:30-4:30 p.m.

R Roveri
Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster
Board of Directors
Two year terms – current terms end Dec. 2021
V
1 st Wed. or as sched.
2:00 p.m. R a Harty
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Board of Directors V
4 th Wed. or as sched.
9:00 a.m. a1 R Renny - a2
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 117 CITY COMMITTEES Meeting Date/Time Albert Haffa Roberson Smith Williamson Staff Subcommittee on Commission Appointments (Mayor) As needed R Klein Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program
(NCIP) Committee As needed R Harty
STAFF ACTS AS CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THESE GROUPS:

Access Media Productions – Board of Directors – V, 3rd. Mon. quarterly, 12:00-1:00 p.m. – Uslar, Huelga Coalition of Homeless Service Providers – Board of Directors, Housing Pipeline Committee, Leadership Council – L, as needed – Leonard COVID Collaborative Community Foundation – Uslar
Monterey Bay Defense Alliance – Uslar
Monterey Bay Regional Climate Action Compact – L, as needed – Terrasas Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force – V, as needed – Terrasas Monterey County Veterans Issues Advisory Committee – V, 4 th Thurs. 3:00 p.m. – Rojanasathira
Monterey Peninsula Airport District – L, as needed -- Sabdo Monterey Peninsula Water Management District – Technical Advisory Committee – V, as needed – Cole Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District – V, 2nd Tues. 12:00 p.m. -- deLorimier Four year term to end January 2, 2024 Presidio Municipal Services Agency – V, as needed – Uslar, Wittry Transportation Agency for Monterey County – Technical Advisory Committee – V, 1st Thurs. 9:30 a.m. – Garcia - R, Renny -a1, Roveri - a2 CITY REPRESENTED BY OTHER AGENCIES:

Central Coast Community Energy (formerly Monterey Bay Community Power) JPA – Policy Board and Operations Board Seats rotate between Cities of Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Monterey. City of Monterey officials are not scheduled to hold representative or alternate seats for the two year term to end Dec. 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Measure P and S (Special Sales Tax) Annual Report on Conformity with Requirement that Expenditures be used Exclusively for the Rehabilitation, Repair, and Improvement of City Streets, Sidewalks, and Strom Drains and Disabled Access Improvements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the attached report regarding the findings of the Measure P and S Oversight Committee regarding the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Code requires the Oversight Committee to report to the City Council on the conformity of expenditures. City Code section 35-71 provides, “The City Council shall appoint a five-member citizens’ advisory board (the “Oversight Committee”) which shall meet at least annually to review the revenues generated by the tax imposed by the ordinance codified in this article and expenditures of those revenues, and shall report to the City Council on the conformity of such expenditures for purposes set forth in Section 35-70.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Receipt of the report has no fiscal implications.

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 Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 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:

None; Chapter 35, Article 7 of the City Code requires the Oversight Committee to report to the City Council on the conformity of expenditures for the purposes set forth in the Ordinance (Ord. 3504).

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Prior to 2014, the condition of Monterey’s streets, sidewalks, and roadway infrastructure were in decline as a result of dwindling funding sources. The most cost-effective way to maintain a roadway is to address cracks in the pavement as soon as they surface. It is five to ten times cheaper to properly maintain streets than allow them to fail and then pay for necessary rehabilitation. With limited funding, the City’s streets began to suffer and risk costlier consequences from deferred maintenance in future years.

In November 2014, 74% of Monterey voters approved Measure P, effective April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2019, which was a 1% sales tax to address deferred maintenance for streets, sidewalks, potholes, storm drain maintenance, and disable access and safety improvements. In November 2018, 82% of voters supported Measure S, which is a continuation of Measure P, which took effect on April 1, 2019 and will expire on March 31, 2027.

Measures P and S: Delivering on the City’s Promise to Fix Monterey’s Streets Funding from Measure P, and subsequently Measure S, was vital in improving the condition of our streets, sidewalks and storm drains. Prior to Measure P, the City’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was 53, an “at-risk” level indicating the pavement is deteriorated and requires immediate attention, including rehabilitative work. As of June 2022, the City’s PCI was rated at 69, a “good” rating that is a testament to voters’ willingness to support the funding of City streets and infrastructure.

The City is proud to deliver on its promise to fix city streets and infrastructure through Measure P and S, and appreciates its citizens’ support of this crucial funding source.

Measure P and S Oversight Committee
Proceeds from Measure P and S are required to be deposited into the City treasury in a special fund entitled the “Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax Fund.” Monies deposited into this fund, together with any interest that accrues thereon, shall be used exclusively for the rehabilitation, repair, and improvement of the City’s streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and disabled access and safety improvements.

In addition to providing funding, the Measure also required the creation of a citizens’ oversight committee that would meet periodically and review Measure P and S expenditures. This committee is charged with ensuring that the funds that have been collected are being spent consistent with the language contained in the expenditure plan. The Oversight Committee has met on a regular basis with City staff and has prepared the attached report for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 RTK
Attachments:

1. Measure P Unaudited Financial Statement for the period 7/1/21 through 6/30/22

2. Measure P Unaudited Claims Detail for the period 7/1/21 through 6/30/22

3. Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction from March 2015 - June 2022 Copies to: All Neighborhood Associations
All Business Associations
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MONTEREY
TO: Measure P and S Oversight Committee
FROM: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
DATE: October 10, 2022
SUBJECT: Periodic Report for the Period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews projects and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. The Committee meets with the Finance and Public Works Departments.

During discussions as the Measure P language was being developed, City staff predicted that it would require approximately 10 years of the additional tax revenue to raise the city streets’ average PCI (Pavement Condition Index) rating from the original 54 to an acceptable 75. In November 2014, voters approved a 4-year tax increase, with a target PCI of 67, allowing an opportunity to ensure sufficient progress was being made before voting again on an extension of the measure. In November 2018, Measure S was put before the voters and passed as an extension of Measure P for eight years, ending March 31, 2027.

The 1% special transactions and use tax (sales tax) approved by voters with the passage of Measure P went into effect April, 2015. To account for this funding (both revenues and expenditures), the City established a separate fund entitled Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Fund. Any unspent tax proceeds remain in the fund and can only be used for items identified in the Measure P and S spending plan. From inception through June 30, 2022, total revenue (including interest) was $70.1 million, total expenditure was $60.0 million, and fund balance was $10.0 million. For the four quarters of FY21/22 period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, total revenue was $11,541,689, total expenditure was $7,246,360, and the change in fund balance was an increase of $10,026,385. During FY2021/22, projects will continue to be conducted to spend the fund balance.

MEASURE P and S ACTIVITY
unaudited
FY15 to FY17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 Total Revenue
Tax Revenue $ 20,149,137 $ 10,022,893 $ 10,212,984 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 69,455,394 Interest 78,347 89,260 142,829 177,997 80,559 88,450 657,442 Total 20,227,484 10,112,153 10,355,813 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 70,112,836 Expenditures
Storm Drains 1,023,635 321,797 48,414 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 3,247,633 Sidewalks 1,471,404 152,816 54,226 869,104 589,017 822,372 3,958,939 Pavement 8,497,574 7,649,871 5,757,426 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 42,636,334 ADA 1,768,534 1,113,338 3,100,987 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 10,243,545 Total 12,761,147 9,237,822 8,961,054 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 60,086,451 Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ 7,466,337 $ 874,331 $ 1,394,759 $ (4,209,412) $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 10,026,385 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 The table below represents the year over year comparable for the last four fiscal years.

Thru 6/30/2019 Thru 6/30/2020 Thru 6/30/2021 Thru 6/30/2022 FY18/19 YTD FY19/20 YTD FY20/21 YTD FY21/22 YTD $ of Change % of Change Revenue
Tax Revenue $ 10,212,984 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $11,453,238 $ 2,810,213 33% Interest 142,829 177,997 80,559 88,450 7,892 10%
Total 10,355,813 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 2,818,105 32% Expenditures
Storm Drains 48,414 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 (1,328,603) -91% Sidewalks 54,226 869,104 589,017 822,372 233,355 40%
Pavement 5,757,426 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 892,251 19% ADA 3,100,987 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 (1,069,185) -64% Total 8,961,054 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 (1,272,182) -15% Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ 1,394,759 $ (4,209,412) $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 4,090,287 1995% Year over Year Comparison
Current FY against previous FY
Audits of the City’s financial statements are conducted annually and are available on the City’s website (http://www.monterey.org/City-Hall/Budget-and-Finance/Annual-Financial-Reports).

The Committee has determined that to date, the City has managed Measure P and S projects and funds in compliance with the Measure as approved by the voters.

City staff has provided the following to the Oversight Committee as requested:
 Documentation of project expenditures
 Technical assistance and explanations, as needed
 Updates on both current and future projects
Information regarding the status of Measure P and S projects is available on-line at http://monterey.org/City-Hall/Featured-Projects/Fixing-Streets.

The Measure P and S Oversight Committee has complied with the Brown Act. All meeting times, locations and agendas have been properly noticed, and meeting minutes are available at https://monterey.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions-and-Committees/Measure-S-OversightCommittee Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123 MEASURE P and S ACTIVITY
unaudited
FY15 to FY17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 Total RevenueTax Revenue $ 20,149,137 $ 10,022,893 $ 10,212,984 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 69,455,394 Interest 78,347 89,260 142,829 177,997 80,559 88,450 657,442 Total 20,227,484 10,112,153 10,355,813 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 70,112,836 ExpendituresStorm Drains 1,023,635 321,797 48,414 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 3,247,633 Sidewalks 1,471,404 152,816 54,226 869,104 589,017 822,372 3,958,939 Pavement 8,497,574 7,649,871 5,757,426 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 42,636,334 ADA 1,768,534 1,113,338 3,100,987 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 10,243,545 Total 12,761,147 9,237,822 8,961,054 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 60,086,451 Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ 874,331 7,466,337 $ 1,394,759 $ (4,209,412) $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 10,026,385 $ Note: Portola Plaza added to PavementNote: N Fremont added to ADA Note: First tax payment received in September.

Thru 6/30/2019 Thru 6/30/2020 Thru 6/30/2021 Thru 6/30/2022 FY18/19 YTD FY19/20 YTD FY20/21 YTD FY21/22 YTD $ of Change % of Change RevenueTax Revenue $ 10,212,984 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 2,810,213 33% Interest 142,829 177,997 80,559 88,450 7,892 10%
Total 10,355,813 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 2,818,105 32% ExpendituresStorm Drains 48,414 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 (1,328,603) -91% Sidewalks 54,226 869,104 589,017 822,372 233,355 40%
Pavement 5,757,426 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 892,251 19% ADA 3,100,987 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 (1,069,185) -64% Total 8,961,054 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 (1,272,182) -15% Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ (4,209,412) 1,394,759 $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 4,090,287 $ 1995% Year over Year Comparison
Current FY against previous FY
S:\400-Financial-Fiscal\403-Accounting\403-02-Gen-Ledger\CIP-NIP\Measure P\Oversight Committee\FY23\2022-10 Meeting (070121-063022)\Measure P_Claim Detail FY22 (P1-12) - 070121-063022.xlsx 10/6/2022 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124 1 104.51
Total STREET 11,044,113.00 11,541,688.63 11,541,688.63 -497,575.63 104.51 11,044,113.00 11,541,688.63 11,541,688.63 -497,575.63

