Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, January 17, 2023

Council Chamber, 580 Pacific
St. and Zoom Teleconference
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
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 ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
1/17/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
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

2. December 20, 2022 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

3. Award Job Order Contract in the Amount of $100,000 to Acco-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors for Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service (Excluded from NEPA per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (G(5), CEQA Not a Project Under (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21080, Subd. (A) and Pub. Resources Code § 21080, Subd. (B)(1)) ***PMSA***
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 20, 2023 through February 16, 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. Accept an Army Project Award and Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund for the Replace Network Automation Engines (NAE) & Network Control Engines (NCE) Controllers Project Under the Presidio