0.00 104.11
3310 INTEREST INCOME 43,148.00 88,450.39 88,450.39 -45,302.39 204.99 -452,273.24
3317 UNREALIZED GAIN ON INVE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3151 STREET MAINTENANCE & UTILITIES3060 SALES & USE TAX 11,000,965.00 11,453,238.24 11,453,238.24 Adjusted Estimate Year-to-date
Revenues
Prct
Account Revenues Balance Rcvd310revstat.rpt Page:
09/29/2022Periods: 1 th
Revenue Status Report
7/1/2021 through 6/30/2022
252
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 125 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10552 SOLEDAD DRIVE STORM DRAIN 60,272.75 8/24/2021 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 3,551.25
8/24/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 585.00 8/27/2021 DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE 1600-2017-0176 R4 AMENDMENT 1,572.50 9/24/2021 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES INC AG-8193 - BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 2,519.009/24/2021 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 466.25 10/12/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10552 SOLEDAD DRIVE STORM DRAIN 3,803.32 10/12/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10552 SOLEDAD DRIVE STORM DRAIN 3,372.4210/20/2021 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 110.00 3/9/2022 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 670.003/9/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 156.00 3/28/2022 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL 7/1/21-6/30/22 DETENTION BASIN 2,031.00 5/20/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG10729-12 PINE ST SD REPLACEMENT 16,803.60 5/20/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG10729-12 PINE ST SD REPLACEMENT 884.406/13/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 58.506/21/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 292.506/30/2022 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 775.006/30/2022 DUDEK AG-8189 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 387.506/30/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG10729-09 FRANKLIN STREET STORM DRAIN 3,446.71 6/30/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG10729-09 FRANKLIN STREET STORM DRAIN 5,046.25 6/30/2022 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES INC AG-8193 DUFFY ON-CALL FOR BIOLOGICAL 11,580.00 6/30/2022 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES INC AG-8193 DUFFY ON-CALL FOR BIOLOGICAL 4,899.00 Total Vendors $ 123,282.95
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 5.00 229.43BAE01 ANDREAS BAER SENIOR ENGINEER 0.00 16.00KOR02 THOMAS KORMAN SENIOR ENGINEER 15.00 1,290.37RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 30.00 1,875.79RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 8.00 486.03Project: 33c1554 Lab overhead 3,159.81 Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 7,057.43 58.00 $ Project 33c1554 Total $ 130,340.38 MEASURE P - STORM DRAINS (33c1554)
7/1/2021 -6/30/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 8, Packet Page 126 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2021 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 1,087.60
8/10/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC TREE SERVICE 3,900.00 8/24/2021 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 2,223.32
9/8/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10520 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK 144,655.049/8/2021 BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC PLANTS/TREES 3,316.45 9/27/2021 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC TREE SERVICES SKYLINE MAINT 900.00 10/12/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10520 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK 206,859.4110/26/2021 BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC PLANT SUPPLIES 1,274.1811/19/2021 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 595.00 12/7/2021 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 80.00
12/20/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10520 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK 132,652.7812/20/2021 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10520 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK 25,482.49 1/24/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 910.00
2/10/2022 WEST COAT ARBORISTS, INC TREE MAINTENANCE MEAS P 5,550.003/23/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 2,635.00 4/25/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 DUDEK'S ON-CALL 80.00
6/21/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO AG-10873 DEL MONTE GROVE 56,322.65 6/22/2022 EF & S CONCRETE AG-11014: JEFFERSON ST 36,814.00 6/30/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 POM LOWER PARK 611.48
6/30/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC REF PO# 44781 AG 10729-20 RUBBERIZED TREE INFILL 60,461.20 6/30/2022 DON CHAPIN CO INC REF PO# 44781 AG 10729-20 RUBBERIZED TREE INFILL 3,182.17 Total Vendors $ 689,592.77
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
BON02 DANIEL BONANFANT CRAFTSWORKER 3.00 136.85BAL03 SHAY BALESTERI SENIOR STREET MAINTENANCE 2.00 79.85CAL02 ETHAN CALLIHAN STREET MAINT LEADWORKER 3.00 149.14 ESP01 JOSE ESPINOZA STREET MAINTENANCE 2.00 73.36GAR02 JUAN GARCIA SENIOR STREET MAINTENANCE 1.00 48.61GON01 ELMIRO GONCALVES STREET & UTILITIES SUPERVISOR 2.00 130.21HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 83.00 6,317.71 KOR02 THOMAS KORMAN SENIOR ENGINEER 176.25 15,845.43
RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 79.00 5,344.86RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 379.50 21,553.23 RIZ03 EDGARD RIZO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 21.50 1,111.85SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 428.50 22,539.45 Project: 35c1552 Lab overhead 59,449.12
Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 1,180.75 $ 132,779.67Project 35c1552 Total $ 822,372.44 MEASURE P - SIDEWALKS (35c1552)
7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 9, Packet Page 127 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2021 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10539 MONTEREY VISTA 12,783.31 8/24/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 5,172.00 8/24/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 537.00
9/8/2021 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10041 CW ROAD SURFACE 126,476.82 9/8/2021 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10041 CW ROAD SURFACE 22,582.009/8/2021 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10539 MONTEREY VISTA 1,882.49 9/24/2021 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10330 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 39,594.539/24/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 2,587.00 10/12/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 422.5010/12/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 84.5010/12/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 84.5010/20/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 180.0010/20/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 195.0010/26/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 338.00 11/5/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 267.5011/5/2021 MNS ENGINEERS INC AG-5795 MSN ON CALL 2,663.86 11/19/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 1,530.0011/19/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 214.50 12/7/2021 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 2,759.00 12/17/2021 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 610.00 1/10/2022 MCKIM CORPORTATION AG-10313 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR 22,863.00 1/10/2022 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 1,792.501/13/2022 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10539 MONTEREY VISTA 6,206.841/13/2022 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10041 CW ROAD SURFACE 6,539.682/10/2022 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 225.752/10/2022 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 4,533.252/22/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10330 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 79,942.50 3/9/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC AG#10561 1230 ROOSEVELT ST REMOVAL TREE 175.00 3/23/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 VAN BUREN & MONROE CROWN 205.003/23/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10330 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 413,906.63 3/23/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 39.00 3/25/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC CONSTRUCTION TREE SERVICES 700.00 4/8/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10330 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 205,624.164/8/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10330 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 64,081.98 4/8/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMPS 3,902.50 4/8/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 384.00 4/21/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC TREE SERVICES #1000068 1,015.00 4/25/2022 DUDEK AG-8189 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR 671.284/25/2022 WALLAGE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON CALL 3,117.004/25/2022 DON CHAPIN CO. INC AG-10729-11 CASS STREET ROOT CO 22,935.855/10/2022 MCK SERVICES INC AG-10835 CITYWIDE ROAD SURFACE REPAIR 2,398,386.435/10/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10749 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 508,577.27 5/10/2022 DON CHAPIN CO. INC AG-10729-10 MONROE POTHOLES 4,479.485/10/2022 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD REHAB 2. CASA VERDE 10,932.13 5/19/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC TREE SERVICES AG#1002449 1,110.005/20/2022 DUDEK AG-8189 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR 1,342.595/20/2022 DON CHAPIN CO. INC AG-10729-10 MONROE POTHOLES 235.76 MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 10, Packet Page 128 Date Vendor Description Other
MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
5/20/2022 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD REHAB 2. CASA VERDE 215.635/20/2022 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW RSR 3 MATERIAL TESTING 17,833.135/24/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC CONSTRUCTION TREE SERVICES 1,720.00 6/6/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC CONSTRUCTION TREE SERVICES 380.00 6/13/2022 MCK SERVICES INC AG-10835 CITYWIDE ROAD SURFACE REPAIR 1,298,508.84 6/13/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 112.00 6/13/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 180.006/13/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMPS 3,543.00 6/13/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMPS 1,288.00 6/13/2022 DON CHAPIN CO. INC AG-10729-11 CASS STREET ROOT CORRECTION 1,378.706/13/2022 DON CHAPIN CO. INC AG-10729-11 CASS STREET ROOT CORRECTION 1,279.716/21/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC TREE SERVICES AG#1005151 225.006/30/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC AG-10561 CITYWIDE TREE MAINTENANCE 940.006/30/2022 DUDEK REF PO#44708 AG-8189 ARCHAEOLOGICAL 600.006/30/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 CW RR3 PH 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL 420.006/30/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10749 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 3,230.006/30/2022 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AG-10749 CITYWIDE ROAD REHAB 42,336.206/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS SERVICES SKYLINE CENTERLINE 1,588.00 6/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS SERVICES SKYLINE CENTERLINE 180.006/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS SERVICES SKYLINE CENTERLINE 280.006/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS SERVICES HIGH ST 504.006/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMPS 2,349.00 6/30/2022 WHITSON ENGINEERS REF PO#44697 AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB 560.006/30/2022 WALLAGE GROUP REF PO#43332 AG-5844 WALLACE ON-CALL 4,138.256/30/2022 WALLACE GROUP REF PO#43332 AG-5844 WALLACE ON-CALL 1,027.00 Total Vendors $ 5,369,705.55
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 153.00 7,583.75 BAL03 SHAY BALESTERI SENIOR STREET MAINT. WORKER 4.00 145.78CRI06 ANTHONY CRICCHIO JR STREET MAINT WORKER 4.00 169.17GAR40 MARISSA GARCIA ENGINEERING ASSISTANT 8.00 425.19HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 395.00 31,648.96KOR02 THOMAS KORMAN SENIOR ENGINEER 404.00 35,966.06NOR05 THYS NORTON ASSISTANT URBAN FORESTER 11.00 768.48RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 616.50 40,294.27REN01 ANDREA RENNY CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER 12.00 1,047.24RIE02 MAXIMILIAN RIESER ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER 43.00 3,494.66RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 446.00 25,497.14RIZ03 EDGARD RIZO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 462.50 24,708.00 - SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 209.75 11,323.19Project: 35c1553 Lab overhead 132,554.46 Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 2,768.75 315,626.35 $ ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 11, Packet Page 129 Date Vendor Description Other
MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
Project 35c1553 Total $ 5,685,331.90
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 12, Packet Page 130 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2021 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-10312 CITYWIDE CURB RAMP 4,191.42 8/24/2021 EF & S CONCRETE AG-10446 CITYWIDE CURB RAMP 16,173.43 8/10/2021 MNS ENGINEERS INC AG-5795 MNS ON CALL FOR MUNRAS AVE 200.00 8/24/2021 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 2,514.81 8/24/2021 DUDEK AG-8189 DUDEK ON CALL FOR INTERSECTION 330.43 10/20/2021 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 4,429.62 1/10/2021 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 7,578.36 3/23/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 4,840.37 4/21/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455 CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICE 9,134.20 4/25/2022 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-10904 CITYWIDE CURB RAMP 365,940.004/25/2022 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 MATERIAL TESTING CURB RAMPS 2,164.88 5/20/2022 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-10904 CITYWIDE CURB RAMP 47,898.10 5/20/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 CITYWIDE CURB RAMPS 7,064.92
5/20/2022 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 MATERIAL TESTING CURB RAMPS 1,145.19 6/21/2022 DUDEK AG-7969 CITYWIDE CURB RAMPS 1,366.07
6/23/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455 MUNRAS/WEBSTER INTERSECTION 1,443.75 6/23/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455 CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICE 3,142.58 6/23/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455 CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICE 9,976.23 6/30/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455 CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICE 9,204.80 6/30/2022 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC AG-10455: FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 4,583.24 *Note: The project was bid and constructed with the Van Buren ADA upgrades and street work at Pacific/Van Buren. (Per Reso 18-218) Labor Total Vendors $ 503,322.40
Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 213.00 10,624.31BON02 DANIEL BONANFANT CRAFTSWORKER 2.00 90.81CAL02 ETHAN CALLIHAN STREET MAINT LEADWORKER 4.50 223.79 CRI06 ANTHONY CRICCHIO JR STREET MAINT WORKER 4.50 188.75HEN04 CODY HENNINGS ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 50.75 2,322.26HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 104.00 8,217.09 KOR02 THOMAS KORMAN SENIOR ENGINEER 141.50 12,947.00RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 31.50 2,405.64 REN01 ANDREA RENNY CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER 22.00 1,856.15 RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 59.75 3,425.41 RIZ03 EDGARD RIZO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 310.50 15,629.14 SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 1.00 54.55 Project: 35c1555 Lab overhead 47,008.35
Total Salary, Benefits and Overhead 945.00 104,993.25 $ Project 35c1555 Total $ 608,315.65
7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
MEASURE P - ADA (35c1555)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 13, Packet Page 131 StreetName Begin Location End Location Current PCI Treatment ABINANTE WAY LITTLEFIELD RD NORTH END 65 SLURRY SEAL
AGUAJITO RD MARK THOMAS DR CASTRO RD 70 SLURRY SEAL
AGUAJITO RD CASTRO RD ALLAN DR 85 SLURRY SEAL
AGUAJITO RD ALLAN DR FARRAGUT RD 68 SLURRY SEAL
AGUAJITO RD GLE CIR ACC RD (N) GLE CIR ACC RD (S) 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) AGUAJITO RD GLE CIR ACC RD (S) HWY 1 (ON-RAMP) 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) AGUAJITO RD HWY 1 (ON-RAMP) MARK THOMAS DR 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) AIRPORT RD LITTLENESS AVE BUSH ST 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD DUNDEE DR LITTLENESS AVE 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD EDINBURGH AVE IVY ST 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD BRUCE LN FAIRGROUND RD 79 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) AIRPORT RD MITCHER ST AIRPORT RD 79 SLURRY SEAL
AIRPORT RD LILAC ST MITCHER ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
AIRPORT RD N FREMONT ST BRUCE LN 72 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) AIRPORT RD FAIRGROUND RD DUNDEE DR 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD IVY ST LILAC ST 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
AIRPORT RD FERN ST EDINBURGH AVE 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD BUSH ST LERWICK DR 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY AIRPORT RD LERWICK DR FERN ST 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ALAMEDA AVE MARTIN ST EL CAMINO 90 THICK AC OVERLAY (2.5") ALAMEDA AVE EL CAMINO COLTON ST 90 SLURRY SEAL
ALAMEDA ST PUNTA PERDIDO MUNRAS AVE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) ALAMEDA ST PACIFIC ST PUNTA PERDIDO 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) ALAMEDA ST COLTON ST GROVE ST 90 SLURRY SEAL
ALAMEDA ST GROVE ST AVE MARIA RD 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) ALAMEDA ST AVE MARIA RD PACIFIC ST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) ALCALDE AVE MONTECITO AVE N FREMONT ST 70 SLURRY SEAL
ALICE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
ALICE ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
ALICE ST SE END PRESCOTT AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
ALLAN DR AGUAJITO RD ALLAN DR 76 SLURRY SEAL
ALMA ST ABREGO ST FIGUEROA ST 25 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL ALTA MESA CIR ALTA MESA RD NE ALTA MESA RD SW 4 SLURRY SEAL ALTA MESA RD ALTA MESA CIR NE ALTA MESA CIR SW 76 SLURRY SEAL ALTA MESA RD ALTA MESA CIR DON DAHVEE LN 74 SLURRY SEAL ALTA MESA RD EL DORADO ST ALTA MESA CIR 76 SLURRY SEAL
ALVARADO ST BONIFACIO PL E FRANKLIN ST 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ALVARADO ST PEARL ST BONIFACIO PL 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ALVARADO ST E FRANKLIN ST DEL MONTE AVE 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ANITA ST NORTH END WAINWRIGHT ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
ANTELOPE LN ELK RUN NW END 88 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST DRAKE AVE MCCLELLAN AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 74 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 77 SLURRY SEAL
ARCHER ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
AUGUSTA PL VIA MARETTIMO SOUTH END 79 SLURRY SEAL
AVE MARIA RD ALAMEDA AVE SAN BERNABE DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) BARNET SEGAL LN SOLEDAD DR IRIS CANYON RD 71 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (ST) BARTOLOMEA WAY PACIFIC ST SAN BERNABE DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) BEACH WAY TIDE AVE SEAFOAM AVE 64 SLURRY SEAL
BEACH WAY SPRAY AVE DUNECREST AVE 60 SLURRY SEAL
BEACH WAY SEAFOAM AVE SPRAY AVE 70 SLURRY SEAL
BEACH WAY NORTH END TIDE AVE 62 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST DRAKE AVE MCCLELLAN AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 69 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 77 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST SE END DICKMAN AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 77 SLURRY SEAL
BELDEN ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
BLACK TAIL LN STAG LN SE END 48 SLURRY SEAL
BONIFACIO PL ALVARADO ST TYLER ST 87 SLURRY SEAL
BOWEN ST ROOSEVELT ST HARRISON ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) BOWEN ST W FRANKLIN ST ROOSEVELT ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) BRANNER AVE CASANOVA AVE ENGLISH AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
BRANNER AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 71 SLURRY SEAL
BRANNER AVE JOHN ST HANNON AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
BRANNER AVE RAMONA AVE JOHN ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
BRANNER AVE ENGLISH AVE VIRGIN AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
BRUCE LN AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
BUSH ST AIRPORT RD SW END 82 SLURRY SEAL
CALLE PRINCIPAL E FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST 90 SLURRY SEAL CALLE PRINCIPAL DEL MONTE AVE E FRANKLIN ST 90 SLURRY SEAL CAMINO AGUAJITO LAKE ST FIRST ST 79 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO FIRST ST SECOND ST 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO PEARL ST FOURTH ST 80 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO SECOND ST PEARL ST 71 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO FOURTH ST FIFTH ST 90 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO FIFTH ST SIXTH ST 73 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO SIXTH ST SEVENTH ST 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO SEVENTH ST EIGHTH ST 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO EIGHTH ST FREMONT ST 90 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO AGUAJITO DEL MONTE AVE LAKE ST 90 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction from March 2015 thru June 2022 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 14, Packet Page 132 CAMINO EL ESTERO E FRANKLIN ST ANTHONY ST 71 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO EL ESTERO DEL MONTE AVE E FRANKLIN ST 80 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO EL ESTERO WEBSTER ST FREMONT ST 75 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO EL ESTERO PEARL ST ROBINSON ST 75 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO EL ESTERO ANTHONY ST PEARL ST 72 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CAMINO EL ESTERO ROBINSON ST WEBSTER ST 81 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) CANNERY ROW WAVE ST HOFFMAN AVE 84 THIN AC OVERLAY(1.5 INCHES) CARMELITO AVE MUNRAS AVE CASS ST 35 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL CARMELO ST NORTH END CASS ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
CASA VERDE WAY N FREMONT ST FAIRGROUND RD 81 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY CASANOVA AVE RALSTON DR SE END 76 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE NW END GRANT AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE MONTECITO AVE BRANNER AVE 78 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE BRANNER AVE TOYON AVE 78 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE TOYON AVE SEQUOIA AVE 71 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE SEQUOIA AVE KOLB AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE KOLB AVE N FREMONT ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE EUCLID AVE SHIRL PAT WAY 83 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE SHIRL PAT WAY RALSTON DR 75 SLURRY SEAL
CASANOVA AVE GRANT AVE MONTECITO AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
CASTANADA PL VIA CASTANADA SW END 88 SLURRY SEAL
CEDAR ST ROOSEVELT ST HARRISON ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
CEDAR ST HARRISON ST SOUTH END 89 SLURRY SEAL
CEDAR ST W FRANKLIN ST SOUTH END 95 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) CEDAR ST NORTH END ROOSEVELT ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
CEDAR ST HELLAM ST W FRANKLIN ST 85 SLURRY SEAL
CHATSWOOD PL SKYLINE DR END 68 SLURRY SEAL
CHUALAR PL VIA DEL REY NORTH END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) CIELO VISTA DR CIELO VISTA DR EAST CIELO VISTA DR EAST 61 SLURRY SEAL CIELO VISTA DR MONTE VISTA DR CIELO VISTA PL 87 SLURRY SEAL CIELO VISTA DR CIELO VISTA PL CIELO VISTA TER 89 SLURRY SEAL CIELO VISTA DR CIELO VISTA TER CIELO VISTA DR 90 SLURRY SEAL CIELO VISTA PL CIELO VISTA DR EAST END 89 SLURRY SEAL
CIELO VISTA TER CIELO VISTA DR SW END 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) CLAY ST HARRISON ST JEFFERSON ST 65 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST NORTH END MARGARET ST 92 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST ROOSEVELT ST HARRISON ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST W FRANKLIN ST ROOSEVELT ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST HELLAM ST W FRANKLIN ST 91 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST WAINWRIGHT ST HELLAM ST 92 SLURRY SEAL
CLAY ST MARGARET ST WAINWRIGHT ST 92 SLURRY SEAL
COLONEL BISHOP CT EAST END MONROE ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) COLTON ST PACIFIC ST DOUD AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
COLTON ST DOUD AVE FOUNTAIN AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
COLTON ST ALAMEDA AVE MONTEREY CIR EAST 66 SLURRY SEAL
COLTON ST MONTEREY CIR EAST MONTEREY CIR WEST 55 SLURRY SEAL COLTON ST MONTEREY CIR WEST SAN BERNABE DR 71 SLURRY SEAL COLTON ST SAN BERNABE DR VIA PARAISO 90 THIN OVERLAY + R&R (<2") COOPER ST SCOTT ST SOUTH END 90 SLURRY SEAL
COPA DEL ORO VIA MIRADA NE END 81 SLURRY SEAL
CRAMDEN DR EAST END DRY CREEK RD 81 SLURRY SEAL
CRAMDEN DR DRY CREEK RD HUCKLEBERRY DR 78 SLURRY SEAL
CRAMDEN DR HUCKLEBERRY DR SW END 75 SLURRY SEAL
CRANDALL RD SHADY LN SW END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) CRESCENT CT MAR VISTA DR SOUTH END 84 SLURRY SEAL
CUESTA VISTA DR CUESTA VISTA DR EAST CUESTA VISTA DR EAST 91 SLURRY SEAL CUESTA VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR CUESTA VISTA DR 92 SLURRY SEAL DAVID AVE ALICE ST TAYLOR ST 66 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE LOTTIE ST LOBOS ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE TAYLOR ST LOTTIE ST 71 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE LYNDON ST ALICE ST 71 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE PARCEL ST LYNDON ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE TERRY ST PARCEL ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE GRACE ST TERRY ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE LOBOS ST JESSIE ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DAVID AVE JESSIE ST DIVISADERO ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
DEER FOREST DR JOSSELYN CANYON RD ELK RUN 74 SLURRY SEAL DEER FOREST DR ANTLER PL FLAGG HILL DR 67 SLURRY SEAL
DEER FOREST DR FLAGG HILL DR MONHOLLAN RD 81 SLURRY SEAL DEER FOREST DR ELK RUN CARIBOU CT 72 SLURRY SEAL
DEER FOREST DR CARIBOU CT DEER STALKER PATH 69 SLURRY SEAL DEER FOREST DR DEER STALKER PATH ANTLER PL 59 SLURRY SEAL DEER STALKER PATH BLACK TAIL LN WHITE TAIL LN 79 SLURRY SEAL DEER STALKER PATH WHITE TAIL LN NORTH END 88 SLURRY SEAL DEER STALKER PATH MULE DEER WAY BLACK TAIL LN 79 SLURRY SEAL DEER STALKER PATH DEER FOREST DR MULE DEER WAY 79 SLURRY SEAL DEL MONTE AVE PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE CAMINO EL ESTERO CAMINO AGUAJITO 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) CASA VERDE WAY DELA VINA AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) VIRGIN AVE ROBERTS AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) ENGLISH AVE VIRGIN AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) HANNON AVE ENGLISH AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) RAMONA AVE HANNON AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) PALO VERDE AVE CASA VERDE WAY 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) CUNNINGHAM RD (NAVY GATE) PALO VERDE AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) DELA VINA AVE RAMONA AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 15, Packet Page 133 DEL MONTE AVE (EB) SLOAT AVE CUNNINGHAM RD (NAVY GATE) 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL MONTE AVE (EB) ROBERTS AVE CITY LIMIT (EAST OF MYERS ST) 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DEL ROBLES AVE ENCINA AVE PALO VERDE AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL DEL ROBLES AVE ESTRELLA AVE PALO VERDE AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL DEL ROBLES AVE GARDEN AVE ESTRELLA AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
DEL ROBLES AVE NW END MONTECITO AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
DELA ROSA AVE MONTECITO AVE N FREMONT ST 85 SLURRY SEAL DELA VINA AVE MONTECITO AVE AIRPORT RD 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY DELA VINA AVE DEL MONTE AVE ENCINA AVE 69 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DELA VINA AVE END MONTECITO AVE 89 SLURRY SEAL
DELA VINA AVE ENCINA AVE SE END 70 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) DICKMAN AVE HAWTHORNE ST LAINE ST 74 SLURRY SEAL
DICKMAN AVE SPENCER ST ARCHER ST 74 SLURRY SEAL
DICKMAN AVE LAINE ST BELDEN ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
DICKMAN AVE BELDEN ST SPENCER ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
DIVISADERO ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 71 SLURRY SEAL
DON DAHVEE LN MUNRAS AVE ALTA MESA RD 69 SLURRY SEAL
DON DAHVEE LN ALTA MESA RD IRIS CANYON RD 48 SLURRY SEAL DOREY WAY HERRMANN DR WEST END 78 SLURRY SEAL
DORMODY CT CASS ST WEST END 84 SLURRY SEAL
DOUD AVE MARTIN ST COLTON ST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) DOUD AVE COLTON ST PACIFIC ST 85 SLURRY SEAL
DRAKE AVE HAWTHORNE ST LAINE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
DRAKE AVE LAINE ST BELDEN ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
DRAKE AVE BELDEN ST SPENCER ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
DRAKE AVE SPENCER ST ARCHER ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
DRAKE AVE ARCHER ST PINE ST 73 SLURRY SEAL
DRY CREEK RD EAST END DRY CREEK RD 57 SLURRY SEAL
DRY CREEK RD DRY CREEK RD MAR VISTA DR 73 SLURRY SEAL
DRY CREEK RD MAR VISTA DR TOYON DR 88 SLURRY SEAL
DRY CREEK RD TOYON DR SOUTH END 85 SLURRY SEAL
DUNDEE DR AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
DUNECREST AVE DUNECREST LN BEACH WAY 73 SLURRY SEAL
DUNECREST AVE SW END DUNECREST LN 57 SLURRY SEAL
DUNECREST AVE BEACH WAY SURF WAY 81 SLURRY SEAL
DUNECREST AVE SURF WAY NE END 81 SLURRY SEAL
DUNECREST LN DUNECREST LN WEST END 79 DEEP PATCH
EDINBURGH AVE AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
EDINBURGH CIR RAMONA AVE NE END 80 SLURRY SEAL
EIGHTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 61 SLURRY SEAL
EIGHTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
EIGHTH ST CAMINO AGUAJITO TENTH ST 74 SLURRY SEAL
EIGHTH ST TENTH ST PARK AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
EL CALLEJONE VIA CHIQUITA HERRMANN DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) EL CAMINITO HERRMANN DR EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE 83 SLURRY SEAL EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE EL CAMINITO EL CAMINITO DEL SUR 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE EL CAMINITO DEL SUR VIA DEL REY 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) EL CAMINITO DEL SUR EL CAMINITO EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE 94 SLURRY SEAL EL DORADO ST MUNRAS AVE MAJOR SHERMAN LN 90 SLURRY SEAL EL DORADO ST MAJOR SHERMAN LN ALTA MESA RD 89 SLURRY SEAL EL DORADO ST ALTA MESA RD VIA MIRADA 89 SLURRY SEAL
EL DORADO ST VIA MIRADA IRIS CYN 87 SLURRY SEAL
ELK RUN ANTELOPE LN NW END 81 SLURRY SEAL
ELK RUN FAWN LN ANTELOPE LN 67 SLURRY SEAL
ELK RUN DEER FOREST DR FAWN LN 66 SLURRY SEAL
ENCINA AVE OXNER ST DELA VINA AVE 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC ENCINA AVE CASA VERDE WAY OXNER ST 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC ENCINA AVE DEL ROBLES AVE CASA VERDE WAY 76 DEEP PATCH
ENCINA AVE PALO VERDE AVE DEL ROBLES AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL ENCINA AVE VIRGIN AVE MYERS ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
ENCINA AVE ENGLISH AVE VIRGIN AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
ENGLISH AVE ENCINA AVE HWY 1 92 SLURRY SEAL
ENGLISH AVE HWY 1 N HWY 1 S 63 SLURRY SEAL
ENGLISH AVE HWY 1 GRANT AVE 85 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
ENGLISH AVE GRANT AVE MONTECITO AVE 85 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ENGLISH AVE SEQUOIA AVE KOLB AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
ENGLISH AVE DEL MONTE AVE ENCINA AVE 89 SLURRY SEAL
ESTRELLA AVE DEL ROBLES AVE SOUTH END 79 SLURRY SEAL
ETNA PL VIA ISOLA NE END 76 SLURRY SEAL
EUCLID AVE RAMONA AVE SHIRL PAT WAY 80 SLURRY SEAL
EUCLID AVE AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
EUCLID AVE SHIRL PAT WAY CASANOVA AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
FAIRGROUND RD CASA VERDE WAY AIRPORT RD 85 SLURRY SEAL
FAIRGROUND RD GARDEN RD CASA VERDE WAY 86 SLURRY SEAL
FAWN LN ELK RUN CARIBOU CT 40 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL FERN ST AIRPORT RD SW END 82 SLURRY SEAL
FERNWOOD AVE TOYON DR WEST END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) FIFTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
FIFTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
FIFTH ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
FILMORE ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
FILMORE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
FILMORE ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
FILMORE ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
FILMORE ST SE END HOFFMAN AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
FIRST ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
FIRST ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
FIRST ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 16, Packet Page 134 FOAM ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE CANNERY ROW 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FOAM ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
FOREST KNOLL RD FOREST VALE PL SKYLINE FOREST DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) FOREST RIDGE RD VICTORIA RISE MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN 81 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN STRATFORD PL 81 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD SKYLINE CREST WINDSOR RISE 81 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD SOMMERSET RISE VICTORIA RISE 70 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD STRATFORD PL SKYLINE CREST 89 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD SKYLINE DR OVERLOOK PL 82 SLURRY SEAL
FOREST RIDGE RD OVERLOOK PL SOMMERSET RISE 89 SLURRY SEAL FOREST RIDGE RD WINDSOR RISE SKYLINE DR 81 SLURRY SEAL
FOREST RISE PL FOREST VALE PL WEST END 83 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) FOREST VALE PL FOREST RISE PL EAST END 83 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) FOUNTAIN AVE MARTIN ST COLTON ST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) FOUNTAIN AVE COLTON ST GROVE ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
FOURTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
FOURTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 78 SLURRY SEAL
FOURTH ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
FREMONT ST (EB) CAMINO EL ESTERO MESA RD 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FREMONT ST (EB) MESA RD VIA MIRADA 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FREMONT ST (EB) CORTES ST CAMINO EL ESTERO 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FREMONT ST (EB) MAJOR SHERMAN LN CORTES ST 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FREMONT ST (EB) ABREGO ST MAJOR SHERMAN LN 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) FREMONT ST (WB) MUNRAS AVE ABREGO ST 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) GARDEN AVE LAKE DEL MONTE DR DEL ROBLES AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL GARDEN AVE DEL ROBLES AVE SOUTH END 77 SLURRY SEAL
GARDEN AVE LAKE DEL MONTE DR PALO VERDE AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL GARDEN RD FAIRGROUND RD GARDEN CT 68 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) GARDEN RD GARDEN CT HENDERSON WAY 65 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) GARDEN RD HENDERSON WAY OLMSTED RD 69 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) GLENWOOD CIR IRIS CANYON RD GLE CR ACC S 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY GLENWOOD CIR GLE CR ACC S GLE CR ACC N 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY GRACE ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
GRACE ST SE END HOFFMAN AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
GRANT AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
GRANT AVE CASANOVA AVE ENGLISH AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
GRANT AVE ENGLISH AVE VIRGIN AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
GRANT AVE JOHN ST HANNON AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
GREENWOOD RISE GREENWOOD WAY SOUTH END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GREENWOOD VALE GREENWOOD WAY END 83 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GREENWOOD WAY SKYLINE FOREST DR GREENWOOD RISE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GREENWOOD WAY GREENWOOD RISE END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GROVE ST ALAMEDA AVE SAN BERNABE DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GROVE ST FOUNTAIN AVE ALAMEDA AVE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) GROVE ST PACIFIC ST FOUNTAIN AVE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HANNON AVE SEQUOIA AVE KOLB AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE MONTECITO AVE BRANNER AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE GRANT AVE MONTECITO AVE 78 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE KOLB AVE N FREMONT ST 79 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE DEL MONTE AVE (EB) HWY 1 RAMP 96 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HANNON AVE TOYON AVE SEQUOIA AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE BRANNER AVE TOYON AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
HANNON AVE NW END GRANT AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
HARRIS CT UPPER RAGSDALE DR THOMAS OWENS WAY 85 SLURRY SEAL HARRIS CT THOMAS OWENS WAY NW END 86 SLURRY SEAL
HARRISON ST CLAY ST HIGH ST 80 SLURRY SEAL
HARRISON ST BOWEN ST WEST END 80 SLURRY SEAL
HARRISON ST HIGH ST CEDAR ST 70 SLURRY SEAL
HARRISON ST CEDAR ST BOWEN ST 48 SLURRY SEAL
HARTNELL ST CALLE PRINCIPAL WEBSTER ST 80 SLURRY SEAL
HELLAM ST MONROE ST CLAY ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HELLAM ST CLAY ST HIGH ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HELLAM ST HIGH ST CEDAR ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HELLAM ST CEDAR ST WEST END 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HELVIC AVE PALO VERDE AVE CASA VERDE WAY 85 SLURRY SEAL HENDERSON WAY GARDEN RD AIRPORT GATE 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HERRMANN DR EL CALLEJONE VIA CHIQUITA 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HERRMANN DR VIA DEL REY VIA CAMPANA 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY HERRMANN DR DOREY WAY EL CALLEJONE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HERRMANN DR VIA DEL PINAR DOREY WAY 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) HERRMANN DR VIA PARAISO VIA DEL PINAR 87 SLURRY SEAL
HERRMANN DR VIA CHUALAR VIA PARAISO 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY HERRMANN DR VIA CAMPANA VIA CHUALAR 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY HERRMANN DR EL CAMINITO VIA DEL REY 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY HERRMANN DR EL CAMINITO LARKIN ST 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY HIGH ST HIGH ST GATE WAINWRIGHT ST 78 SLURRY SEAL
HIGH ST HARRISON ST JEFFERSON ST 79 SLURRY SEAL
HIGH ST ROOSEVELT ST HARRISON ST 88 SLURRY SEAL
HIGH ST W FRANKLIN ST ROOSEVELT ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
HIGH ST HELLAM ST W FRANKLIN ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
HIGH ST WAINWRIGHT ST HELLAM ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
HOFFMAN AVE TERRY ST PARCEL ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
HOFFMAN AVE PARCEL ST LYNDON ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
HOOPER LN LITTLEFIELD RD NORTH LITTLEFIELD RD SOUTH 86 SLURRY SEAL HUCKLEBERRY CT HUCKLEBERRY DR SOUTH END 79 SLURRY SEAL
HUCKLEBERRY DR SKYLINE DR HUCKLEBERRY CT 80 SLURRY SEAL HUCKLEBERRY DR HUCKLEBERRY CT CRAMDEN DR 73 SLURRY SEAL IRIS CANYON RD EL DORADO ST DON DAHVEE LN 89 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 17, Packet Page 135 IRIS CANYON RD VIA MIRADA EL DORADO ST 78 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL IRIS CANYON RD DON DAHVEE LN GLENWOOD CIR 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY IRIS CANYON RD GLENWOOD CIR BARNET SEGAL LN 75 SLURRY SEAL IRVING AVE FOAM ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE LIGHTHOUSE AVE HAWTHORNE ST 71 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE HAWTHORNE ST LAINE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE LAINE ST BELDEN ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE SPENCER ST ARCHER ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE ARCHER ST PINE ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE PINE ST OAK ST 85 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE OAK ST NEWTON ST 85 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE NEWTON ST LILY ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE FILMORE ST GRACE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE GRACE ST TERRY ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE TERRY ST PARCEL ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE ALICE ST TAYLOR ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE TAYLOR ST LOTTIE ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE LOTTIE ST LOBOS ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE LOBOS ST JESSIE ST 80 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE LYNDON ST ALICE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE WAVE ST FOAM ST 75 SLURRY SEAL
IRVING AVE JESSIE ST DIVISADERO ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
IVY ST AIRPORT RD SW END 82 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST PIERCE ST DUTRA ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST DUTRA ST VAN BUREN ST 87 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST VAN BUREN ST UNION ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST UNION ST LARKIN ST 78 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST LARKIN ST ORD ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST ORD ST WATSON ST 69 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST WATSON ST MONROE ST 77 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST MONROE ST CLAY ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST CLAY ST MANZANITA ST 87 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST PACIFIC ST PIERCE ST 95 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST PEBBLE ST HIGH ST 88 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST MANZANITA ST PEBBLE ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST HIGH ST CROSSOVER 86 SLURRY SEAL
JEFFERSON ST CROSSOVER VETERANS DR 60 SLURRY SEAL
JESSIE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL
JESSIE ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 34 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL JOHN ST GRANT AVE MONTECITO AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
JOHN ST MONTECITO AVE BRANNER AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
JOHN ST RAMONA AVE GRANT AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
JOHNSON ST MONROE ST MANZANITA ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) JOHNSON ST MANZANITA ST PEBBLE ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) JOHNSON ST PEBBLE ST JOHNSON ST 66 SLURRY SEAL
JOHNSON ST JOHNSON ST VETERANS DR 79 SLURRY SEAL
JOSSELYN CANYON RD SYLVAN RD JOSSELYN CANYON RD 84 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) JOSSELYN CANYON RD VIA MARETTIMO VIA ISOLA 87 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") JOSSELYN CANYON RD JOSSELYN CANYON RD VIA MARETTIMO 87 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") JOSSELYN CANYON RD DEER FOREST DR JOSSELYN CANYON RD 87 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") JOSSELYN CANYON RD VIA ISOLA JOSSELYN CANYON RD NE 87 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") JOSSELYN CANYON RD JOSSELYN CANYON RD HWY 68 87 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") JUSTIN CT UPPER RAGSDALE DR NW END 86 SLURRY SEAL
KOLB AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
KOLB AVE CASANOVA AVE ENGLISH AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LAGUNA GRANDE CT ENGLISH AVE NE END 81 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST SE END REESIDE AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST DRAKE AVE MCCLELLAN AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST REESIDE AVE DICKMAN AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LAINE ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 75 SLURRY SEAL
LAKE ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LANTERN LN PRESCOTT AVE HOFFMAN AVE 89 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY LARKIN ST W FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY LARKIN ST SCOTT ST W FRANKLIN ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) LARKIN ST MADISON ST SOUTH END 67 SLURRY SEAL
LERWICK DR AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LIGHTHOUSE AVE DAVID AVE LIGHTHOUSE AVE 73 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY LILAC ST AIRPORT RD SOUTH END 79 SLURRY SEAL
LILY ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
LILY ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
LILY ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LILY ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
LILY ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
LINDA VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR LINDA VISTA PL 90 SLURRY SEAL LINDA VISTA DR LINDA VISTA PL MONTE VISTA DR 90 SLURRY SEAL LINDA VISTA PL LINDA VISTA DR SW END 90 SLURRY SEAL
LITTLEFIELD RD SYLVAN RD ABINANTE WAY 86 SLURRY SEAL
LITTLEFIELD RD ABINANTE WAY LITTLEFIELD RD 86 SLURRY SEAL LITTLEFIELD RD HOOPER LN (S) LITTLEFIELD RD 79 SLURRY SEAL LITTLEFIELD RD HOOPER LN (S) HOOPER LN (N) 86 SLURRY SEAL LITTLEFIELD RD LITTLEFIELD RD HOOPER LN 86 SLURRY SEAL
LITTLENESS AVE AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
LOBOS ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 70 SLURRY SEAL
LOGAN LN PACIFIC ST MARTIN ST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) LOMITA ST MARTIN ST PACIFIC ST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 18, Packet Page 136 LOTTIE ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
LOTTIE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 74 SLURRY SEAL
LOTTIE ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
LOTTIE ST SE END PRESCOTT AVE 74 SLURRY SEAL
LOWER RAGSDALE DR UPPER RAGSDALE DR RYAN CT 69 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) LOWER RAGSDALE DR RYAN CT MANDEVILLE CT 71 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) LOWER RAGSDALE DR MANDEVILLE CT UPPER RAGSDALE DR 69 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) LYNDON ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
LYNDON ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 75 DEEP PATCH
MADISON ST CALLE PRINCIPAL EAST CALLE PRINCIPAL WEST 86 SLURRY SEAL MADISON ST CALLE PRINCIPAL PACIFIC ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
MADISON ST ORD ST WATSON ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
MADISON ST WATSON ST MONROE ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
MADISON ST DUTRA ST VAN BUREN ST 92 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL MADISON ST VAN BUREN ST LARKIN ST 92 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL MADISON ST PACIFIC ST DUTRA ST 92 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL MADISON ST LARKIN ST ORD ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
MADISON ST MONROE ST PEBBLE ST 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) MAJOR SHERMAN LN PERRY LN EL DORADO ST 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) MANDEVILLE CT NORTH END LOWER RAGSDALE DR 69 SLURRY SEAL MANZANITA ST JEFFERSON ST JOHNSON ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) MAR VISTA DR VIA ZARAGOSA VIA CASTANADA 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY MAR VISTA DR VIA CASTANADA MONTE VISTA DR 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY MAR VISTA DR VIA GAYUBA TODA VISTA 87 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MAR VISTA DR CUESTA VISTA DR SOLEDAD DR 80 SLURRY SEAL
MAR VISTA DR SOLEDAD DR TOYON DR 87 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MAR VISTA DR SOLEDAD PL CUESTA VISTA DR 66 SLURRY SEAL
MAR VISTA DR SOLEDAD DR PORTA VISTA DR 86 SLURRY SEAL
MAR VISTA DR TODA VISTA VIA LADERA 78 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MAR VISTA DR VIA LADERA DRY CREEK RD 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MAR VISTA DR SKYLINE DR SOLEDAD PL 86 SLURRY SEAL
MAR VISTA DR PORTA VISTA DR VIA ZARAGOSA 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY MAR VISTA DR TOYON DR VIA GAYUBA 86 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MAR VISTA DR MONTE VISTA DR LINDA VISTA DR 68 SLURRY SEAL MAR VISTA DR DRY CREEK RD SKYLINE DR 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MARGARET ST CLAY ST WEST END 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) MARK THOMAS DR JOSSELYN CANYON RD SCHOOL ST 81 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MARK THOMAS DR SCHOOL ST FAIRGROUND RD 83 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MARK THOMAS DR AGUAJITO RD OLD GOLF COURSE RD 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MARK THOMAS DR OLD GOLF COURSE RD JOSSELYN CANYON RD 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MARSALA CIR TRAPANI CIR SAN VITO CIR 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST ALAMEDA AVE WOODCREST LN 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST WOODCREST LN SAN BERNABE DR 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST LOMITA ST DOUD AVE 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST DOUD AVE FOUNTAIN AVE 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST FOUNTAIN AVE ALAMEDA AVE 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MARTIN ST PACIFIC ST LOMITA ST 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC MCCLELLAN AVE ARCHER ST PINE ST 73 SLURRY SEAL
MCCLELLAN AVE SPENCER ST ARCHER ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
MCCLELLAN AVE BELDEN ST SPENCER ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
MCCLELLAN AVE LAINE ST BELDEN ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
MCCLELLAN AVE HAWTHORNE ST LAINE ST 74 SLURRY SEAL
MCCLELLAN AVE PINE ST OAK ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
MCNEAR ST CASA VERDE WAY OXNER ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
MELWAY CIR CASANOVA AVE NW CASANOVA AVE SE 83 SLURRY SEAL MESA RD PERRY LN VIA MIRADA 82 SLURRY SEAL
MESSINA PL VIA ISOLA NE END 79 SLURRY SEAL
MONROE ST COLONEL BISHOP CT MADISON ST 78 SLURRY SEAL
MONROE ST JOHNSON ST COLONEL BISHOP CT 73 SLURRY SEAL
MONROE ST JEFFERSON ST JOHNSON ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
MONROE ST W FRANKLIN ST CUL DE SAC 90 SLURRY SEAL
MONTE VISTA DR SIERRA VISTA DR LINDA VISTA DR 90 SLURRY SEAL MONTE VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR SIERRA VISTA DR 90 SLURRY SEAL MONTE VISTA DR LOMA VISTA PL PORTA VISTA DR 93 SLURRY SEAL MONTE VISTA DR SOLEDAD DR LOMA VISTA PL 93 SLURRY SEAL
MONTE VISTA DR PORTA VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR 93 SLURRY SEAL MONTECITO AVE DELA ROSA AVE DEL ROBLES AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL MONTECITO AVE DEL ROBLES AVE ALCALDE AVE 70 SLURRY SEAL MONTECITO AVE JOHN ST HANNON AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
MONTECITO AVE ENGLISH AVE VIRGIN AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
MONTECITO AVE CASANOVA AVE ENGLISH AVE 87 SLURRY SEAL
MONTECITO AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
MONTECITO AVE RAMONA AVE JOHN ST 81 SLURRY SEAL
MONTECITO AVE DELA VINA AVE RAMONA AVE 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY MONTECITO AVE ALCALDE AVE CASA VERDE WAY 78 SLURRY SEAL MONTECITO AVE S PALO VERDE AVE DELA ROSA AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL MONTEREY CIR COLTON ST EAST COLTON ST WEST 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) MUNRAS AVE ALAMEDA ST VIA ROBLES 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MUNRAS AVE WEBSTER ST FREMONT ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
MUNRAS AVE (SB) VIA ARBOLES VIA BUENA VISTA 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MUNRAS AVE (SB) VIA BUENA VISTA DEL MONTE CTR (S) 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MUNRAS AVE (SB) DEL MONTE CTR (N) VIA ARBOLES 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MUNRAS AVE (SB) DEL MONTE CTR (S) SOLEDAD DR 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) MUNRAS AVE (SB) VIA ROBLES DEL MONTE CTR (N) 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) N FREMONT ST (EB) AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY N FREMONT ST (EB) CASA VERDE WAY AIRPORT RD 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY N FREMONT ST (EB) CASANOVA AVE CITY LIMIT 78 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (PCC) NEWTON ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 19, Packet Page 137 NEWTON ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
NEWTON ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
NINTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
NINTH ST WEST END OCEAN AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 75 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST SOUTH END MCCLELLAN AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
OAK ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE EIGHTH ST NINTH ST 75 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE SEVENTH ST EIGHTH ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE SIXTH ST SEVENTH ST 70 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE FIFTH ST SIXTH ST 61 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE FOURTH ST FIFTH ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE THIRD ST FOURTH ST 75 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE SECOND ST THIRD ST 69 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE FIRST ST SECOND ST 57 SLURRY SEAL
OCEAN AVE DEL MONTE AVE FIRST ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
OLD SALINAS HWY SCHOOL ST MONTSALAS DR 64 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) OLD SALINAS HWY MARK THOMAS DR SCHOOL ST 75 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) OLIVIER ST WHARF #1 SCOTT ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) OLMSTED RD GARDEN RD HWY 68 76 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL ORD ST JEFFERSON ST MADISON ST 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) OVERLOOK PL FOREST RIDGE RD NORTH END 87 SLURRY SEAL
OXNER ST MCNEAR ST ENCINA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
PACIFIC ST DOUD AVE VISCAINO RD 71 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST SAN BERNABE DR VIA ESPERANZA 70 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST BARTOLOMEA WAY SAN BERNABE DR 70 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST ALAMEDA AVE BARTOLOMEA WAY 70 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST SCOTT ST DEL MONTE AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE ARTILLERY ST 82 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) PACIFIC ST ARTILLERY ST PACIFIC ST 82 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) PACIFIC ST MARTIN ST LOMITA ST 67 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST LOMITA ST COLTON ST 63 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST W FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST DEL MONTE AVE W FRANKLIN ST 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST VIA ESPERANZA SOLEDAD DR 69 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST MADISON ST LOGAN LN 77 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST JEFFERSON ST MADISON ST 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST COLTON ST DOUD AVE 55 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST EL DORADO ST MARTIN ST 83 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC ST LOGAN LN EL DORADO ST 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PACIFIC VISTA PL SOLEDAD DR END 86 SLURRY SEAL
PALO VERDE AVE ENCINA AVE DEL ROBLES AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL PALO VERDE AVE DEL MONTE AVE HELVIC AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
PALO VERDE AVE PORTOLA AVE ENCINA AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
PARCEL ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 74 SLURRY SEAL
PARCEL ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
PARCEL ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 71 SLURRY SEAL
PARCEL ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE DEL MONTE AVE NORTH END 80 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE SEVENTH ST EIGHTH ST 79 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE SIXTH ST SEVENTH ST 61 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE FIFTH ST SIXTH ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE FOURTH ST FIFTH ST 79 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE THIRD ST FOURTH ST 73 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE SECOND ST THIRD ST 72 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE FIRST ST SECOND ST 54 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE LAKE ST FIRST ST 73 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE DEL MONTE AVE LAKE ST 60 SLURRY SEAL
PARK AVE EIGHTH ST TENTH ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
PARK RD RYAN RANCH RD SE END 86 SLURRY SEAL
PEBBLE ST MADISON ST SOUTH END 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) PEBBLE ST JEFFERSON ST JOHNSON ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
PEBBLE ST NORTH END MADISON ST 90 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) PERRY LN MAJOR SHERMAN LN MESA RD 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY PIERCE ST W FRANKLIN ST CULDESAC 71 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 70 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 59 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 58 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST DRAKE AVE MCCLELLAN AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST SE END DRAKE AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
PINE ST DAVID AVE LINE ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
PINEHILL WAY SKYLINE DR SOUTH END 81 SLURRY SEAL
PORTA VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR MONTE VISTA DR 89 SLURRY SEAL PORTOLA AVE PALO VERDE AVE HELVIC AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
PRESCOTT AVE FOAM ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE 88 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY PRESCOTT AVE BELDEN ST SPENCER ST 70 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE SPENCER ST ARCHER ST 43 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE ARCHER ST PINE ST 78 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE PINE ST OAK ST 67 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III)
PRESCOTT AVE ALICE ST TAYLOR ST 51 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE TAYLOR ST LOTTIE ST 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE LOTTIE ST LOBOS ST 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) PRESCOTT AVE LOBOS ST JESSIE ST 82 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 20, Packet Page 138 PRESCOTT AVE JESSIE ST DIVISADERO ST 80 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) RAGSDALE DR HWY 68 UPPER RAGSDALE DR 88 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) RALSTON DR CASANOVA AVE NW CASANOVA AVE SE 82 SLURRY SEAL RAMONA AVE DEL MONTE AVE SE END 75 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE LERWICK DR EDINBURGH CIR 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE LITTLENESS AVE LERWICK DR 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE BRUCE LN DUNDEE DR 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE DUNDEE DR LITTLENESS AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE N FREMONT ST BRUCE LN 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE STUART AVE EUCLID AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA AVE EDINBURGH CIR STUART AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
RAMONA CT RAMONA AVE NE END 83 SLURRY SEAL
RANCHO SAUCITO LN S BOUNDARY RD UPPER RAGSDALE DR 86 SLURRY SEAL REESIDE AVE LAINE ST SW END 81 SLURRY SEAL
REESIDE AVE HAWTHORNE ST LAINE ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
REESIDE AVE FOAM ST LIGHTHOUSE AVE 73 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY ROBERTS AVE CANYON DEL REY BLVD DEL MONTE AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL ROOSEVELT ST CLAY ST HIGH ST 94 SLURRY SEAL
ROOSEVELT ST BOWEN ST WEST END 92 SLURRY SEAL
ROOSEVELT ST HIGH ST CEDAR ST 92 SLURRY SEAL
ROOSEVELT ST CEDAR ST BOWEN ST 91 SLURRY SEAL
SAN BERNABE DR VIA DESCANSO PACIFIC ST 90 SLURRY SEAL
SAN BERNABE DR BARTOLOMEA WAY VIA DESCANSO 90 SLURRY SEAL SAN BERNABE DR VIA VENTURA BARTOLOMEA WAY 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SAN BERNABE DR GROVE ST VIA CIMARRON 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SAN BERNABE DR VIA CIMARRON AVE MARIA RD 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SAN BERNABE DR AVE MARIA RD VIA VENTURA 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SAN BERNABE DR VIA GAYUBA COLTON ST 90 MILL AND THIN OVERLAY SAN BERNABE DR COLTON ST GROVE ST 90 MILL AND THIN OVERLAY SAN VITO CIR MARSALA CIR VIA CASOLI 72 SLURRY SEAL
SAN VITO CIR VIA CASOLI VIA TAORMINA 78 SLURRY SEAL
SCOTT ST LARKIN ST COOPER ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
SCOTT ST COOPER ST WATSON ST 70 SLURRY SEAL
SCOTT ST OLIVIER ST PACIFIC ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SCOTT ST VAN BUREN ST LARKIN ST 60 SLURRY SEAL
SECOND ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
SECOND ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
SECOND ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
SEENO ST VAN BUREN ST WATSON ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SEQUOIA AVE CASANOVA AVE ENGLISH AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
SEQUOIA AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
SEQUOIA AVE RAMONA AVE HANNON AVE 58 SLURRY SEAL
SEVENTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 77 SLURRY SEAL
SEVENTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 76 SLURRY SEAL
SEVENTH ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
SHADY LN CRANDALL RD WEST END 77 SLURRY SEAL
SHADY LN TOYON DR CRANDALL RD 74 SLURRY SEAL
SHADY LN TOYON DR VIA GAYUBA 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SHEPHERDS PL WRIGHT PL WEST END 83 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SIERRA VISTA DR VIA CASTANADA MONTE VISTA DR 71 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SIXTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
SIXTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
SIXTH ST CAMINO AGUAJITO PARK AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
SKYLINE DR CHATSWOOD PL HUCKLEBERRY DR 85 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR FOREST RIDGE RD WYNDEMERE WAY 67 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR PINEHILL WAY FOREST RIDGE RD 80 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR MAR VISTA DR FOREST RIDGE RD 78 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR SKYLINE FOREST DR SHEPHERDS PL 84 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR HUCKLEBERRY DR PINEHILL WAY 89 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR FOREST RIDGE RD MAR VISTA DR 88 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR SHEPHERDS PL MAR VISTA DR 88 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE DR WYNDEMERE WAY SKYLINE FOREST DR 82 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL SKYLINE FOREST DR FOREST KNOLL RD HWY 68 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SKYLINE FOREST DR GREENWOOD WAY FOREST KNOLL RD 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SKYLINE FOREST DR SKYLINE DR GREENWOOD WAY 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SLOAT AVE EIGHTH ST NINTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE SEVENTH ST EIGHTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE SIXTH ST SEVENTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE FIFTH ST SIXTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE FOURTH ST FIFTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE NINTH ST TENTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE FIRST ST SECOND ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE DEL MONTE AVE FIRST ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE SECOND ST THIRD ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SLOAT AVE THIRD ST FOURTH ST 83 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") SOLEDAD DR MAR VISTA DR WELLINGS PL 61 SLURRY SEAL
SOLEDAD DR SOLEDAD PL MAR VISTA DR 87 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR VIA PARAISO VIA VENTURA 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) SOLEDAD DR VIA DESCANSO SOLEDAD PL 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR VIA ENCINA VIA DESCANSO 85 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR VIA BUENA VISTA VIA ESPERANZA 84 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR VIA ESPERANZA VIA ENCINA 89 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR MAR VISTA DR VIA BUENA VISTA 87 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR MUNRAS AVE MAR VISTA DR 76 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) SOLEDAD DR WELLINGS PL VIA PARAISO 61 SLURRY SEAL
SOLEDAD PL SOLEDAD DR MAR VISTA DR 85 SLURRY SEAL
SOMMERSET RISE SOMMERSET VALE NW END 81 SLURRY SEAL
SOMMERSET VALE SOMMERSET RISE SOUTH END 81 SLURRY SEAL
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 21, Packet Page 139 SPENCER ST DRAKE AVE MCCLELLAN AVE 83 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST SE END DICKMAN AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST DICKMAN AVE DRAKE AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST MCCLELLAN AVE HOFFMAN AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 86 SLURRY SEAL
SPENCER ST IRVING AVE DAVID AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
SPRAY AVE BEACH WAY SURF WAY 70 SLURRY SEAL
SPRAY AVE WEST END BEACH WAY 71 SLURRY SEAL
STAG LN BLACK TAIL LN NW END 71 SLURRY SEAL
STEPHEN PL VIA DEL PINAR WEST END 89 SLURRY SEAL
STRATFORD PL FOREST RIDGE RD EAST END 87 SLURRY SEAL
STUART AVE AIRPORT RD RAMONA AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
SURF WAY DUNECREST AVE SPRAY AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
SURF WAY SEAFOAM AVE TIDE AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
SURF WAY SPRAY AVE SEAFOAM AVE 62 SLURRY SEAL
TAYLOR ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 73 SLURRY SEAL
TAYLOR ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
TAYLOR ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 66 SLURRY SEAL
TENTH ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
TENTH ST EIGHTH ST PARK AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
TENTH ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
TERRY ST IRVING AVE WITHERS AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
TERRY ST WITHERS AVE DAVID AVE 79 SLURRY SEAL
TERRY ST SE END HOFFMAN AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
THIRD ST PARK AVE OCEAN AVE 82 SLURRY SEAL
THIRD ST PEARL ST PARK AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
THIRD ST OCEAN AVE SLOAT AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
THOMAS OWENS WAY HARRIS CT NE END 85 SLURRY SEAL
TIDE AVE SURF WAY BEACH WAY 71 SLURRY SEAL
TODA VISTA MAR VISTA DR VIA LADERA 89 SLURRY SEAL
TODA VISTA VIA LADERA WALTER COLTON DR 81 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON AVE HANNON AVE CASANOVA AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON AVE SW END HANNON AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON DR VIA GAYUBA SHADY LN 55 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON DR SHADY LN FERNWOOD AVE 90 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON DR MAR VISTA DR VIA GAYUBA 62 SLURRY SEAL
TOYON DR FERNWOOD AVE DRY CREEK RD 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) TRAPANI CIR VIA ISOLA MARSALA CIR 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W/FABRIC UNION ST JEFFERSON ST SOUTH END 81 SLURRY SEAL
UPPER RAGSDALE DR JUSTIN CT RANCHO SAUCITO 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY UPPER RAGSDALE DR RANCHO SAUCITO WILSON DR 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY UPPER RAGSDALE DR HARRIS CT JUSTIN CT 86 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY UPPER RAGSDALE DR LOWER RAGSDALE DR HARRIS CT 88 SLURRY SEAL VAN BUREN ST SEENO ST SCOTT ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VAN BUREN ST DEL MONTE AVE W FRANKLIN ST 82 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY VAN BUREN ST W FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST 98 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VAN BUREN ST JEFFERSON ST MADISON ST 98 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VAN BUREN ST MADISON ST SW END 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VETERANS DR JOHNSON ST VIA DEL REY 72 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL VETERANS DR VIA DEL REY SKYLINE DR 92 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA ARBOLES MUNRAS AVE PACIFIC ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ARCEROLO VIA DESCANSO VIA ESPERANZA 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA BUENA VISTA MUNRAS AVE SOLEDAD DR 86 SLURRY SEAL
VIA CAMPANA HERRMANN DR NORTH END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA CASOLI SAN VITO CIR EAST END 78 SLURRY SEAL
VIA CASTANADA SIERRA VISTA DR MAR VISTA DR 86 SLURRY SEAL VIA CASTANADA SW END CASTANADA PL 81 SLURRY SEAL
VIA CASTANADA CASTANADA PL SIERRA VISTA DR 87 SLURRY SEAL VIA CHIQUITA VIA DEL REY EL CALLEJONE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA CHIQUITA EL CALLEJONE HERRMANN DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA CHUALAR VIA DEL REY HERRMANN DR 88 SLURRY SEAL
VIA CIMARRON SAN BERNABE DR VIA PARAISO 87 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL PINAR STEPHEN PL VIA GAYUBA 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL PINAR VIA DEL REY HERRMANN DR 89 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL PINAR HERRMANN DR STEPHEN PL 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL REY VIA CHIQUITA EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE 69 SLURRY SEAL VIA DEL REY VIA DEL PINAR VIA CHIQUITA 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL REY VIA PARAISO VIA DEL PINAR 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL REY VIA CHUALAR VIA PARAISO 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL REY HERRMANN DR VIA CHUALAR 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DEL REY YERBA BUENA CT VETERANS DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA DEL REY EL CAMINITO DEL NORTE YERBA BUENA CT 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA DESCANSO VIA ENCINA SOLEDAD DR 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DESCANSO VIA ARCEROLO VIA ENCINA 90 SLURRY SEAL
VIA DESCANSO SAN BERNABE DR VIA ARCEROLO 90 SLURRY SEAL VIA ENCANTO SAN BERNABE DR VIA PARAISO 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA ENCINA VIA DESCANSO SOLEDAD DR 85 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ESPERANZA PACIFIC ST VIA ARCEROLO 80 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ESPERANZA VIA ARCEROLO SOLEDAD DR 86 SLURRY SEAL
VIA GAYUBA MAR VISTA DR SHADY LN 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY VIA GAYUBA SHADY LN TOYON DR 90 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
VIA GAYUBA VIA PARAISO VIA DEL PINAR 51 SLURRY SEAL
VIA GAYUBA SAN BERNABE DR VIA PARAISO 88 THIN OVERLAY + R&R (<2") VIA ISOLA TRAPANI CIR MARSALA CIR 78 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ISOLA MARSALA CIR SAN VITO CIR 88 DEEP PATCH
VIA ISOLA SAN VITO CIR SE END 75 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ISOLA MESSINA PL ETNA PL 89 SLURRY SEAL
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 22, Packet Page 140 VIA ISOLA ETNA PL TRAPANI CIR 83 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ISOLA JOSSELYN CANYON RD MESSINA PL 85 SLURRY SEAL
VIA ISOLA MARSALA CIR SAN VITO CIR 80 SLURRY SEAL
VIA LADERA MAR VISTA DR TODA VISTA 84 SLURRY SEAL
VIA MARETTIMO JOSSELYN CANYON RD AUGUSTA PL 81 SLURRY SEAL VIA MARETTIMO AUGUSTA PL SE END 81 SLURRY SEAL
VIA MIRADA IRIS CANYON RD COPA DEL ORO 75 SLURRY SEAL
VIA MIRADA FISHNET RD IRIS CANYON RD 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA MIRADA FREMONT ST FISHNET RD 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA MIRADA MESA RD EL DORADO ST 89 SLURRY SEAL
VIA MIRADA COPA DEL ORO MESA RD 78 SLURRY SEAL
VIA PARAISO VIA GAYUBA NW VIA GAYUBA SE 88 THIN OVERLAY + R&R (<2") VIA PARAISO VIA GAYUBA COLTON ST 90 THIN OVERLAY + R&R (<2") VIA PARAISO VIA CIMARRON SOLEDAD DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA PARAISO VIA ENCANTO VIA CIMARRON 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA PARAISO HERRMANN DR VIA GAYUBA 90 THIN OVERLAY + R&R (<2") VIA PARAISO VIA DEL REY HERRMANN DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA PARAISO COLTON ST VIA ENCANTO 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA ROBLES MUNRAS AVE NW END 76 SLURRY SEAL
VIA TAORMINA SAN VITO CIR SOUTH END 71 SLURRY SEAL
VIA VENTURA SAN BERNABE DR SOLEDAD DR 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) VIA ZARAGOSA ZARAGOSA VW MAR VISTA DR 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY VIA ZARAGOSA MUNRAS AVE ZARAGOSA VW 84 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY VICTORIA RISE NW END FOREST RIDGE RD 89 SLURRY SEAL
VICTORIA VALE FOREST RIDGE RD SE END 55 SLURRY SEAL
VIRGIN AVE ENCINA AVE GRANT AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
VIRGIN AVE DEL MONTE AVE ENCINA AVE 80 SLURRY SEAL
VIRGIN AVE GRANT AVE MONTECITO AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
VIRGIN AVE MONTECITO AVE BRANNER AVE 81 SLURRY SEAL
W FRANKLIN ST HIGH ST CEDAR ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST CEDAR ST BOWEN ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST BOWEN ST FRANKLIN GATE 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) W FRANKLIN ST PACIFIC ST PIERCE ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST PIERCE ST VAN BUREN ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST VAN BUREN ST LARKIN ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST LARKIN ST WATSON ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST WATSON ST EDDIE BURNS LN 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST EDDIE BURNS LN MONROE ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST MONROE ST CLAY ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY W FRANKLIN ST CLAY ST HIGH ST 92 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY WAINWRIGHT ST HIGH ST WEST END 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WAINWRIGHT ST CLAY ST HIGH ST 76 SLURRY SEAL
WAINWRIGHT ST ANITA ST CLAY ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
WALTER COLTON DR VIA GAYUBA TODA VISTA 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WATSON ST W FRANKLIN ST JEFFERSON ST 89 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY WATSON ST SCOTT ST W FRANKLIN ST 89 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY WATSON ST JEFFERSON ST MADISON ST 94 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WAVE ST HOFFMAN AVE PRESCOTT AVE 84 SLURRY SEAL
WAVE ST PRESCOTT AVE IRVING AVE 87 SLURRY SEAL
WEBSTER ST HARTNELL ST CASS ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
WEBSTER ST CASS ST MUNRAS AVE 85 SLURRY SEAL
WELLINGS PL SOLEDAD DR SE SOLEDAD DR NW 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WHITE TAIL LN DEER STALKER PATH SE END 67 SLURRY SEAL
WILSON RD UPPER RAGSDALE DR YORK RD 57 SLURRY SEAL (TYPE III) WINDSOR RISE FOREST RIDGE RD SOUTH END 89 THICK OVERLAY + R&R (>2") WITHERS AVE LOTTIE ST LOBOS ST 65 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE TAYLOR ST LOTTIE ST 48 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE ALICE ST TAYLOR ST 62 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE LYNDON ST ALICE ST 82 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE PARCEL ST LYNDON ST 84 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE CYPRESS ST FILMORE ST 83 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE LILY ST CYPRESS ST 86 SLURRY SEAL
WITHERS AVE LOBOS ST JESSIE ST 50 SLURRY SEAL
WOODCREST LN NW END MARTIN ST 65 SLURRY SEAL
WRIGHT PL SHEPHERDS PL SOUTH END 83 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WYNDEMERE RISE WYNDEMERE VALE NE END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WYNDEMERE VALE WYNDEMERE RISE SOUTH END 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) WYNDEMERE WAY SKYLINE DR WYNDEMERE RISE 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) YERBA BUENA CT VIA DEL REY SE END 86 SLURRY SEAL
YORK RD HWY 68 WILSON RD 89 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC)
YORK RD WILSON RD Trail 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
YORK RD Trail City Limit 87 MILL AND THICK OVERLAY
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 15., Item Page 23, Packet Page 141 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Declaring the City of Monterey’s Intention to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID), to Levy an Assessment on Lodging Businesses Within Such District; and Fixing the Time and Place of a Public Hearing Thereon and Giving Notice Thereof; Adopt a Resolution Requesting Consent of the County of Monterey and cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID); and Adopt a Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines for the Formation of Property and Business Improvement Districts Under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (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 declaring the City of Monterey’s intention to renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID), to levy an assessment on lodging businesses within such district, and setting a public hearing to renew the MCTID and levy of assessments; adopt a resolution requesting consent of the County of Monterey and cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad to renew the MCTID; and adopt a resolution adopting procedural guidelines for the formation of property and business improvement districts under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994
VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Renew the MCTID is part of the MCTID renewal process that would follow with a public meeting on January 17, 2023 and a public hearing on February 21, 2023 on the renewal of the MCTID and the levy of assessments on certain lodging businesses. Renewal of the MCTID requires approval from the City Council, and this step is necessary since the City of Monterey is serving as lead agency. Adoption of a Resolution Requesting Consent is needed from the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad requesting their consent to include their jurisdiction in the renewed MCTID. Adoption of a Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines is needed to specify the petition and protest process, and tabulation process for the formation of Property and Business Improvement Districts.

Date: 12/20/2022
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 142 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

If the MCTID is renewed, the City would continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey toward the cost of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, this action would likely result in an increase to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) and Sales Tax.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose not to adopt the resolution, which would stop the MCTID renewal process. This is not recommended since lodging business owners in Monterey have decided to pursue renewal of the MCTID, and there is no direct cost to the City.

DISCUSSION:

First launched in 2006 under the Property and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law), the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is a benefit assessment district proposed to continue as a revenue source to help fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses in Monterey County. In 2018, an effort to modernize the MCTID led to the disestablishment of the ’89 Law district and re-establishing the MCTID pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The five-year term of the MCTID will expire in 2023, and the required number of lodging business owners have submitted a written petition to renew the district.

The City of Monterey serves as the lead public agency administering the MCTID countywide.

Tourism improvement districts have been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the state to enhance tourism marketing and drive additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses. The renewed MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-theSea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is funded through an assessment on lodging businesses based on room night stays in the lodging businesses and does not utilize City funding.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 143 Lodging business owners decided to pursue renewal of the MCTID in order to continue a revenue source devoted to marketing Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and event destination. If renewed, the MCTID would generate an initial annual budget of approximately $8,856,266, increasing biennially as assessment rates increase, for the promotion of travel and tourism specific to Monterey County.

Benefits of Tourism Improvement Districts
Tourism Improvement Districts (TIDs) are special assessment districts that allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to fund and coordinate tourism marketing. Lodging business owners within the TID fund the TID, and those funds are used to provide services that are desired by and benefit the lodging businesses within the TID.

TID benefits include:
 Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs  They are customized to fit the needs of each destination  They allow for a wide range of services; including destination marketing, tourism promotion, and sales lead generation
 They are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment  They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion The key difference between TIDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TID.

Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment 4) includes the proposed boundary of the renewed MCTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance. The MCTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones as described in the Plan.

The renewed MCTID would have a ten (10) year term, beginning July 1, 2023, and end ten (10) years from its start date. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of district renewal, there is a 30-day period in which lodging business operators paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate proceedings to terminate the MCTID.

The cities and County shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties, and interest) from each lodging business located within the boundaries of the MCTID. The cities and County shall make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The cities and County shall forward the assessments to Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), serving as the MCTID Owner’s Association, which will have the responsibility of managing MCTID programs as provided in the Management District Plan. The cities and the County may retain a fee equal to Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 144 one percent (1%) of the amount of the assessment collected within their respective jurisdictions to cover their costs of collection and administration.

MCTID Renewal Process
December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO RENEW (Attachment 1) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the lodging business owners in the renewed MCTID who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the City of Monterey City Council may initiate proceedings to renew the MCTID by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to renew the MCTID.

Petition Status: Petitions in favor of MCTID renewal were submitted by lodging businesses that represent more than fifty percent (50%) of the total MCTID assessment.

December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSENT (Attachment 2) The City Council must request consent from the County of Monterey and cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad to be included in the renewed MCTID. Consent must be received from the cities and County prior to the final public hearing for their jurisdiction to be included in the renewed MCTID.

December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES (Attachment 3) Procedural guidelines for the formation of the MCTID will be proposed in a separate resolution. These guidelines cover the petition process, protest submittals, protest requirements, protest withdrawals, majority protest, and tabulation process.

January 7, 2023 NOTICE
Written notice shall be mailed to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the renewed MCTID.

January 17, 2023 PUBLIC MEETING
Allow public testimony on the renewal of the MCTID and levy of assessments. No Council action required.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 145 February 21, 2023 FINAL PUBLIC HEARING; POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION

OF FORMATION
If written or oral protests are received from the owners of lodging businesses in the renewed MCTID which will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken for a period of one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the Council.

If protests totaling less than 50% proposed assessments are received, the Council, following the public hearing, may decide to renew the MCTID, and then shall adopt a resolution of formation.

Attachments: 1. Resolution of Intention

2. Resolution Requesting Consent

3. Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines

4. MCTID Management District Plan

5. Petitions Received as of December 15, 2022
c: City Attorney
MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau 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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 146 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

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

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO RENEW THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID), DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN

ASSESSMENT ON LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT, AND FIXING

THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON

AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the MCTID in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 by Ordinance No. 3376; WHEREAS, the MCTID was converted in 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-147 for a five (5) year term, which ends on December 31, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes the City to renew business improvement districts for the purposes of promoting tourism; and
WHEREAS, Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), lodging business owners, and representatives from the City of Monterey have met to consider the renewal of the MCTID; and WHEREAS, MCCVB has drafted a Management District Plan (Plan) which sets forth the proposed boundary of the MCTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance; and
WHEREAS, the renewed MCTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad; and WHEREAS, consent to include lodging businesses in their respective jurisdictions will be requested from the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad; and WHEREAS, lodging businesses who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessment under the MCTID have petitioned the City Council to renew the MCTID.

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 147 2 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. The City Council finds that lodging businesses that will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessment proposed in the Plan have signed and submitted petitions in support of the renewal of the MCTID. The City Council accepts the petitions and adopts this Resolution of Intention to renew the MCTID and to levy an assessment on certain lodging businesses within the MCTID boundaries in accordance with the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.

3. The City Council finds that the Plan satisfies all requirements of Streets and Highways Code § 36622.

4. The City Council declares its intention to renew the MCTID and to levy and collect assessments on lodging businesses within the MCTID boundaries pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.

5. The MCTID shall include all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones, as shown in the map attached as Exhibit A.

6. The name of the district shall be Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID).

7. The annual lodging business assessment rate shall be a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type as defined in the Plan. The initial annual assessment rate for Zone 1 is $7.00 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $4.50 per paid occupied room night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $1.50 per paid occupied room night for limited service lodging businesses. The initial annual assessment rate for Zone 2 is $7.50 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $5.00 per paid occupied room night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $2.00 per paid occupied room night for limited service lodging businesses.

Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26 for both Zone 1 and Zone 2, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.

Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall remain static over the life of the district. The biennial assessment Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 7, Packet Page 148 3 increase in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 (notwithstanding the static $0.50 rate in Zone 2), shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.

Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

8. The assessments levied for the MCTID shall be applied toward sales and marketing programs to market assessed lodging businesses in the district as tourist, meeting, and event destinations, as described in the Plan. Funds remaining at the end of any year may be used in subsequent years in which MCTID assessments are levied as long as they are used consistent with the requirements of this resolution and the Plan.

9. The renewed MCTID will have a ten (10) year term, beginning July 1, 2023, and end ten (10) years from its start date, unless renewed pursuant to Streets and Highways Code § 36660.

10. Bonds shall not be issued.

11. The time and place for the public meeting to hear testimony on renewing the MCTID and levying assessments is set for January 17, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers located at Few Memorial Hall of Records, City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940.

12. The time and place for the public hearing to renew the MCTID and the levy of assessments is set for February 21, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers located at Few Memorial Hall of Records, City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940. The City Clerk is directed to provide written notice to the lodging businesses subject to assessment of the date and time of the meeting and hearing, and to provide that notice as required by Streets and Highways Code § 36623(b), no later than January 7, 2023.

13. At the public meeting and hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the renewal of the MCTID may be received. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the renewed MCTID that will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the estimated total assessment of the entire MCTID, no further proceedings to renew the MCTID shall occur for a period of one (1) year.

14. The complete Plan is on file with the City Clerk and may be reviewed upon request.

15. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on this___ day of________, 2022, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 8, Packet Page 149 4 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 9, Packet Page 150

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 10, Packet Page 151 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
REQUESTING CONSENT OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND CITIES OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, KING CITY, MARINA, PACIFIC

GROVE, SALINAS, SAND CITY, SEASIDE, AND SOLEDAD TO CREATE THE MONTEREY

COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey desires to begin proceedings to form the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID); WHEREAS, certain lodging business owners have requested that the City Council of the City of Monterey create the MCTID; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the territory proposed to be included in the MCTID lies within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmelby-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad (the “Granting County and Cities”), as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by such attachment; and WHEREAS, the area of the unincorporated areas of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad which lies within the boundaries of the proposed MCTID will, in the opinion of the City Council of the City of Monterey, be benefited by the improvements and activities, and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplished by a single comprehensive scheme of work; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2: Consent of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad, through their Board of Supervisors and City Councils, is hereby requested to create Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 11, Packet Page 152 2 the MCTID, and to grant to the City Council of the City of Monterey jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection with the creation, operation and future renewals of the proposed MCTID.

Section 3: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the clerks of the Granting County and Cities.

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, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 12, Packet Page 153 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RENEWAL OF PROPERTY AND

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS UNDER THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994
WHEREAS, The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (“1994 Act,” Streets and Highways Code §§ 36600 et seq.) requires the City Council of the City of Monterey to consider petitions to renew a Property and Business Improvement District as well as written protests against the renewal of such a District; and
WHEREAS, these statutory provisions do not offer specific guidance as to whether petitions to form a Property and Business Improvement District must include original signatures; WHEREAS, these statutory provisions do not offer specific guidance as to how written protests against the renewal of an assessment district should be submitted, who is allowed to submit such protests, or how the City is to tabulate the protests; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monterey that when notice of a public hearing with respect to the renewal of a Property and Business Improvement District has been given by the City pursuant to the 1994 Act, the following shall apply:

SECTION 1: Petitions. Petitions to renew a district under the 1994 Act shall be submitted with original or electronic signatures of affected business owners. Signatures submitted by fax or email shall not be counted.

SECTION 2: Protest Submittal.

A. Any business owner who is subject to a proposed assessment that is the subject of the hearing may submit a written or oral protest to the City Clerk, by:
 Personal delivery to the secure dropbox outside the Council Chamber at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey,
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 13, Packet Page 154  Mail to City Clerk, 580 Pacific Street, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940, or  Personally submitting the protest in writing at the public meeting or public hearing or orally at the public hearing.

B. Protests, whether written or oral, must be received by the end of the public hearing, including those written protests mailed to the City. No postmarks will be accepted; therefore, any protest not actually received by the close of the hearing, whether or not mailed prior to the hearing, shall not be counted.

C. Emailed, faxed and photocopied protests shall not be counted.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 14, Packet Page 155 SECTION 3: Protest Requirements.

A. A written protest against renewal of a business district must include:
(i) A statement that it is a protest against renewal of the proposed business district that is the subject of the hearing;
(ii) A description of the business that is sufficient to identify the business;
(iii) Original signature and legibly printed name of the person submitting the protest; and
(iv) If the person submitting the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, written evidence that the person an owner of the business or an authorized representative.

B. Written protests against the renewal of a business district shall not be counted if any of the required elements (i thru iv) outlined in the preceding subsection “A.” are omitted.

C. Oral protests must include:
(i) A statement that it is a protest against renewal of the proposed business district that is the subject of the hearing;
(ii) A description of the business that is sufficient to identify the business;
(iii) If the person submitting the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, written evidence that the person an owner of the business or an authorized representative.

D. Oral protests against the renewal of a business district shall not be counted if any of the required elements (i through iii) outlined in the preceding subsection “C.” are omitted.

SECTION 4: Protest Withdrawal. Any person who submits a protest may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a written request that the protest be withdrawn at any time prior to the close of the public hearing. The withdrawal of a protest shall contain sufficient information to identify the affected business, and the name of the record owner or business owner who submitted both the protest and the request that it be withdrawn.

SECTION 5: Transparency, Confidentiality, and Disclosure.

A. To ensure transparency and accountability in the protest tabulation while protecting the privacy rights of record owners and business owners, protests will be maintained in confidence until tabulation begins following the public hearing.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 15, Packet Page 156 B. Once a protest is opened during the tabulation, it becomes a disclosable public record.

SECTION 6: City Clerk.

The City Clerk shall not accept as valid any protest against the formation of a business district if he or she determines that any of the following is true:

A. The protest does not state its opposition to renewal of the proposed district.

B. The protest does not name the affected business owner as of the date of the public hearing.

C. The protest does not identify the business that would be subject to the renewed assessment.

D. The protest does not bear an original signature of the business owner identified on the protest. Whether a signature is valid shall be entrusted to the reasonable judgment of the City Clerk, who may consult signatures on file with the County Elections Official.

E. The protest was altered in a way that raises a fair question as to whether the protest actually expresses the intent of a business owner to protest the charges.

F. The protest was not received by the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on the renewed district.

G. A request to withdraw the protest was received prior to the close of the public hearing on the renewed district.

SECTION 7: City Clerk’s Decisions Final. The City Clerk’s decision that a protest is not valid shall constitute a final action of the City and shall not be subject to any internal appeal.

SECTION 8: Majority Protest. A majority protest exists if written or oral protests are timely submitted and not withdrawn by business owners subject to more than 50% of the proposed assessment. In the event of a majority protest, the renewed district shall not be renewed.

SECTION 9: Tabulation of Protests. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall tabulate all protests received, including those received during the public hearing, and shall report the results of the tabulation to the City Council.

SECTION 10: Report of Tabulation. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Clerk determines that he or she will require additional time to tabulate the protests, he or she shall so advise the City Council, which may adjourn the meeting to allow the tabulation to be completed on another day or days. If so, the City Council shall declare the time and place of tabulation, which shall be conducted in a place where interested members of the public may observe the tabulation, and the City Council shall declare the time at which the meeting shall be resumed to receive and act on the tabulation report of the City Clerk.

SECTION 11: This resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 16, Packet Page 157 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of_______, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 17, Packet Page 158 2023-2033

MONTEREY COUNTY

TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
November 2, 2022 Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 18, Packet Page 159

CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................5 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................7 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES................................................................................9 A. Annual Service Plan ....................................................................................................9 B. Annual Assessment Budget........................................................................................11 C. California Constitutional Compliance ........................................................................12 D. Assessment................................................................................................................13 E. Penalties and Interest .................................................................................................14 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...........................................................15 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................16 A. Owners’ Association..................................................................................................16 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance........................................16 C. Annual Report ...........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................28 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE....................................................................................35 APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY ..............................................................................37 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 19, Packet Page 160 MCTID Management District Plan 3
November 2, 2022
I. OVERVIEW
Developed by the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is an assessment district which provides specific benefits to payors by funding group sales and services and marketing communications activities for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. The MCTID was initially created in 2006 pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 and was converted in 2019 pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 for a five (5) year term. MCCVB and Monterey County lodging businesses now wish to renew the MCTID for a ten (10) year term. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36620.5, the City of Monterey shall continue to act as the lead jurisdiction for renewing the MCTID. The City of Monterey shall continue to receive MCTID annual reports. Funds raised through the MCTID are meant to supplement the Jurisdiction Partnership investments so as to have a competitive budget and business plan.

Location: The renewed MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones, as shown on the map in Section IV.

Services: The MCTID is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing demand for room night sales. Group business development and marketing communications activities will increase demand for overnight tourism and market Monterey County as a tourist, meeting and event destination, thereby increasing demand for room night sales for assessed businesses.

Budget: The total MCTID annual assessment budget for the initial year of its ten (10) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $8,856,266. This assessment budget is expected to increase as the assessment rate increases are adopted pursuant to this Plan, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do.

Cost: The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation timeshare facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty. Initial assessment rates are:

Hotel Type Zone 1 Zone 2
Luxury $7.00 $7.50
Non-Luxury Full Service $4.50 $5.00
Limited Service $1.50 $2.00
Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 20, Packet Page 161 MCTID Management District Plan 4
November 2, 2022
2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.

Collection: The cities and County shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the MCTID. The cities and County shall make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.

Duration: The renewed MCTID shall have a ten (10) year life, beginning July 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and end ten (10) years from its start date. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of MCTID renewal, there is a thirty (30) day period in which owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate a Monterey City Council hearing on MCTID termination.

Management: The MCCVB Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a.

Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board’s TID Committee shall continue to have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds as defined in Section V. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing activities in accordance with this Plan and must provide annual reports to the Monterey City Council.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 21, Packet Page 162 MCTID Management District Plan 5
November 2, 2022
II. BACKGROUND
A. Tourism Improvement District Overview
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TID laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TID. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TIDs without a state law.

California’s TIDs collectively
raise over $300 million
annually for local destination
marketing. With competitors
raising their budgets, and
increasing rivalry for visitor
dollars, it is important
that Monterey County lodging
businesses continue to invest
in stable, lodging-specific
marketing programs.

TIDs utilize the efficiencies of
private sector operation in the
market-based promotion of
tourism districts. TIDs allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to increase demand for room night sales. Lodging business owners within the TID pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase demand for room night sales.

In California, most TIDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TIDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district.

B. Tourism Improvement District Benefits
There are many benefits to TIDs:
• Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay;
• Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services;
• They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 22, Packet Page 163 MCTID Management District Plan 6
November 2, 2022
C. MCTID History and Partnerships with Jurisdictions
The history of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is one of partnership.

The MCTID was first established in 2006 because the region’s hospitality industry recognized that TIDs create a reliable funding source for destination marketing.

Municipalities and the County of Monterey have historically demonstrated a commitment to fund tourism promotion. The renewed and expanded MCTID has been developed with this partnership in mind. The continued partnership is critical to the MCTID’s success, as the funds raised through both the TID, the municipalities and the County of Monterey will allow a competitive budget and business plan for the region’s destination marketing.

D. Looking Ahead
Market share, revenue, improved community connectivity
Focus Currently Investment in a Better Future
Sphere of Marketing
Reach
Primarily Regional paid media
advertiser
National Brand with paid media reach into
Midwest, East Coast – high value travelers
Meetings &
Conferences
Five-person sales team; primarily
focused on regional meetings;
limited booking incentive
Expand sales team; increase sales activities;
aggressive booking incentive; intensify focus
on corporate, incentive and Tour & Travel
Event Attraction &
Promotion
No proactive event attraction
effort; promotion limited to
social and PR (no paid media)
Dedicated program to attract advantageous
events; paid media support for select events
Transportation
Development
Tactical and reactive; lacking a
well-supported MCCVB/
Community strategy
Annual dedicated budget; strategically proactive
International Marketing One sales executive, limited coop (VCA, Brand USA) marketing Multi-country sales representation, significant
increase in direct sales and marketing
Luxury Initiative
Direct sales through involvement
with Virtuoso, ILTM, VCA;
limited marketing
Significant expansion (2-3X) of both sales and
marketing programs
Sustainable/Responsible
Travel
Consistent messaging through
unpaid (social & PR), limited
paid media; implementation of
See Monterey app
On-going paid media campaign; support shuttle
programs/promotion; in-market
collateral/signage;
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 23, Packet Page 164 MCTID Management District Plan 7
November 2, 2022
III. BOUNDARY
The renewed MCTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad.

Lodging business means: any building, portion of any building, or group of buildings in which there are guest rooms or suites, including housekeeping units for transient guests, where lodging with or without meals is provided. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, lodging business does not include:
• Vacation time-share facilities;
• Vacation rentals, defined as a single family home, townhome, or condominium that is available for rent; and
• Recreational vehicle (RV) parks.

There are three types of lodging businesses in the MCTID: luxury, non-luxury full service, and limited service.
• Luxury lodging business means: a lodging business with an average daily rate of $500 or more, based on the previous year’s performance, with premium services and the highest quality ratings. Lodging businesses whose average daily rate increases to $500 or more will be assessed upon determination of the increase; likewise, lodging businesses whose average daily rate decreases to below $500 will not be assessed as a luxury lodging business upon determination of the decrease. Average daily rate figures shall be updated annually. Luxury lodging businesses may have restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas, and have characteristics of five (5) star hotels. The luxury lodging business type includes properties classified as all-inclusive, boutique, and destination resorts by Smith Travel Research. • Non-luxury full service lodging business means: a lodging business with a wide variety of onsite amenities, such as restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas. non-luxury full service lodging businesses are often in the upscale or upper upscale class as defined by Smith Travel Research.
• Limited service lodging business means: a lodging business that offers limited facilities and amenities, typically without a full-service restaurant. Limited service lodging businesses are often in the economy, midscale, or upper midscale class as defined by Smith Travel Research.

A complete listing of lodging businesses within the proposed MCTID can be found in Appendix 2.

The proposed MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones, based on the special benefits and privileges granted to lodging businesses in each zone. The boundaries of each zone are shown in the map on the following page. A description of the boundaries of each zone is provided below:

Zone 1: Includes the unincorporated area of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad.

Zone 2: Includes the City of Salinas. The boundaries of Zone 2 shall be the boundaries of the City of Salinas as may be amended from time to time.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 24, Packet Page 165 MCTID Management District Plan 8
November 2, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 25, Packet Page 166 MCTID Management District Plan 9
November 2, 2022
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds shall be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of Monterey of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the MCTID funds are group business development and marketing communications activities available only to assessed lodging businesses. The assessment rate for each hotel type will be commensurate with privileges and services provided to assessed businesses in each hotel type as detailed in Appendix 4.

A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget shall be developed and approved by MCCVB. The table below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. The total initial assessment budget is $8,856,266.

Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the assessment budget shall remain the same. However, with the exception of the Zone 2 assessment budget category of Salinas Visitor Services, the MCCVB TID Committee shall have the authority to adjust assessment budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total assessment budget per year. Any changes to the assessment budget category allocations shall be included in the annual report to the City of Monterey. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the MCTID, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the MCTID.

Each assessment budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the marketing communications assessment budget includes the cost of MCCVB staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the marketing communications program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the assessment budget. The costs of Marketing
Communications,
$3,985,320 , 45%
Group Business Development,
$3,152,831 , 35.6%
Contingency Reserve,
$885,627 , 10%
City/County
Administration Fee,
$88,563 , 1%
Administration & Operations,
$619,939 , 7%
Salinas Visitor Services,
$123,988 , 1.4%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget - $8,856,266
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 26, Packet Page 167 MCTID Management District Plan 10
November 2, 2022
an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple assessment budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below shall be determined by the MCCVB on an as-needed basis.

Marketing Communications
The marketing communications program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and events destinations. The marketing communications program will have a central theme of promoting Monterey County as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of generating overnight visitation and room sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following activities:
• Programs that develop and distribute content via paid, owned and earned channels to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Partnership marketing initiatives with Monterey Regional Airport for domestic marketing, plus cooperative programs for international marketing to reach farther-out prospective visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Focus on high-priority, high-impact initiatives to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Collaborations with transportation partners to make it easier to get to and around Monterey County to drive ideal overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Drive familiarity and engagement for group audiences through targeted direct marketing and retargeting programs to complement Group Sales’ business development focus to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; and • Expand international marketing to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses.

Group Business Development
The group business development program will develop business leads for meetings and events that convert to room nights for assessed businesses. The group business development program will have a central theme of promoting Monterey County as a desirable place for overnight group visits. The program will have the goal of generating overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following activities:
• Group marketing initiatives to ensure target customer destination familiarity to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• A business development model ensuring highly qualified leads and efficient use of Owners’ Association resources in developing new business opportunities to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Focus on business development platform: engage, action, transaction, participation to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Familiarization trips (FAMs) and site inspections to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Strategic client services designed to make attendee’s destination choice easier to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Visitor services programs designed to extend stays at assessed businesses and increase visitor spending;
• Strategic business development services designed to identify, qualify, and pursue new business opportunities that best fit the destination’s profile, targeting the ideal opportunities from key deployed markets to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; and • Tour and travel sales programs to fill shoulder seasons and need periods for the destination to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 27, Packet Page 168 MCTID Management District Plan 11
November 2, 2022
Salinas Visitor Services
The Salinas Visitor Services portion of the assessment budget shall be utilized for funding visitor services activities for the benefit of generating overnight visitation and room night stays at Zone 2 lodging businesses. The Salinas Visitor Services program will provide visitors with brochures, maps, and information regarding local events. The Salinas Visitor Services assessment budget shall be the amount collected annually from the additional $0.50 assessment in Zone 2.

MCCVB Administration and Operations
The MCCVB administration and operations portion of the assessment budget shall be utilized by the MCCVB for administrative staffing costs, office costs, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees.

City/County Administration Fee
The cities and County may retain a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of the assessment collected, within their respective jurisdictions, to cover their costs of collection and administration.

Contingency/Reserve
The assessment budget includes a contingency line item to account for lower than anticipated collections or higher than anticipated program costs, if any. Up to ten percent (10%) of the assessment budget may be allocated to the contingency/reserve in any given year. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the TID Committee. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve fund shall be set by the TID Committee. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on TID activities or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the Committee. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the TID.

B. Annual Assessment Budget
The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26 for both Zone 1 and Zone 2, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall remain static over the life of the district. The biennial assessment increase in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 (notwithstanding the static $0.50 rate in Zone 2), shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.

The assessment budget is projected at an initial budget of $8,856,266, increasing biennially for a total of $111,645,780 through 2033. This amount is expected to fluctuate as occupancy rates increase at assessed businesses and when the assessment rate is increased. The following table demonstrates the estimated assessment budget over the life of the district, based on existing lodging businesses, following the rate increase schedule. Any new lodging businesses that commence business within the MCTID during the ten (10) year term shall be assessed using the same methodology listed in Section IV (D).

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 28, Packet Page 169 MCTID Management District Plan 12
November 2, 2022
Estimated Annual Assessment Budget
Fiscal
Year
Marketing
Comm.

Group Bus.

Devel.

Salinas Visitor
Services
(Zone 2 Only)
Contingency
/ Reserve
Admin &
Operations
City/County
Admin Fee Total
2023-24 $3,985,320 $3,152,831 $123,988 $885,627 $619,939 $88,563 $8,856,266 2024-25 $3,985,320 $3,152,831 $123,988 $885,627 $619,939 $88,563 $8,856,266 2025-26 $4,504,690 $3,563,710 $140,146 $1,001,042 $700,730 $100,104 $10,010,422 2026-27 $4,504,690 $3,563,710 $140,146 $1,001,042 $700,730 $100,104 $10,010,422 2027-28 $5,024,060 $3,974,590 $156,304 $1,116,458 $781,520 $111,646 $11,164,578 2028-29 $5,024,060 $3,974,590 $156,304 $1,116,458 $781,520 $111,646 $11,164,578 2029-30 $5,543,430 $4,385,469 $172,462 $1,231,873 $862,311 $123,187 $12,318,734 2030-31 $5,543,430 $4,385,469 $172,462 $1,231,873 $862,311 $123,187 $12,318,734 2031-32 $6,062,801 $4,796,349 $188,620 $1,347,289 $943,102 $134,729 $13,472,890 2032-33 $6,062,801 $4,796,349 $188,620 $1,347,289 $943,102 $134,729 $13,472,890 Total $50,240,601 $39,745,898 $1,563,041 $11,164,578 $7,815,205 $1,116,458 $111,645,780 C. California Constitutional Compliance
The MCTID assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property.1 Rather, the MCTID assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26. Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions.

Two of these exceptions apply to the MCTID, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the cities and County of conferring the benefits or providing the services.

1. Specific Benefit
Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the MCTID. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the MCTID, and are narrowly tailored. MCTID funds shall be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in MCTID activities, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses.

The assessment imposed by this MCTID is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is the generation of room night sales. The specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses shall be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with MCTID activities promoting lodging businesses paying the MCTID assessment. The MCTID activities will be designed to generate room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the MCTID activities that specifically benefit the assessed lodging 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 29, Packet Page 170 MCTID Management District Plan 13
November 2, 2022
businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.

Although the MCTID, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non-paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3

2. Specific Government Service
The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” 4 The legislature has
recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the MCTID are government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6

3. Reasonable Cost
MCTID services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed shall be used to provide the services described herein.

Excluding Zone 2 funds managed by the City of Salinas, funds shall be managed by the MCCVB, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City of Monterey. Only assessed lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from MCTID-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other MCTID-funded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, MCTID-funded services and benefits.

The MCTID-funded activities are all targeted directly at and feature only assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-MCTID funds. MCTID funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses.

D. Assessment
The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall not be increased over the life of the district. The biennial assessment 3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 30, Packet Page 171 MCTID Management District Plan 14
November 2, 2022
increase shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty. The assessment increase schedule is illustrated in the table below.

Zone 1 Zone 2
Fiscal
Year Luxury Non-Luxury Full Service
Limited
Service Luxury Non-Luxury Full Service
Limited
Service
2023-24 $ 7.00 $ 4.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 $ 2.00
2024-25 $ 7.00 $ 4.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 $ 2.00
2025-26 $ 7.90 $ 5.10 $ 1.70 $ 8.40 $ 5.60 $ 2.20
2026-27 $ 7.90 $ 5.10 $ 1.70 $ 8.40 $ 5.60 $ 2.20
2027-28 $ 8.80 $ 5.70 $ 1.90 $ 9.30 $ 6.20 $ 2.40
2028-29 $ 8.80 $ 5.70 $ 1.90 $ 9.30 $ 6.20 $ 2.40
2029-30 $ 9.70 $ 6.30 $ 2.10 $ 10.20 $ 6.80 $ 2.60
2030-31 $ 9.70 $ 6.30 $ 2.10 $ 10.20 $ 6.80 $ 2.60
2031-32 $ 10.60 $ 6.90 $ 2.30 $ 11.10 $ 7.40 $ 2.80
2032-33 $ 10.60 $ 6.90 $ 2.30 $ 11.10 $ 7.40 $ 2.80
The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging business. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the MCTID assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “MCTID Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the MCTID assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of, the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for any purpose, including calculation of transient occupancy taxes.

Bonds shall not be issued.

E. Penalties and Interest
The MCTID shall reimburse the cities and County for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent MCTID assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the cities or County, the MCTID shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs. Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying:

1. Original Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment or the estimated assessment.

2. Continued Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any delinquent assessment on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the assessment first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 31, Packet Page 172 MCTID Management District Plan 15
November 2, 2022
assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten percent (10%) penalty first imposed.

3. Fraud: If the cities or County determine that the nonpayment of any remittance due is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto, in addition to the penalties stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section.

4. Interest: In addition the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.

5. Penalties Merged with Assessment: Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the assessment required to be paid.

6. Audit Deficiency: If, upon audit by the cities or County, a lodging business is found to be deficient in either its return or its remittances or both, the cities or County shall immediately invoice the lodging business for the amount of the net deficiency plus a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the net deficiency. If the lodging business fails or refuses to pay the deficient amount and applicable penalties within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, an additional ten percent (10%) penalty shall be added to the original deficiency. In addition to the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit payment of billed audit deficiencies within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties.

F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments
The MCTID assessment shall be implemented beginning July 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and end ten (10) years from its start date. The cities and County shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in their respective jurisdictions. The cities and County shall make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The cities and County shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association, except for the additional assessments in Zones 2.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 32, Packet Page 173 MCTID Management District Plan 16
November 2, 2022
V. GOVERNANCE
A. Owners’ Association
The Monterey City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the MCTID as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board’s TID Committee shall continue to have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds. The TID Committee shall be comprised solely of assessed lodging business representatives. The number of seats on the TID Committee from each MCTID jurisdiction shall reflect the proportional assessment revenue derived from each MCTID jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the City of Salinas shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of funds raised by the additional $0.50 assessment rate on all lodging business types in Zone 2.

B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the MCCVB board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.

C. Annual Report
The MCCVB shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the Monterey City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include:
• Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district.
• The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 33, Packet Page 174 MCTID Management District Plan 17
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2022 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2021 LEGISLATION)

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 18. PARKING
PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
ARTICLE 1. Declarations
36600. Citation of part
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements.
(d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businessesin a business district are not taxesfor the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits:
(1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied.
(2) Job creation.
(3) Business attraction.
(4) Business retention.
(5) Economic growth.
(6) New investments.
(f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts.
(1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed.

Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 34, Packet Page 175 MCTID Management District Plan 18
November 2, 2022
incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits.

The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits.
(3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessmentsthey may levy and the proper determination ofspecial benefits.

Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined.
36602. Purpose of part
The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize citiesto levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act. This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes.
36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)). 36603.5. Part prevails over conflicting provisions
Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part.
36604. Severability
This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes.

ARTICLE 2. Definitions
36606. “Activities”
“Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place.
(c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment”
“Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district.
36607. “Business”
“Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 35, Packet Page 176 MCTID Management District Plan 19
November 2, 2022
36608. “City”
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council”
“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk”
“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.
36609.5. “General benefit”
“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.
36610. “Improvement”
“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.
36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”
“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association”
“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district.
36614. “Property”
“Property” means real property situated within a district.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 36, Packet Page 177 MCTID Management District Plan 20
November 2, 2022
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”
“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”
“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”
“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit”
“Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
36616. “Tenant”
“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

ARTICLE 3. Prior Law
36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part.

CHAPTER 2. Establishment
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council
A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 37, Packet Page 178 MCTID Management District Plan 21
November 2, 2022
36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.

The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan
The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 38, Packet Page 179 MCTID Management District Plan 22
November 2, 2022
year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k)
(1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district.
(m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment
(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 39, Packet Page 180 MCTID Management District Plan 23
November 2, 2022
businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners.
36624. Changes to proposed assessments
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation
(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36627. Notice and assessment diagram
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 40, Packet Page 181 MCTID Management District Plan 24
November 2, 2022
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3. Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property
(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 41, Packet Page 182 MCTID Management District Plan 25
November 2, 2022
36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan
The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention (a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627.

CHAPTER 3.5. Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments (a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part.
(b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 42, Packet Page 183 MCTID Management District Plan 26
November 2, 2022
be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.

CHAPTER 4. Governance
36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council (a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used.
(b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information:
(1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year.
(4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year.
(5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
(6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636.

The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district. 36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services.

CHAPTER 5. Renewal
36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 43, Packet Page 184 MCTID Management District Plan 27
November 2, 2022
(c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.

CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment
36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure (a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances:
(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district (a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 44, Packet Page 185 MCTID Management District Plan 28
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Business Address City/State/Zip Type
ABV Presidents Inn MUNRAS MTY 1150 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Adams Motel/Boronda Inn 2086 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited ADOBE INN 1919 GRAND CANAL BL.#B5 STOCKTON CA 95207 Full Aloha Motel 235 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited
ANDRIL MOTEL & COTTAGES 569 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited ARAMARK Sports & Entertainment 800 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3704 Limited AUBERGE CARMEL PO BOX J CARMEL CA 93921 Luxury
BAYSIDE INN 2055 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BEACHCOMBER INN 1996 SUNSET DR PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3787 Limited Bernardus Lodge 415 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9417 Luxury Best 5 Motel/Lakshmi Hotel Group 1010 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN DE ANZA INN 2141 NORTH FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Marina State Beach 3290 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited BEST WESTERN MONTEREY INN 825 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Salinas
Monterey/Western Hotel Corp 175 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Best Western Salinas Valley Inn 187 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN INN AND SUITES 4258 CESAR CHAVEZ ST San Francisco, CA 94131-1815 Limited BEST WESTERN-PARK CREST 1100 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BIDE A WEE INN AND COTTAGES 221 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2093 Limited Big Sur Campground & Cabins 47000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Big Sur Lodge 47225 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Full Big Sur River Inn 46800 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9693 Full

BLU PACIFIC HOTEL (FORMERLY
COMFORT INN-MTY BAY) 2050 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Blue Sky Lodge 10 FLIGHT RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9617 Limited BORGS MOTEL 1315 SKYVIEW DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010-6236 Limited Budget Inn Motel/BMN LLC 219 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited BUTTERFLY GROVE INN 1073 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2357 Limited Cabana Holiday 8710 Prunedale North Rd SALINAS, CA 93907-1371 Limited California Inn Motel 736 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CANDLE BAY INN 2118 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CANDLELIGHT INN P.O. Box 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CANNERY ROW INN 200 FOAM ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Capitol Motel/Jainika Corporation 2110 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Captain's Inn At Moss Landing 8122 MOSS LANDING RD Moss Landing, CA 95039-9617 Limited CARMEL BAY VIEW INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95825 Limited CARMEL COTTAGE INN PO BOX 5805 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL COUNTRY INN PO BOX 3756 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL FIREPLACE INN INC. P.O. BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL GARDEN INN PO BOX 5547 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL GREEN LANTERN INN PO BOX 1114 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 45, Packet Page 186 MCTID Management District Plan 29
November 2, 2022
CARMEL INN & SUITES P.O. BOX 1295 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL LODGE P.O.BOX 4235 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Carmel Mission Inn 3665 RIO RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8609 Full CARMEL OAKS INN P.O. BOX 3696 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL RESORT INN P.O. BOX 2106 MONTEREY CA 93942 Limited Carmel River Inn 26600 OLIVER RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9219 Limited CARMEL TRADEWINDS INN P. O. BOX 3403 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Carmel Valley Lodge 8 FORD RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9511 Limited Carmel Valley Manor 8545 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9556 Full Carmel Valley Ranch 1 OLD RANCH RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8551 Luxury CARMEL WAYFARER INN P.O. BOX 1896 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL'S TOWN HOUSE LODGE P.O. BOX 3574 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARRIAGE HOUSE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Casa Linda Motel 1109 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CASA MUNRAS HOTEL 700 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Casa Palmero 1518 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury CASA VERDE INN 2113 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CENTRELLA INN 612 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2611 Limited Ciudad Del Rey Motel 50620 MESA VERDE RD KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited CLARION HOTEL 1046 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COACHMAN'S INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY CA 93940 Limited
COLTON INN 707 PACIFIC ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
COMFORT INN 140 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2522 Limited Comfort Inn & Suites/Shakti LLC 181 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Comfort Inn Monterey Airport 1200 OLMSTED RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COMFORT INN-CARMEL BY THE SEA P.O. BOX 3838 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Contenta Inn 20 VIA CONTENTA Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9501 Limited Continental Motel 1165 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited COUNTRY INN & SUITES 3288 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Country Inn/Meldi Inc 126 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Courtyard Salinas 17225 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CYPRESS INN P.O. Box Y CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Days Inn 1130 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited
DAYS INN 1288 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
DAYS INN - SAN CARLOS 850 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited DEER HAVEN INN 750 CROCKER AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3727 Limited Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 48865 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9512 Full Discovery Inn 1106 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited

ECONO LODGE (MONTEREY
FAIRGROUNDS INN) 2042 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited EconoLodge Bay Breeze Inn 2049 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Economy Inn 214 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Economy Inn 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 46, Packet Page 187 MCTID Management District Plan 30
November 2, 2022
EL CASTELL MOTEL 2102 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited El Dorado Motel/Café Main Street 1351 N. Main Salinas, CA 93906 Limited El Rey Motel 443 W. Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited El Sombrero Motel/Ramesh J. Patel 210 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Embassy Suites 1441 Canyon Del Rey Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Full Esalen Institute 55000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9546 Full Fairview Inn 1060 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Fernwood Resort 47200 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Limited Fireside Inn 640 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited FOREST LODGE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Gateway Lodge 1909 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Glen Oaks Big Sur 47080 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Gorda Cabin Rental 7801 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Limited GOSBY HOUSE INN 643 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2691 Limited GREEN GABLES INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY, CA 93942-3080 Limited H.I. Resort Condominium Assoc, Inc 120 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Full Hacienda House 505 CORRAL DE TIERRA RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8950 Limited HAMPTON INN 17777 Center Court Dr. #725 MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Hampton Inn & Suites/Salinas Hotel
Investors 523 Work St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
HAMPTON INN (formerly LaQuinta) 2401 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HHLP SANCTUARY ASSOCIATES 3295 DUNES RD MARINA, CA 93933-2002 Full Hidden Valley Inn 102 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9573 Limited Highlands Inn 140 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Limited HILTON GARDEN INN 1000 AGUAJITO RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full HOFSAS HOUSE INC. P.O. BOX 1195 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Holiday Inn Express 1400 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 443 WAVE STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites 195 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Marina 189 SEASIDE AVE MARINA, CA 93933-2505 Limited
Holman Ranch, LLC 60 HOLMAN RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9620 Limited HOME 2 SUITES 1534 Fremont Blvd Suite D MARINA, CA 93933 Limited HORIZON INN P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
HOTEL 1110 1110 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOTEL ABREGO 755 ABREGO ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
HOTEL CARMEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Limited HOTEL PACIFIC 300 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOWARD JOHNSON 416 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited Howard Johnson Inn/Ambakari, Inc 131 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited HYATT REGENCY MONTEREY ONE OLD GOLF COURSE RD. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full IHG ARMY POM Presidio of Monterey MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Inn at King City 4 Broadway Cir. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Inn At Moss Landing Point 8425 MOSS LANDING RD D Moss Landing, CA 95039-9679 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 47, Packet Page 188 MCTID Management District Plan 31
November 2, 2022
Inn At Spanish Bay, Attn: David
Hoopingarner 2700 17 MILE DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury Inn at the Pinnacles 32025 Stonewall Canyon Rd SOLEDAD, CA 93960 Limited INN BY THE BAY MONTEREY 936 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Inns of California 1215 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited INTERCONTINENTAL – The Clement 750 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full JABBERWOCK 598 LAINE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Keefers Inn 615 Canal St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited
LA PLAYA HOTEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Luxury LAGUNA LODGE 430 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited LAMPLIGHTER INN PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Laurel Inn 801 W. Laurel Dr. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
Lincoln Green Inn 26200 CARMELO ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9134 Limited LOBOS LODGE P.O. Box L-1 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
LONE OAK MOTEL 2221 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Los Laureles Lodge 313 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9415 Full LOVERS POINT INN 9600 Blue Larkspur Ln Ste 101 MONTEREY, CA 93940-6585 Limited Lucia Lodge 62400 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9533 Limited MARIPOSA INN 1386 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MARRIOTT SPRINGHILL SUITES 215 10TH ST MARINA, CA 93933-6004 Limited MARTINE INN PO BOX 330 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0321 Limited MERRITT HOUSE 386 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Mission Ranch 26270 DOLORES ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9218 Full Monarch Inn 633 Broadway St. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited MONARCH RESORT 1111 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited MONTE VERDE INN PO BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
MONTE VERDE INN EAST P.O.BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited MONTEREY BAY INN 242 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY BAY LODGE 55 CAMINO AGUAJITO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIREPLACE INN 2362 N. Fremont MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIRESIDE MOTEL 1131 TENTH ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOSTEL 778 HAWTHORNE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOTEL 406 ALVARADO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
MONTEREY MARRIOTT 350 CALLE PRINCIPAL MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MONTEREY OCEANSIDE INN 2030 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PENINSULA INN 1101 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited Monterey Pines Inn 1298 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PLAZA 400 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
MONTEREY SURF INN 1200 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY TIDES HOTEL 2600 SAND DUNES DRIVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MOTEL 6 2124 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Motel 6 #0639/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 1257 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited MOTEL 6 #1026 100 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2517 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 48, Packet Page 189 MCTID Management District Plan 32
November 2, 2022
Motel 6 #1370/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 140 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
MOTEL 6 MONTEREY DOWNTOWN 1240 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Motel 6 Soledad 152 San Felipe Rd Soledad CA 93960 Limited Mountain Paradise 17717 CACHAGUA RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9319 Limited MUNRAS INN 1010 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
NORMANDY INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95925 Limited OCEAN VIEW LODGE P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited OCM LIGHTHOUSE LODGE LLC 1150 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2360 Limited OLD MARINA INN 3110 DEL MONTE BLVD MARINA, CA 93933-3049 Limited OLD MONTEREY INN 500 MARTIN STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited OLD SAINT ANGELA INN 321 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2934 Limited OLYMPIA MOTOR LODGE PO BOX 51907 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-6907 Limited Pacific Best Inn 1141 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited PACIFIC GARDENS INN 701 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited PACIFIC GROVE INN PO BOX 2106 MONTEREY, CA 93942-2215 Limited PACIFIC GROVE PLAZA PO BOX 476 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0476 Limited PACIFIC INN MONTEREY 2332 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited PADRE OAKS MOTEL 1278 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pal Rest Easy LLC 196 Infantry RD Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928 Limited Parkfield Inn 70403 PARKFIELD RD SAN MIGUEL, CA 93451 Limited PELICAN INN 2058 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pessagno Winery 1645 RIVER RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8751 Limited PINE ACRES LODGE 1380 LEAD HILL BLVD 201 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661-2997 Limited PINE INN P.O. Box 250 CARMEL CA 93921 Full
PORTOLA HOTEL & SPA 2 PORTOLA PLAZA MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Post Ranch Inn 47900 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9576 Luxury Prunedale Motor Lodge 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Prunedale Motor Lodge Cabins 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Quail Lodge And Golf Club 8205 VALLEY GREENS DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9512 Luxury Quality Inn 1190 Broadway St. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited QUALITY INN - FAIRGROUNDS 2075 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited QUALITY INN - MUNRAS (Arbor Inn) 1058 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Quality Inn/Om Namah 144 Kern St Salinas, CA 93905 Limited RAMADA INN 323 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3218 Limited RAMADA LTD. CARMEL HILL 1182 CASS STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited

RED LION INN (FORMERLY BAY
PARK HOTEL) 1425 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
RED ROOF INN 2227 N FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Residence Inn Salinas 17215 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited Rex Motel/Parshottambhai M Ahir 305 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Ripplewood Resort 47047 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Full Riverside Campground 47020 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited RODEWAY INN 2041 FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Rodeway Inn (Formerly Knights Inn) 1374 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 49, Packet Page 190 MCTID Management District Plan 33
November 2, 2022
ROSEDALE INN 4781 SAN LUCAS WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95135-2345 Limited Sai Enterprises DBA Motel 6 3 Broadway Cir. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Salinas Travel Inn/MJ Nahal Inc 425 Monterey St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Salinas Valley Motel/Aatray Hotels,
Inc/BAPS LLC 2100 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sand Castle Inn 1011 La Salle Ave. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sand Dollar Inn (formerly Magic
Carpet Inn) 1875 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sandpiper Inn 2408 BAY VIEW AVE CARMEL, CA 93923-9118 Limited SEA VIEW INN 35 W.POPLAR AV. SAN MATEO CA 94402 Limited SeaLamp Inn 2201 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Seaside Inn 1986 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SEVEN GABLES INN 301 N CANON DR STE 302 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210-4724 Limited Silver Saddle 705 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Soledad Motel 8 1013 Front St Soledad CA 93960 Limited
SPINDRIFT INN 652 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
STAGE COACH LODGE 1111 10 ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Steinbeck Lodge/Travelodge/J S Inc 109 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited STONEHOUSE INN 5130 COMMERCIAL CIRCLE CONCORD CA 94520 Limited Stonepine Estate Resort 150 E CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9605 Full SUNSET HOUSE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
SUNSET INN 133 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2094 Limited SUPER 8 - FREMONT 2120 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited SUPER 8 - MUNRAS 1300 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Super 8/Ram Hotels LLC 131 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sure Stay Hotel 1893 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SVENDSGAARD'S INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
TALLY HO INN P.O. Box 3726 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Tehama Golf Club, LLC 25000 Via Malpaso Canada
Woods CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN II PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited THE COLONIAL TERRACE P.O. BOX 1375 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited The Holly Farm 9200 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9574 Limited THE HOMESTEAD 26270 DOLORES ST. CARMEL CA 93923 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1252 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1262 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Lodge At Pebble Beach Attn:

David Hoopingarner 1500 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury THE SEA BREEZE INN 1100 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2362 Limited THE STEVENSON MONTEREY 675 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited THE VAGABOND'S HOUSE PO BOX 2747 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Thunderbird Motel 1933 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Tickle Pink Motor Inn 155 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9601 Limited TRAVELODGE - FAIRGROUNDS 2030 N. FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 50, Packet Page 191 MCTID Management District Plan 34
November 2, 2022
Treebones Resort 71895 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9573 Limited Vendange Carmel Inn & Suites 24815 CARPENTER ST CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited Ventana Big Sur 48123 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9538 Luxury VICTORIAN INN 487 FOAM STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited

VILLA FRANCA (FORMERLY EL
DORADO INN) 900 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Vision Quest Safari Bed & Breakfast 400 RIVER RD SALINAS, CA 93908-9627 Limited Wagon Wheel Motel 1217 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited

WAVE STREET INN (PREVIOUSLY
OTTER INN) 571 WAVE ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
WAYSIDE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Western Motel/Western Skylodge
LLC 6 S. Wood St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
WILKIES INN 1038 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2424 Limited Willow Lodge 719 S. Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Zen Mtn Center/Tassajar Springs
C/O Ccao Controlle 39171 TASSAJARA RD CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924-9316 Limited *List as of October 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 51, Packet Page 192 MCTID Management District Plan 35
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE
PROGRAMS / ACTIVITIES Luxury
NonLuxury
Full
Service
Limited
Service
General: Inclusion in Sales, Marketing, and Promotional Opportunities* X X X General: Listing on www.SeeMonterey.com with direct link to hotel page X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Online travel planning app X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Consumer Brochures X X X General: Access to SeeMonterey research reports and insights X X X General: Represented by SeeMonterey at industry conferences & events X X X Consumer: Opportunity to participate in Consumer Marketing Campaigns X X X Consumer: Public Relations participation opportunities X X X Consumer: Familiarization Tour (Press & Influencer) Opportunities X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Social Media Efforts X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Destination Video & Photo Shoots X X X Consumer: New project & special event opportunities X X X Travel Trade: Trade Show Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Sales Mission Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Lead Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Familiarization Tour Leads (Press & Travel Trade) Opportunities X X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Mention) X X X
Meetings/Group: Familiarization Tours X X
Meetings/Group: Tradeshow Participation X X
Meetings/Group: Site Inspections X X
Meetings/Group: Marketing Campaigns X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Full Page) X X
Inclusion in SeeMonterey destination partnership with Virtuoso Network X ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 52, Packet Page 193 MCTID Management District Plan 36
November 2, 2022
Representation a luxury travel conferences (e.g. ILTM) X Representation at VCA luxury travel week X
Featured in Luxury Advertising Campaign X
Featured in Luxury Public Relations Campaign X
* Each property that meets the minimum criteria of the client, journalist, or meeting planner will be promoted.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 53, Packet Page 194 MCTID Management District Plan 37
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 54, Packet Page 195 2 Introduction
Monterey visitor economy: overview and trends
MCCVB performance
Growing the visitor economy
Competitive funding analysis
Impact of TID funding on Monterey’s economy
Appendix 1: The impact of TIDs
Appendix 2: The ROI of destination marketing
1 2
3 4
5 6

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 55, Packet Page 196 1 Introduction
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 56, Packet Page 197 4 In 2019, visitors to Monterey County spent a total of $3.2 billion locally and booked 3.1 million rooms. Total visitor spending increased 43% from 2011 to 2019. The revenue generated by the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (TID) and the work performed by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) is a major factor in this accelerated growth.

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the TID and its impact on Monterey’s tourism sector and overall economy. It highlights key trends over the past decade and quantifies how TID funding benefits hotels across the county.

Right now, Monterey is experiencing a strong recovery from the pandemic. Continued support and a renewal of the TID will support these trends into the future and ensure that the county’s visitor economy reaches its full potential.

Introduction
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 57, Packet Page 198 5 In 2019, visitors spent
$3.2 billion in Monterey
County, supporting
40,480 jobs and $2.1
billion in local income
(including direct,
indirect, and induced
impacts).

Key findings
From 2011 to 2019,
spending in Monterey
increased 43%, faster
than the state and
region.

MCCVB’s group sales
team was increasing its
bookings prior to the
pandemic and provided
an ROI of 14-1.

MCCVB sales and
marketing are integral
to increasing spending
per visitor and driving
visitation in the offseason.

Monterey County’s TID
will generate $2.3 billion
in visitor spending over
the next decade.

Adopting the MCCVB’s
proposed assessment
would generate an
additional $2.2 billion,
greatly accelerating postpandemic growth.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 58, Packet Page 199 Monterey Visitor Economy: 2 Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 59, Packet Page 200 7 Importance of the visitor economy
Visitors to Monterey County spent $3.2 billion in 2019. Most of this spending accrued to the accommodations and food services sectors.

This spending directly generated (i.e., not including indirect and induced effects) 27,160 jobs, $1.4 billion of income, and $298 million in state and local taxes.

Monterey County represents approximately one-third of the Central Coast region’s tourism sector and 2% of the state’s tourism sector. *Much of this report focuses on 2019 (fiscal or calendar year) as a benchmark for a typical year.

In 2019*, visitors spent $3.2 billion in Monterey County, supporting 40,480 jobs and $2.1 billion in local income** Key tourism indictors in Monterey County, 2019
Dollar figures in millions
Sources: Dean Runyan Associates, Tourism Economics
**totals include indirect and induced impacts calculated by Tourism Economics Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
Total visitor spending $3,241
Accommodations $879
Food Service $967
Food Stores $78
Local Tran. & Gas $267
Arts, Ent. & Rec. $394
Retail Sales $520
Visitor Air Tran. $24
Other $112
Total Earnings** $2,161
Direct earning $1,420
Total jobs** 40,480
Direct jobs 27,160
Total S&L taxes** $398
Direct S&L taxes $298
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 60, Packet Page 201 8 Trends in the visitor economy
Meanwhile earning and jobs increased 65% and 32%, respectively.

Visitor spending increased 43% from 2011 to 2019. Growth of the visitor economy* in Monterey Dollar figures in billions
Source Dean Runyan Associates
*earnings and jobs include direct impacts only
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 $0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Thousands
Spending (left axis)
Earnings (left axis)
Jobs (right axis)
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 61, Packet Page 202 9 Hotel sector KPIs
From FY2016-2019, ADR grew from $192 to $224, a 17% increase over three years
RevPAR grew to $164 from $137, a 20% increase.

Hotel occupancy increased to 73% from 71%.

Hotel performance metrics were all strengthening in the years prior to the pandemic.

Hotel sector KPIs in Monterey County
Dollars
Source Dean Runyan Associates
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Occupancy (right axis)
ADR (left axis)
RePAR (left axis)
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 62, Packet Page 203 10 Visitor spending share
In 2019, Monterey County accounted for 34.7% of all spending in the Central Coast region, up from 32.5% in 2011. This increase of 2.2% may seem small; but given that visitors spent $9.4 billion dollars in the region in 2019, the 2.2% increase represents an additional $202 million in visitor spending injected into Monterey’s economy.

Monterey has been capturing an increasing share of the
region's tourism market.

Monterey share of visitor spending in the Central Coast region Share of total regional spending
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
* Includes Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties

31.0%

31.5%

32.0%

32.5%

33.0%

33.5%

34.0%

34.5%

35.0%

35.5%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 63, Packet Page 204 11 Visitor spending comparisons
Monterey County outpaced three of four nearby leisure-oriented counties from 2011-2019, including Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.

Monterey exhibited strong growth compared to other nearby leisure-oriented counties.

Visitor spending growth in Monterey and local competitors Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 100
110
120
130
140
150
160
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Sonoma
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 64, Packet Page 205 12 Tourism employment growth comparisons
Direct employment in Monterey County reached 27,160 in 2019, up from 20,510 in 2011. This represents an increase of 32% over that time period, which is slightly faster than growth in the state and region.

Direct tourism employment in Monterey has grown at an
accelerated rate.

Direct tourism employment growth in Monterey, the region, and the state Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Central Coast
California
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 65, Packet Page 206 13 Hotel sector growth comparisons
Hotel room revenue in Monterey outpaced 10 competing destinations and grew almost 8% faster than the state.

Monterey led its competition in terms of room revenue
growth over the three years prior to the pandemic.

Room revenue growth in Monterey and competitors, FY2017-2019* Percent total growth
Source: STR
*We use a shorter time horizon due to data limitations

17.8%

17.6%

11.8%

10.3%

10.2%

10.0%

9.4%

8.8%

8.3%

7.1%

6.6%

4.3%
0% 10% 20%
Monterey County
South Lake Tahoe
San Francisco/San Mateo
Sonoma County,
San Jose/Santa Cruz
California
San Diego
Palm Springs
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Napa County
Laguna Beach
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 66, Packet Page 207 14 Visitor spending comparisons
While Monterey’s strong performance is notable over the entire decade, the county achieved particularly robust growth in the later half of the decade.

Between 2015 and 2019, visitor spending in Monterey increased 20%, outpacing both the region (+17%) and the state (+19%).

Visitor spending increased at a faster rate in Monterey than in the state or region.

Visitor spending growth in Monterey, the region, and the state Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 100
110
120
130
140
150
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Central Coast
California
Monterey Visitor Economy:

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 67, Packet Page 208 3 MCCVB Performance
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 68, Packet Page 209 16 Advertising ROI
In the first half of FY2022, media campaigns run by the MCCVB generated awareness of Monterey County as a tourism destination in 4.2 million households in both drive and fly markets. These newly aware households made 115,261 trips to Monterey County and spent $136.8 million locally.

These ads produced an ROI of 75-to-1.

MCCVB advertising generates a significant ROI in drive and fly markets.

MCCVB advertising performance by market type, mid-year FY2022 Source: SMARI
MCCVB Performance
Drive Fly Total
Aware households created 2,500,000 1,700,000 4,200,000
Influenced trips to Monterey 45,857 69,404 115,261
Influenced visitor spending (millions) $44.0 $92.8 $136.8 Ad spending (millions) $0.7 $1.1 $1.8
ROI 62-to-1 84-to-1 75-to-1
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 69, Packet Page 210 17 Group sales performance
The sales teams booked 255 events in FY2019, up from 250 in FY2016.

Meanwhile, rooms booked increased to 69,000 from 61,200, a 13% increase over the same time period.

The average size of events also increased in this time period, growing to 271 rooms per event from 245.

The MCCVB’s group sales team was increasing its bookings prior to the pandemic.

MCCVB Performance
MCCVB group sales
Rooms booked
Source: MCCVB
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2016 2017 2018 2019
Rooms
Events
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 70, Packet Page 211 18 Group sales return on investment
The events booked by the MCCVB sales team resulted in 96,800 total room sales and $44 million in visitor spending. This provided an ROI of 14-to-1 when measured against their $3.1 million budget.

The MCCVB’s group sales team generated a substantial ROI in FY2019.

MCCVB Performance
MCCVB group sales performance, FY2019
Source: MCCVB; Tourism Economics
*This includes bookings in the event room block and an estimation of outside the block bookings from Tourism Economics’ and Destination International‘s Event Impact Calculator. ** Includes spending by the event organizer.

Total event rooms* 96,800
Spending per room** $455
Total Spending (millions) $44.0
Sales and group services expenses (millions) $3.1
Group sales ROI 14-to-1
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 71, Packet Page 212 19 Group sales and seasonality
While group sales* remain low in November and December, they create a substantial boost in the shoulder months of Jan.-Apr. and Sep.-Oct. when transient (i.e., not group or contract) room bookings are lower. *As reported by STR, which includes additional rooms beyond what the MCCVB books.

Group sales help fill out the off-peak “shoulder” seasons for the Monterey visitor economy.

MCCVB Performance
Seasonality of room bookings in Monterey County, 2018
Monthly share of annual rooms
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Transient rooms
Group rooms
Source: STR
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 72, Packet Page 213 4 Growing the Visitor Economy
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 73, Packet Page 214 21 Overcoming supply constraints
This section reviews ways to increase the economic impact of tourism given current supply constraints
While a 73% occupancy rate may leave an impression that there are numerous available rooms, this is close to full capacity for a leisure destination. It is rare to see non-urban destinations (cities fill weekdays and ‘low’ seasons with business travelers) maintain annual occupancy rates above 75%.

Therefore, increasing the economic impact of tourism in Monterey County largely depends on some combination of increasing room inventory, increasing visitor spending per booked room, and filling out the shoulder periods (especially weekdays).

Monterey’s pre-pandemic occupancy rate was nearing full capacity.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Occupancy rate in Monterey County and competing destinations, FY2019 Source: STR
82%
78%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
72%
71%
70%
68%
62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
San Francisco/San Mateo
San Diego
California
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County
Monterey County
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Laguna Beach,
Napa Valley
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
South Lake Tahoe
Palm Springs
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 74, Packet Page 215 22 Importance of visitor value
To maximize the value of each visitor, the MCCVB can concentrate on the domestic-fly and overseas markets. The domestic-fly market spends 42% more than the drive market, and the overseas* market spends 192% more than the domestic drive market.
*The overseas spending estimate is a statewide average that comes from Tourism Economics’ International State Travel database and includes data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel. This includes spending in California, but not spending on travel to the US.

Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per trip.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per trip by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per trip
*California figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 $959
$1,364
$2,799
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Overseas*
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 75, Packet Page 216 23 Importance of visitor value
Compared to the domestic drive market, the domestic fly market spends 31% more per night, the business conference market spends 158% more, and the overseas* market spends 190% more.
*The overseas origin market estimate uses San Jose data, the closest available data point, and comes from Tourism Economics’ Global City Travel database. This uses data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel.

This includes spending in San Jose, but not spending on travel to the US.

Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per night.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per night by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per night
*San Jose figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 ** Includes spending by the event organizer.
$153
$201
$455
$561
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Business conference**
Overseas*
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 76, Packet Page 217 24 Boosting the low season
While Monterey’s 73% annual occupancy rate is quite high for a non-urban leisure destination, MCCVB can realize the opportunity to increase lowseason bookings.

If the six low-season months (average occupancy 64%) matched the occupancy rate of the six high-seasons months (80%), Monterey would see an increase of 354,000 rooms booked—a 10% increase over its current total.

MCCVB is also well-positioned to increase off-season
bookings.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Seasonality and potential new booking in Monterey, 2019 Sources: STR; Tourism Economics
*Potential new room bookings if these months could match the high-season occupancy rate of 80%.

Rooms booked Occupancy rate Potential new bookings*
Jan 214,000 56% 93,000
Feb 215,000 64% 53,000
Mar 253,000 68% 44,000
Apr 277,000 75% 18,000
May 290,000 76% --
Jun 302,000 82% --
Jul 319,000 84% --
Aug 317,000 83% --
Sep 291,000 79% --
Oct 295,000 77% --
Nov 248,000 67% 49,000
Dec 210,000 55% 97,000
Total 3,231,000 354,000
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 77, Packet Page 218 5 Competitive Funding Analysis
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 78, Packet Page 219 26 TID overview
Full-service hotels are assessed $2.00 and other hotels are assessed $1.00. In FY2019, the TID (tourism improvement district) generated $4.2 million of funding dedicated for tourism promotion through the MCCVB and represented the largest source of funding for tourism promotion in the county.

The Monterey County TID assessment that funds the MCCVB ranges from $1.00 to $2.00.

Competitive Funding Analysis
Monterey hotel sector and TID details by scale, FY2019
Source: MCCVB, STR
ADR Room revenue % of Revenue
Current Avg TID per
Room Assumption
Current TID
Contribution
Contribution % of
Total TID
Luxury $455 $294,000,000 41% $2.00 $1,293,000 31%
Upper Upscale $229 $134,000,000 19% $1.50 $875,000 21%
Upscale $180 $48,000,000 7% $1.25 $333,000 8%
Upper Midscale $185 $75,000,000 10% $1.15 $468,000 11%
Midscale $179 $39,000,000 5% $1.00 $218,000 5%
Economy $132 $133,000,000 18% $1.00 $1,013,000 24%
Total $231 $724,000,000 100% $0.00 $4,201,000 100%
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 79, Packet Page 220 27 TID rate comparison
This set includes the MCCVB’s competitive set and additional DMOs that disclosed their assessment rate to Destinations International (DI).

Since the assessment is a major source of revenue for the MCCVB (and the majority of other DMOs on this list), this results in a limited tourism promotion budget for Monterey County. Increasing the TID assessment rate could generate additional funding and provide competitive funding for tourism promotion in Monterey County.
*Monterey’s per room assessment scheme results in an overall rate of 0.6% of room revenue.

Monterey’s TID assessment of 0.6%* is much lower than the competitive set average of 2.1%.

Competitive Funding Analysis
TID assessment rates in Monterey and competitors
TID assessment rate
Sources: Dean Runyan Associates; Tourism Economics

4.0%

3.0%

2.9%

2.3%

2.1%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.6%
0% 2% 4% 6%
Stockton
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Pasadena
San Francisco
Average
Anaheim
Portland
Sonoma County
Napa Valley
San Diego
Orange County
Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo
Mendocino County
Monterey County
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 80, Packet Page 221 28 Napa County, CA
Monterey
County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Sonoma
County, CA
Stockton, CA
Ventura,
CA
San Luis
Obispo, CA***
Huntington
Beach, CA
Palm Springs,
CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Newport,
CA
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Thousands
Competitive funding analysis
This analysis compares destinations’ DMO budgets relative to the size of the local tourism sector (as measured by hotel room inventory). This analysis shows that Monterey County tourism promotion is underfunded compared to the line of best fit (the dotted line).

We chose to conduct a pre-pandemic analysis to provide perspective on a ‘normal’ level of DMO spending and room inventory, as the pandemic has caused severe swings.

Tourism promotion in Monterey County is underfunded
relative to local competitors.

Competitive Funding Analysis
Hotel, rooms (000’s)
Sources: Tourism Economics, DI, STR
*2018 or 2019 depending on destination’s reporting
** San Luis Obispo has greatly increased their DMO’s budget recently. The destination will likely spend close to $10m in 2022, up from $4.6m in this analysis.

Hotel rooms and DMO revenue in competing destinations, pre-pandemic* DMO budget, millions
Competitive
funding line
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 81, Packet Page 222 29 Competitive funding analysis
Examining the same data as the prior slide, we see that Monterey County provides $630 of tourism promotion spending for every hotel room, 38% below the set average.

Monterey County’s tourism promotion budget is 38% below the set average.

Competitive Funding Analysis
Funding dollars per hotel room
Sources: Tourism Economics, DI, STR
*2018 or 2019 depending on destination’s reporting
** San Luis Obispo has recently increased their DMO’s budget, and their figure may double in 2022.

Tourism promotion funding per room in select destinations, pre-pandemic $2,000
$1,536
$1,328
$1,310
$1,031
$1,012
$865
$687
$634
$630
$624
$484
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Huntington Beach, CA
Napa County, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Average
Newport, CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Ventura, CA
Monterey County, CA
Stockton, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA**
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 82, Packet Page 223 Impact of TID Funding on the 6 Monterey Economy
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 83, Packet Page 224 31 Importance of visitor value
Increasing or decreasing the TID assessment rate would do little to change Monterey’s price competitiveness amongst its main competitors. Economically, elimination of the TID is unlikely to produce any positive benefit on room demand. Tourism Economics modeling on behalf of STR has consistently found hotel room demand to be highly inelastic at the market level. That is, while an individual property may gain or lose share within a market based on price, a market-wide shift in rate has no appreciable impact on room demand.

The impact of the loss of tourism promotion funding would in all likelihood far exceed any possible negative effect of higher room costs. We also note that from FY2016-2019, ADR increased 17% while the occupancy rate grew to 73% from 71%. This indicates that price sensitivity does not seem to be a major factor for visitors.

In sum, eliminating the TID would not impact hotels’ price competitiveness but would appreciably undercut Monterey’s competitive market position in the absence of concerted destination sales and marketing.

Changing the TID assessment rate would not impact local hotels’ price competitiveness.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Dollars
Source: STR
* The US Open boosted room rates in Monterey County FY2019.

Average room rate in Monterey and competitors, FY2019*
$353
$333
$251
$226
$224
$200
$199
$181
$172
$171
$169
$131
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
Laguna Beach
Napa County
San Francisco/San Mateo
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Monterey County
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County,
Palm Springs
California
San Diego
South Lake Tahoe
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 84, Packet Page 225 32 Importance of visitor value
Based on prior calculations of paid media and group sales ROIs, we estimate that the MCCVB has an organizational ROI of 47-to-1 (i.e., one dollar of MCCVB funding generates $47 of visitor spending).

The MCCVB generated an ROI of $47-to-$1.

Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
MCCVB organizational ROI calculations
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Value Source / calculation
Paid media ROI on visitor spending 75-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Paid Media expenses share of total DMO budget 56% MCCVB Group Sales ROI on visitor spending 14-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Group sales share of total DMO budget 33% MCCVB
Organization ROI on visitor spending 47-to-1 (75 * 61%) + (14 * 33%) ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 85, Packet Page 226 33 Scenario development
Here we evaluate the impact of changes to the TID structure via three scenarios. In the Baseline Scenario the TID structure remains the same, in the TID elimination scenario the TID is removed, and in the Alternative TID Scenario the TID structure is changed to a three-tiered flat assessment that begins at $1.50 for limited-service hotels, $4.50 for full-service hotels, and $7.00 for luxury properties with biennial escalators.

We provide additional details on the three scenarios in fiscal year 2025, as this is the first year without a “cool-down” or “ramp-up” effect (i.e. the full effect of a funding increase/decrease will not be felt in the first two years of budget changes as lags exists between assessments being collected, distributed, media spending being increased/decreased, consumers making travel plans, and visitors actually traveling).

In 2025, our Baseline Scenario forecasted MCCVB’s revenue is $9.0 million.

In the TID Elimination Scenario, the MCCVB receives $4.0 million, a decrease of $5.0 million. We estimate a 47-to-1 ROI on this lost funding spending, which results in $233 million of lost visitor spending.

Changes in the TID could create an impact of several hundred million dollars.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
MCCVB revenue and visitor spending in three scenarios, FY2025 Dollar figures in millions
TID Elimination
Scenario
Baseline
Scenario
Alternative
Assessment Scenario
TID revenue $0.0 $5.0 $9.8
Jurisdiction investment $4.0 $4.0 $4.0
Total MCCVB revenue $4.0 $9.0 $13.8
Revenue change relative to baseline -$5.0 -- $4.8
Anticipated ROI revenue change* 47-to-1 -- 42-to-1
Change in visitor spending -$233 -- $204
Total visitor spending $3,157 $3,391 $3,594
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
In the Alternative Assessment Scenario, the MCCVB receives $13.8 million in revenue, an increase of $4.8 million. To be conservative and account for diminishing marginal returns on new funding, we estimate a 42-to-1 ROI on this new funding, which results in $204 million of gained visitor spending.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 86, Packet Page 227 34 '19-'32
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Growth Spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 17% Earnings $1,387 $1,239 $991 $1,179 $1,405 $1,418 $1,431 $1,445 $1,473 $1,487 $1,501 $1,515 $1,529 $1,543 10% Jobs 26,895 23,765 19,342 24,226 28,431 28,265 28,100 27,936 28,053 27,890 27,727 27,565 27,404 27,244 2% Local taxes $168 $130 $114 $143 $172 $175 $178 $182 $186 $190 $193 $196 $200 $204 19% Sales tax $72 $58 $50 $63 $75 $76 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $83 $83 $84 15% TOT $71 $53 $47 $60 $72 $74 $76 $78 $80 $82 $84 $86 $88 $90 23% State taxes $142 $109 $96 $115 $143 $147 $153 $156 $159 $162 $164 $166 $169 $171 19% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Spending 100 79 69 86 103 105 106 108 111 112 114 115 117 119 Earnings 100 89 71 85 101 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 Jobs 100 88 72 90 106 105 104 104 104 104 103 102 102 101 Local taxes 100 78 68 85 103 105 106 108 111 113 115 117 119 121 Sales tax 100 81 70 87 104 105 106 108 110 111 113 114 115 117 TOT 100 75 66 84 101 104 106 109 112 115 117 120 123 126 State taxes 100 77 68 81 101 104 108 110 113 114 116 118 119 121 Baseline Scenario forecast
In our Baseline Scenario, visitor spending grows to $3.8 billion in FY2032**.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario*
Dollar figures in millions
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
*Fiscal years
**Based on MCCVB projections of hotel revenue
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario
Index, (FY2019=100)
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 87, Packet Page 228 35 TID Elimination scenario
The TID Elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, TID Elimination Scenario Dollar figures in millions
Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
These spending losses result in losses of $939 million in earnings, $120 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,759 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total losses Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Lost TID Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,221 $3,192 $3,157 $3,201 $3,280 $3,325 $3,370 $3,416 $3,463 $3,510 -- Lost spending -- -- -- -- $73 $150 $233 $239 $245 $251 $257 $263 $270 $277 $2,259 Lost earnings -- -- -- -- $31 $64 $98 $100 $102 $104 $106 $108 $111 $113 $939 Lost jobs* -- -- -- -- 633 1,270 1,933 1,941 1,949 1,957 1,966 1,974 1,982 1,990 1,759 Lost local taxes -- -- -- -- $3.8 $7.9 $12.3 $12.6 $12.9 $13.3 $13.7 $14.1 $14.5 $14.9 $120 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Lost state taxes -- -- -- -- $3.2 $6.6 $10.6 $10.8 $11.1 $11.4 $11.6 $11.9 $12.2 $12.5 $102 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 88, Packet Page 229 36 TID Elimination scenario
The TID elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
TID Elimination
$2.3bn lost
over 10 years
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 89, Packet Page 230 37 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Alternative Assessment Scenario Dollar figures in millions
These spending gains result in gains of $920 million in earnings, $118 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,716 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total gains Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Alternative Assessment Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,349 $3,448 $3,594 $3,638 $3,766 $3,812 $3,906 $3,953 $4,048 $4,096 -- Gained spending -- -- -- -- $55 $106 $204 $199 $242 $236 $279 $273 $316 $310 $2,218 Gained earnings -- -- -- -- $23 $45 $86 $83 $101 $98 $115 $112 $129 $126 $920 Gained jobs* -- -- -- -- 471 896 1,688 1,613 1,923 1,842 2,132 2,047 2,317 2,228 1,716 Gained local taxes -- -- -- -- $2.9 $5.6 $10.7 $10.5 $12.8 $12.5 $14.8 $14.6 $16.9 $16.7 $118 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Gained state taxes -- -- -- -- $2.4 $4.7 $9.2 $9.0 $10.9 $10.7 $12.6 $12.4 $14.3 $14.0 $100 Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 90, Packet Page 231 38 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
Alternative Assessment
$2.2bn gained
over 10 years
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 91, Packet Page 232 39 Scenario comparison
The changes in TID funding create a notable impact on the future path of the visitor economy.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, three scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Alternative Assessment
Baseline
TID Elimination
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 92, Packet Page 233 Appendix: The National Impact of
Tourism Improvement Districts
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 93, Packet Page 234 41 National study of TID benefits
The study finds that tourism improvement districts (TIDs) provide a competitive advantage for destinations. By examining TID impacts on room demand, revenue, and visitor spending, this white paper explores that ground-breaking research and explains how TIDs enhance economic impacts in destinations.

The following pages review a collaborative research project on the impact of TIDs performed by Tourism Economics.

The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 94, Packet Page 235 42 Destination sample
The analysis covers 100 cities, including 29
TID destinations and 71 non-TID
destinations.

The Impact of TIDs
Cities included in Tourism Economics’ TID impact analysis ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 95, Packet Page 236 43 Room demand regression model
Our approach to estimate the effect of TID on room demand included:

1. 100 US destinations (counties); 29 TID destinations and 71 non-TID destinations

2. Oxford Economics databank was utilized for relevant macroeconomic indicators, namely, GDP and employment (at county level)

3. The final panel dataset consisted of 100 cross-sections and 30 time periods (1990-2019), totaling 3,000 observations
The Impact of TIDs
log 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 𝑏1 + 𝑏2 × log 𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑠&𝑅𝑒𝑐 𝐺𝐷𝑃
+𝑏3 × log 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝐷𝑃 + 𝑏4 × 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 + 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟
Where 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 = 1 for a TID city, and 0 otherwise.
• The model sought to test whether a positive and significant relationship existed between the dependent variable, 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑, and the independent variable 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 ; a positive 𝑏4 coefficient with a small p-value. • The other two independent variables, Arts & Rec 𝐺𝐷𝑃 and 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝐷𝑃, were employed as control variables to control for a destination’s size and its relative importance as a tourist destination.
• Below are the regression results indicating a positive and highly significant 𝑏4 coefficient.
• The results suggest that when controlled for size and importance of a destination as a tourist destination, across our sample of 100 cities, there was an average

2.12% difference in room demand between years in which a destination had an active TID and years without a TID. Results are statistically significant with a 99% confidence level.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 96, Packet Page 237 44 High-level view
Visually, we can observe that TID destinations outperformed non-TID markets in the latest upcycle.

The Impact of TIDs
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities growth
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities growth
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities (2002=100)
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
220%
240%
260%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities (2002=100)
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 97, Packet Page 238 45 TID growth premium: demand
The Impact of TIDs
Room demand growth premium*
2003-2019
-0.12%

0.34%
-0.20%
-0.10%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%
Before TID After TID
The demand premium is calculated as the difference between an average 3-year growth in TID cities and non-TID cities prior to the TID (“Before TID”) and post the TID (“After TID”).
• Before authorizing a TID, growth in cities that eventually had a TID was 12 basis points slower compared to growth in TID cities. • After authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 34 basis points faster compared to non-TID cities.
• Swing of 0.5% in room demand.

On average, a destination gains 0.5% in demand growth per year after a TID is put in place.
“Premium” is measured as the difference in growth rates between TID and non-TID destinations Source: STR, Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 98, Packet Page 239 46 TID growth premium: revenue
The Impact of TIDs
Room revenue growth premium*
2003-2019
The revenue premium is calculated as the difference between an average 3-year growth in TID cities and non-TID cities prior to the TID (“Before TID”) and post the TID (“After TID”).
• Before authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 24 basis points faster compared to growth in non-TID cities
• After authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 130 basis points faster compared to non-TID cities
• Gain of 1.1% in room revenue.

On average, a destination gains 1.1% in revenue growth per year after a TID is put in place.
“Premium” is measured as the difference in growth rates between TID and non-TID destinations Source: STR, Tourism Economics

0.24%

1.30%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%
Before TID After TID
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 99, Packet Page 240 47 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate 7,027,654 rooms in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated 6,878,260 rooms.

On average, our modeling indicates that TIDs produce a 2.1% lift in hotel room demand.

Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
6,878,260
7,027,654
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
7,500,000
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
Actual room
demand
Estimated room
demand in
absence of TID
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 100, Packet Page 241 48 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities (millions)
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate $1.12 billion in room revenue in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated $1.07 billion in room revenue.

On average, our modeling indicates that TIDs produce a 4.5% lift in hotel room revenue.

Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
$1,067
$1,118
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Average annual hotel room revenue
TID cities (millions)
Actual room revenue
Estimated room
revenue in
absence of TID
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 101, Packet Page 242 49 Economic benefits of TIDs
Tourism promotion funding provided by TIDs results in more visitors and visitor spending, and this spending represents a new injection to the local economy with many downstream benefits . In total, benefits are felt on three levels.
• Direct Impacts: Visitors create direct economic value within a discreet group of sectors (e.g., recreation, transportation). This supports a relative proportion of jobs, wages, taxes, and GDP within each sector. • Indirect Impacts: Each directly affected sector also purchases goods and services as inputs (e.g., food wholesalers, utilities) into production.

These impacts are called indirect impacts.
• Induced Impacts: Lastly, the induced impact is generated when employees whose wages are generated whether directly or indirectly by visitors, spend those wages in the local economy.

The impacts of TIDs go beyond just the hotel and tourism sector.

The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
RETAIL

ENTERTAINMENT/REC

FOOD & BEVERAGE

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

LODGING

AIR TRANSPORTATION
SALES
GDP
JOBS
INCOME
TAXES
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 102, Packet Page 243 Appendix 2: The ROI of Destination Marketing
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 103, Packet Page 244 51 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Many state and local CVBs and DMOs conduct periodic assessments of marketing effectiveness. There are several goals of these studies, including understanding how specific marketing campaigns are perceived by households, how effective the campaigns are in having an impact on households’ intent to travel to a given destination, and which target markets are showing differing level of responsiveness to marketing.

Frequently these studies include a specific analysis of the ROI of marketing spending in the form of a quantitative assessment of the level of incremental visitor spending and tax revenues that are attributable to destination marketing.

These studies use a variety of methods and are measuring the impact of a range of different campaigns across different situations. For example, a specific study may look at incremental visitors attracted by a state-level marketing campaign conducted by a state that attracts travelers from a range of national markets, while another study may focus on the results of a more targeted regional campaign carried out by a city-level CVB. While the results of a specific study pertain most directly to the situation that was analyzed and the corresponding assumptions, it is appropriate to consider broader inferences from the research. We analyzed recent studies that included an estimate of the incremental visitor spending attributable to advertising campaign spending.

For example, in a fairly typical approach, a study would:
• Use a survey to analyze the effect of a specific advertising campaign on households’ travel to a given destination, such as by analyzing the impact on actual travel among those that had observed the advertising or by analyzing the impact on households’ intentions to travel; • Project that effect to the broader set of households in the marketing area to estimate the number of incremental visits attributable to the campaign;
• Apply typical levels of spending per visitor to estimate incremental visitor spending; and,
• Compare incremental visitor spending to the level of advertising spending to estimate the ROI.

Tourism Economics summarized the estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from these studies in the table on the following page
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 104, Packet Page 245 52 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from the set of studies we analyzed is summarized in the adjacent table, supporting the following observations:

Overall, we observe that recent marketing campaigns by destination marketing organizations at the metro/regional level have generated approximately $53 of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising spending.

These ROI estimates relate directly to advertising spending. It is also appropriate to consider a visitor spending ROI relative to total CVB operating costs, or relative to public funding. As an example of the former approach, Meet Minneapolis reports the ratio of visitor spending associated with events tracked in its group sales management system to total CVB operating costs has averaged $33 in recent years. This excludes almost all leisure visitor spending.

As an example of an ROI based on public funding, the Florida state government recently analyzed the return on investment for public funding of Visit Florida.

The analysis attributed Visit Florida’s public funding (excluding, for example, significant private funding for cooperative advertising and promotions) to generating $11.2 billion of visitor spending during the three-year-period through FY 2013, representing a visitor spending ROI of $97, and a state tax revenue ROI of $3.2 ($3.20 of state tax revenue generated by each $1 of state funding).

Marketing ROI matrix
Sources: Local studies compiled by Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 105, Packet Page 246 53 For more information:
[email protected]
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of the travel sector with proven economic tools to answer the most important questions facing our clients. More than 500 companies, associations, and destination work with Tourism Economics every year as a research partner. We bring decades of experience to every engagement to help our clients make better marketing, investment, and policy decisions. Our team of highly-specialized economists deliver:
• Global travel data-sets with the broadest set of country, city, and state coverage available • Travel forecasts that are directly linked to the economic and demographic outlook for origins and destinations • Economic impact analysis that highlights the value of visitors, events, developments, and industry segments • Policy analysis that informs critical funding, taxation, and travel facilitation decisions • Market assessments that define market allocation and investment decisions Tourism Economics operates out of regional headquarters in Philadelphia and Oxford, with offices in Belfast, Dubai, Frankfurt, and Ontario.

Oxford Economics is one of the world’s foremost independent global advisory firms, providing reports, forecasts and analytical tools on 200 countries, 100 industrial sectors and over 3,000 cities. Our best-of-class global economic and industry models and analytical tools give us an unparalleled ability to forecast external market trends and assess their economic, social and business impact. Headquartered in Oxford, England, with regional centers in London, New York, and Singapore, Oxford Economics has offices across the globe in Belfast, Chicago, Dubai, Miami, Milan, Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington DC, we employ over 400 full-time staff, including 300 professional economists, industry experts and business editors—one of the largest teams of macroeconomists and thought leadership specialists.

About Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 106, Packet Page 247 Thursday, December 15, 2022
Re: Monterey County Tourism Improvement District Renewal Dear City of Monterey Council & Staff,
Attached are the petitions and information related to the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District Renewal. Thank you for your collaboration in previously reviewing and approving the Management District Plan (MDP) language. Per the requirements of the MDP law, we’re happy to submit the petitions that not only met the minimum requirement of 50.1% of county-wide voting weight, but significantly exceeded that requirement. In fact, the voting weight as of today is over 67%. This is important as it reinforces the unity of the hospitality community and its desire to come back from COVID-19 better and more competitive than we were before.

The next step is our presentation with City Council on Tuesday December 20th and we look forward to further discussing the process and its positive impact on the Monterey County tourism economy.

Many thanks,
Rob O’Keefe
President & CEO, MCCVB
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 107, Packet Page 248 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
ABV PRESIDENTS INN MUNRAS MTY 46 Limited 0.194% Monterey 1 0.194% Adams Motel/Boronda Inn 17 Limited 0.096% Salinas 0 0.000% ADOBE INN 20 Full 0.253% Carmel 0 0.000%
Aloha Motel 14 Limited 0.079% Salinas 0 0.000%
ANDRIL MOTEL & COTTAGES 21 Limited 0.089% Pacific Grove 1 0.089% ARAMARK SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT 312 Limited 1.316% Pacific Grove 1 1.316% AUBERGE CARMEL 20 Luxury 0.394% Carmel 0 0.000%
BAYSIDE INN 21 Limited 0.089% Monterey 0 0.000%
BEACHCOMBER INN 25 Limited 0.105% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Bernardus Lodge 73 Luxury 1.437% County 1 1.437%
Best 5 Motel/Lakshmi Hotel Group 58 Limited 0.326% Salinas 0 0.000% BEST WESTERN DE ANZA INN 43 Limited 0.181% Monterey 0 0.000% BEST WESTERN MARINA STATE BEACH 84 Limited 0.354% Marina 0 0.000% BEST WESTERN MONTEREY INN 80 Limited 0.337% Monterey 0 0.000% Best Western Salinas Monterey/Western Hotel Corp 57 Limited 0.321% Salinas 1 0.321% Best Western Salinas Valley Inn 61 Limited 0.343% Salinas 0 0.000% BEST WESTERN THE INN AND SUITES 30 Limited 0.127% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% BEST WESTERN-PARK CREST 53 Limited 0.224% Monterey 1 0.224% BIDE A WEE INN AND COTTAGES 18 Limited 0.076% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Big Sur Campground & Cabins 6 Limited 0.025% County 0 0.000% Big Sur Lodge 60 Full 0.759% County 1 0.759%
Big Sur River Inn 20 Full 0.253% County 1 0.253%
BLU PACIFIC HOTEL (AS OF AUG 2021 FORMERLY COMFORT INNMTY BAY) 47 Limited 0.198% Monterey 1 0.198% Blue Sky Lodge 30 Limited 0.127% County 0 0.000%
BORGS MOTEL 60 Limited 0.253% Pacific Grove 0 0.000%
Budget Inn Motel/BMN LLC 43 Limited 0.242% Salinas 0 0.000% BUTTERFLY GROVE INN & GIFT SHOP 31 Limited 0.131% Pacific Grove 1 0.131% Cabana Holiday 20 Limited 0.084% County 0 0.000%
California Inn Motel 41 Limited 0.231% Salinas 0 0.000% CANDLE BAY INN 11 Limited 0.046% Monterey 0 0.000%
CANDLELIGHT INN 20 Limited 0.084% Carmel 1 0.084%
CANNERY ROW INN 32 Limited 0.135% Monterey 0 0.000%
Capitol Motel/Jainika Corporation 26 Limited 0.146% Salinas 0 0.000% Captain's Inn At Moss Landing 10 Limited 0.042% County 0 0.000% CARMEL BAY VIEW INN 56 Limited 0.236% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL COTTAGE INN 5 Limited 0.021% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL COUNTRY INN 12 Limited 0.051% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL FIREPLACE INN INC. 21 Limited 0.089% Carmel 0 0.000% CARMEL GARDEN INN 10 Limited 0.042% Carmel 1 0.042%
CARMEL GREEN LANTERN INN 20 Limited 0.084% Carmel 1 0.084% CARMEL INN & SUITES 20 Limited 0.084% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL LODGE 42 Limited 0.177% Carmel 0 0.000%
Carmel Mission Inn 165 Full 2.088% County 1 2.088%
CARMEL OAKS INN 17 Limited 0.072% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL RESORT INN 30 Limited 0.127% Carmel 0 0.000%
Carmel River Inn 40 Limited 0.169% County 0 0.000%
CARMEL TRADEWINDS INN 17 Limited 0.072% Carmel 1 0.072% Carmel Valley Lodge 31 Limited 0.131% County 0 0.000%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 108, Packet Page 249 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
Carmel Valley Manor 7 Full 0.089% County 0 0.000%
Carmel Valley Ranch 177 Luxury 3.484% County 1 3.484%
CARMEL WAYFARER INN 28 Limited 0.118% Carmel 0 0.000%
CARMEL'S TOWN HOUSE LODGE 28 Limited 0.118% Carmel 1 0.118% CARRIAGE HOUSE INN 13 Limited 0.055% Carmel 1 0.055%
Casa Linda Motel 32 Limited 0.180% Salinas 0 0.000%
CASA MUNRAS HOTEL 148 Full 1.873% Monterey 1 1.873%
Casa Palmero 24 Luxury 0.472% County 1 0.472%
CASA VERDE INN 0 Limited 0.000% Monterey 0 0.000%
CENTRELLA INN 24 Limited 0.101% Pacific Grove 0 0.000%
Ciudad Del Rey Motel 10 Limited 0.042% County 0 0.000%
CLARION HOTEL 52 Limited 0.219% Monterey 0 0.000%
COACHMAN'S INN 30 Limited 0.127% Carmel 0 0.000%
COLTON INN 50 Limited 0.211% Monterey 0 0.000%
COMFORT INN 62 Limited 0.262% Marina 0 0.000%
Comfort Inn & Suites/Shakti LLC 61 Limited 0.343% Salinas 0 0.000% COMFORT INN MONTEREY AIRPORT 46 Limited 0.194% Monterey 0 0.000% COMFORT INN-CARMEL BY THE SEA 19 Limited 0.080% Carmel 1 0.080% Contenta Inn 19 Limited 0.080% County 0 0.000%
Continental Motel 21 Limited 0.118% Salinas 0 0.000%
COUNTRY INN & SUITES 114 Limited 0.481% Marina 0 0.000% Country Inn/Meldi Inc 22 Limited 0.124% Salinas 0 0.000% Courtyard Salinas 126 Limited 0.531% County 1 0.531%
CVI INVESTORS 1 24 Limited 0.101% Carmel 0 0.000%
CVI INVESTORS 2 34 Limited 0.143% Carmel 0 0.000%
CYPRESS INN 44 Limited 0.186% Carmel 0 0.000%
Days Inn 45 Limited 0.190% King City 0 0.000%
DAYS INN 35 Limited 0.148% Monterey 1 0.148%
DAYS INN - SAN CARLOS 56 Limited 0.236% Monterey 1 0.236% DEER HAVEN INN 26 Limited 0.110% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 20 Full 0.253% County 0 0.000%
Discovery Inn 19 Limited 0.080% Seaside 0 0.000%
ECONO LODGE (MONTEREY FAIRGROUNDS INN) 47 Limited 0.198% Monterey 0 0.000% EconoLodge Bay Breeze Inn 50 Limited 0.211% Seaside 0 0.000% Economy Inn Salinas 30 Limited 0.169% Salinas 1 0.169%
Economy Inn Seaside 17 Limited 0.072% Seaside 0 0.000%
EL CASTELL MOTEL 54 Limited 0.228% Monterey 0 0.000%
El Dorado Motel/Café Main Street 44 Limited 0.247% Salinas 0 0.000% El Rey Motel 25 Limited 0.141% Salinas 0 0.000%
El Sombrero Motel/Ramesh J. Patel 11 Limited 0.062% Salinas 0 0.000% Embassy Suites 225 Full 2.847% Seaside 1 2.847%
Esalen Institute 54 Full 0.683% County 0 0.000%
Fairview Inn 16 Limited 0.090% Salinas 0 0.000%
Fernwood Resort 19 Limited 0.080% County 1 0.080%
Fireside Inn 18 Limited 0.076% King City 0 0.000%
FOREST LODGE 4 Limited 0.017% Carmel 0 0.000%
Gateway Lodge 66 Limited 0.278% Seaside 1 0.278%
Glen Oaks Big Sur 17 Limited 0.072% County 1 0.072%
Gorda Cabin Rental 14 Limited 0.059% County 0 0.000%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 109, Packet Page 250 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
GOSBY HOUSE INN 22 Limited 0.093% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% GREEN GABLES INN 11 Limited 0.046% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% H.I. Resort Condominium Assoc., Inc 48 Full 0.607% County 0 0.000% Hacienda House 1 Limited 0.004% County 0 0.000%
HAMPTON INN 90 Limited 0.380% Marina 0 0.000%
Hampton Inn & Suites/Salinas Hotel Investors 105 Limited 0.591% Salinas 1 0.591% HAMPTON INN(formerly LaQuinta) 49 Limited 0.207% Monterey 0 0.000% HHLP SANCTUARY ASSOCIATES 60 Full 0.759% Marina 0 0.000% Hidden Valley Inn 26 Limited 0.110% County 1 0.110%
Highlands Inn 0 Limited 0.000% County 0 0.000%
HILTON GARDEN INN 204 Full 2.581% Monterey 1 2.581%
HOFSAS HOUSE INC. 37 Limited 0.156% Carmel 1 0.156%
Holiday Inn Express Seaside 145 Limited 0.612% Seaside 0 0.000% HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Monterey 43 Limited 0.181% Monterey 1 0.181% Holiday Inn Express & Suites 74 Limited 0.416% Salinas 1 0.416% HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS & SUITES MARINA 80 Limited 0.337% Marina 0 0.000% Holman Ranch, LLC 10 Limited 0.042% County 0 0.000%
HOME 2 SUITES 94 Limited 0.396% Marina 1 0.396%
HORIZON INN 20 Limited 0.084% Carmel 0 0.000%
HOTEL 1110 15 Limited 0.063% Monterey 0 0.000%
HOTEL ABREGO 93 Full 1.177% Monterey 1 1.177%
HOTEL CARMEL 27 Limited 0.114% Carmel 1 0.114%
HOTEL PACIFIC 105 Limited 0.443% Monterey 1 0.443%
HOWARD JOHNSON 44 Limited 0.186% Marina 0 0.000%
Howard Johnson Inn/Ambakari, Inc 38 Limited 0.214% Salinas 0 0.000% HYATT REGENCY MONTEREY 560 Full 7.086% Monterey 1 7.086% IHG ARMY POM 0 Full 0.000% Monterey 0 0.000%
Inn at King City 55 Limited 0.232% King City 0 0.000%
Inn At Moss Landing Point 30 Limited 0.127% County 1 0.127% Inn At Spanish Bay, Attn: David Hoopingarner 269 Luxury 5.295% County 1 5.295% Inn at the Pinnacles 6 Limited 0.025% County 0 0.000%
INN BY THE BAY MONTEREY 26 Limited 0.110% Monterey 0 0.000% Inns of California 96 Limited 0.540% Salinas 0 0.000%
INTERCONTINENTAL - THE CLEMENT 208 Full 2.632% Monterey 1 2.632% JABBERWOCK 8 Limited 0.034% Monterey 1 0.034%
Keefers Inn 47 Limited 0.198% King City 0 0.000%
LA PLAYA HOTEL 75 Luxury 1.476% Carmel 1 1.476%
LAGUNA LODGE 21 Limited 0.089% Marina 0 0.000%
LAMPLIGHTER INN 6 Limited 0.025% Carmel 0 0.000%
Laurel Inn 145 Limited 0.815% Salinas 0 0.000%
Lincoln Green Inn 4 Limited 0.017% County 0 0.000%
LOBOS LODGE 30 Limited 0.127% Carmel 0 0.000%
LONE OAK MOTEL 46 Limited 0.194% Monterey 1 0.194%
Los Laureles Lodge 31 Full 0.392% County 0 0.000%
LOVERS POINT INN 51 Limited 0.215% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Lucia Lodge 10 Limited 0.042% County 0 0.000%
MARIPOSA INN 50 Limited 0.211% Monterey 0 0.000%
MARRIOTT SPRINGHILL SUITES 106 Limited 0.447% Marina 1 0.447% MARTINE INN 25 Limited 0.105% Pacific Grove 0 0.000%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 110, Packet Page 251 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
MERRITT HOUSE 25 Limited 0.105% Monterey 0 0.000%
Mission Ranch 31 Full 0.392% County 0 0.000%
Monarch Inn 22 Limited 0.093% King City 0 0.000%
MONARCH RESORT 49 Limited 0.207% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% MONTE VERDE INN 10 Limited 0.042% Carmel 0 0.000%
MONTE VERDE INN EAST 7 Limited 0.030% Carmel 0 0.000%
MONTEREY BAY INN 49 Limited 0.207% Monterey 1 0.207%
MONTEREY BAY LODGE 45 Limited 0.190% Monterey 0 0.000%
MONTEREY FIREPLACE INN 15 Limited 0.063% Monterey 0 0.000% MONTEREY FIRESIDE MOTEL 28 Limited 0.118% Monterey 0 0.000% MONTEREY HOSTEL 6 Limited 0.025% Monterey 0 0.000%
MONTEREY HOTEL 69 Limited 0.291% Monterey 1 0.291%
MONTEREY MARRIOTT 341 Full 4.315% Monterey 1 4.315%
MONTEREY OCEANSIDE INN 17 Limited 0.072% Monterey 0 0.000% MONTEREY PENINSULA INN 40 Limited 0.169% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Monterey Pines Inn 20 Limited 0.084% Monterey 0 0.000%
MONTEREY PLAZA 290 Full 3.670% Monterey 1 3.670%
MONTEREY SURF INN 28 Limited 0.118% Monterey 1 0.118%
MONTEREY TIDES HOTEL 196 Full 2.480% Monterey 1 2.480%
MOTEL 6 53 Limited 0.224% Monterey 0 0.000%
Motel 6 #0639/G6 Hospitality Property LLC 121 Limited 0.681% Salinas 0 0.000% MOTEL 6 #1026 125 Limited 0.527% Marina 0 0.000%
Motel 6 #1370/G6 Hospitality Property LLC 128 Limited 0.720% Salinas 0 0.000% MOTEL 6 MONTEREY DOWNTOWN 20 Limited 0.084% Monterey 0 0.000% Motel 6 Soledad 59 Limited 0.249% Soledad 0 0.000%
Mountain Paradise 0 Limited 0.000% County 0 0.000%
MUNRAS INN 29 Limited 0.122% Monterey 0 0.000%
NORMANDY INN 48 Limited 0.202% Carmel 0 0.000%
OCEAN VIEW LODGE 6 Limited 0.025% Carmel 0 0.000%
OCM LIGHTHOUSE LODGE LLC 95 Limited 0.401% Pacific Grove 1 0.401% OLD MARINA INN 24 Limited 0.101% Marina 0 0.000%
OLD MONTEREY INN 10 Limited 0.042% Monterey 0 0.000%
OLD SAINT ANGELA INN 9 Limited 0.038% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% OLYMPIA MOTOR LODGE 38 Limited 0.160% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Pacific Best Inn 24 Limited 0.101% Seaside 0 0.000%
PACIFIC GARDENS INN 28 Limited 0.118% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% PACIFIC GROVE INN 16 Limited 0.067% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% PACIFIC GROVE PLAZA 16 Limited 0.067% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% PACIFIC INN MONTEREY 34 Limited 0.143% Monterey 0 0.000% PADRE OAKS MOTEL 19 Limited 0.080% Monterey 0 0.000%
Pal Rest Easy LLC 12 Limited 0.051% County 0 0.000%
Parkfield Inn 7 Limited 0.030% County 0 0.000%
PELICAN INN 19 Limited 0.080% Monterey 1 0.080%
Pessagno Winery 1 Limited 0.004% County 0 0.000%
PINE ACRES LODGE 14 Limited 0.059% Pacific Grove 1 0.059% PINE INN 49 Full 0.620% Carmel 1 0.620%
PORTOLA HOTEL & SPA 379 Full 4.796% Monterey 1 4.796%
Post Ranch Inn 39 Luxury 0.768% County 1 0.768%
Prunedale Motor Lodge 0 Limited 0.000% County 0 0.000%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 111, Packet Page 252 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
Prunedale Motor Lodge Cabins 0 Limited 0.000% County 0 0.000% Quail Lodge And Golf Club 93 Luxury 1.831% County 1 1.831% Quality Inn 47 Limited 0.198% King City 0 0.000%
QUALITY INN - FAIRGROUNDS 42 Limited 0.177% Monterey 1 0.177% QUALITY INN - MUNRAS (ARBOR INN) 55 Limited 0.232% Monterey 0 0.000% Quality Inn/Om Namah 32 Limited 0.180% Salinas 0 0.000% RAMADA INN 43 Limited 0.181% Marina 0 0.000%
RAMADA LTD. CARMEL HILL 47 Limited 0.198% Monterey 0 0.000% RED LION INN (FORMERLY BAY PARK HOTEL) 80 Full 1.012% Monterey 0 0.000% RED ROOF INN 55 Limited 0.232% Monterey 1 0.232%
Residence Inn Salinas 107 Limited 0.451% County 1 0.451% Rex Motel/Parshottambhai M Ahir 17 Limited 0.096% Salinas 0 0.000% Ripplewood Resort 15 Full 0.190% County 0 0.000%
Riverside Campground 11 Limited 0.046% County 0 0.000%
RODEWAY INN 22 Limited 0.093% Monterey 0 0.000%
RODEWAY INN (Formerly KNIGHTS INN) 38 Limited 0.160% Monterey 0 0.000% ROSEDALE INN 19 Limited 0.080% Pacific Grove 0 0.000%
Sai Enterprises DBA Motel 6 100 Limited 0.422% King City 0 0.000% Salinas Travel Inn/MJ Nahal Inc 68 Limited 0.382% Salinas 0 0.000% Salinas Valley Motel/Aatray Hotels, Inc/BAPS LLC 16 Limited 0.090% Salinas 0 0.000% Sand Castle Inn 33 Limited 0.139% Seaside 0 0.000%
Sand Dollar Inn (formerly Magic Carpet Inn) 43 Limited 0.181% Seaside 0 0.000% Sandpiper Inn 16 Limited 0.067% County 0 0.000%
SEA VIEW INN 8 Limited 0.034% Carmel 0 0.000%
SeaLamp Inn 23 Limited 0.097% Seaside 1 0.097%
Seaside Inn 16 Limited 0.067% Seaside 0 0.000%
SEVEN GABLES INN 25 Limited 0.105% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% Silver Saddle 21 Limited 0.089% King City 0 0.000%
Soledad Motel 8 53 Limited 0.224% Soledad 0 0.000%
SPINDRIFT INN 45 Full 0.569% Monterey 1 0.569%
STAGE COACH LODGE 25 Limited 0.105% Monterey 0 0.000%
Steinbeck Lodge/Travelodge/J S Inc 38 Limited 0.214% Salinas 0 0.000% STONEHOUSE INN 1 Limited 0.004% Carmel 0 0.000%
Stonepine Estate Resort 17 Full 0.215% County 0 0.000%
SUNSET HOUSE 5 Limited 0.021% Carmel 0 0.000%
SUNSET INN 22 Limited 0.093% Pacific Grove 1 0.093%
SUPER 8 - FREMONT 20 Limited 0.084% Monterey 1 0.084%
SUPER 8 - MUNRAS 32 Limited 0.135% Monterey 0 0.000%
Super 8/Ram Hotels LLC 70 Limited 0.394% Salinas 0 0.000% Sure Stay Hotel 42 Limited 0.177% Seaside 0 0.000%
SVENDSGAARD'S INN 35 Limited 0.148% Carmel 1 0.148%
TALLY HO INN 12 Limited 0.051% Carmel 1 0.051%
Tehama Golf Club, LLC 1 Limited 0.004% County 0 0.000%
THE BRIARWOOD INN 11 Limited 0.046% Carmel 0 0.000%
THE BRIARWOOD INN II 11 Limited 0.046% Carmel 0 0.000%
THE COLONIAL TERRACE 20 Limited 0.084% Carmel 0 0.000%
The Holly Farm 3 Limited 0.013% County 0 0.000%
THE HOMESTEAD 12 Limited 0.051% Carmel 0 0.000%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 112, Packet Page 253 Business Name Rooms Level
Petition
Weight Jurisdiction
Petition
Received
Weight
Received
The Inn at 1252 Monterey (1252 & 1262 Munras Ave properties were combined as of 12/9/19) 67 Limited 0.283% Monterey 1 0.283% The Inn at 1252 Monterey (1252 & 1262 Munras Ave properties were combined as of 12/9/19) 0 Limited 0.000% Monterey 0 0.000% The Lodge At Pebble Beach Attn: David Hoopingarner 202 Luxury 3.976% County 1 3.976% THE SEA BREEZE INN 45 Limited 0.190% Pacific Grove 0 0.000% THE STEVENSON MONTEREY 51 Limited 0.215% Monterey 0 0.000% THE VAGABOND'S HOUSE 13 Limited 0.055% Carmel 0 0.000%
Thunderbird Motel 33 Limited 0.139% Seaside 0 0.000%
Tickle Pink Motor Inn 36 Limited 0.152% County 0 0.000% TRAVELODGE - FAIRGROUNDS 104 Limited 0.439% Monterey 0 0.000% Treebones Resort 16 Limited 0.067% County 0 0.000%
Vendange Carmel Inn & Suites 20 Limited 0.084% County 0 0.000% Ventana Big Sur 54 Luxury 1.063% County 0 0.000%
VICTORIAN INN 70 Limited 0.295% Monterey 1 0.295%
VILLA FRANCA (FORMERLY EL DORADO INN) 15 Limited 0.063% Monterey 1 0.063% Vision Quest Safari Bed & Breakfast 8 Limited 0.034% County 0 0.000% Wagon Wheel Motel 35 Limited 0.197% Salinas 0 0.000%
WAVE STREET INN (PREVIOUSLY OTTER INN) 32 Limited 0.135% Monterey 1 0.135% WAYSIDE INN 22 Limited 0.093% Carmel 1 0.093%
Western Motel/Western Skylodge LLC 26 Limited 0.146% Salinas 0 0.000% WILKIES INN 25 Limited 0.105% Pacific Grove 0 0.000%
Willow Lodge 20 Limited 0.112% Salinas 0 0.000%
Zen Mtn Center/Tassajar Springs C/O Ccao Controlle 38 Limited 0.160% County 0 0.000% Total 12712 100.000% 75 67.574%

0.000% petition weight entities:

Casa Verde Inn closed
IHG Army POM does not pay TID
The Inn at 1252 Monterey two properties combined
Highlands Inn duplicate of H.I. Resort Condominium Assoc., Inc Prunedale Motor Lodge and Cabins only rented as long term rentals ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 113, Packet Page 254 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 114, Packet Page 255 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 115, Packet Page 256 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 116, Packet Page 257 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 117, Packet Page 258 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 118, Packet Page 259 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 119, Packet Page 260 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 120, Packet Page 261 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 121, Packet Page 262 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 122, Packet Page 263 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 123, Packet Page 264 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 124, Packet Page 265 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 125, Packet Page 266 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 126, Packet Page 267 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 127, Packet Page 268 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 128, Packet Page 269 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 129, Packet Page 270 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 130, Packet Page 271 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 131, Packet Page 272 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 132, Packet Page 273 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 133, Packet Page 274 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 134, Packet Page 275 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 135, Packet Page 276 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 136, Packet Page 277 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 137, Packet Page 278 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 138, Packet Page 279 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 139, Packet Page 280 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 140, Packet Page 281 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 141, Packet Page 282 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 142, Packet Page 283 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 143, Packet Page 284 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 144, Packet Page 285 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 145, Packet Page 286 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 146, Packet Page 287 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 147, Packet Page 288 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 148, Packet Page 289 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 149, Packet Page 290 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 150, Packet Page 291 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 151, Packet Page 292 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 152, Packet Page 293

PETITION TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY

TO RENEW THE MONTEREY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
We petition you to initiate proceedings to renew a Tourism Improvement District in accordance with the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq., for the purpose of providing services as described in the summary of the Management District Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Lodging Establishment & Address Business Owner
The undersigned is the business owner or the authorized representative of the business owner and is the person legally authorized and entitled to sign this petition.

Owner Representative/Owner Name (printed) Title
Owner/Representative Signature Date
A complete copy of the Management District Plan will be furnished upon request. Requests for a complete copy of the Management District Plan should be made to:

Jennifer Johnson
Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau
419 Webster St., Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 657-6406
DocuSign Envelope ID: C840AA06-7D60-4C42-A1C4-2C97C7D89185 One Old Golf Course Rd, Monterey, CA 93940
Hyatt Regency Monterey FWREF Monterey LLC
Director
12/15/2022
Ted Cobbs
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 153, Packet Page 294 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 154, Packet Page 295 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 155, Packet Page 296 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 156, Packet Page 297 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 157, Packet Page 298 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 158, Packet Page 299 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 159, Packet Page 300 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 160, Packet Page 301 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 161, Packet Page 302 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 162, Packet Page 303 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 163, Packet Page 304 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 164, Packet Page 305 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 165, Packet Page 306 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 166, Packet Page 307 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 167, Packet Page 308 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 168, Packet Page 309 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 169, Packet Page 310 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 170, Packet Page 311 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 171, Packet Page 312 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 172, Packet Page 313 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 173, Packet Page 314 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 174, Packet Page 315 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 175, Packet Page 316 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 176, Packet Page 317 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 177, Packet Page 318 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 178, Packet Page 319 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 179, Packet Page 320 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 180, Packet Page 321 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 181, Packet Page 322 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 182, Packet Page 323 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 183, Packet Page 324 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 184, Packet Page 325 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 185, Packet Page 326 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 186, Packet Page 327 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 187, Packet Page 328 ATTACHMENT 5 Council Regular Meeting, 12/20/2022, Item No. 16., Item Page 188, Packet Page 329

Monterey City CouncilDecember 20, 2022

Monterey City Council
December 20, 2022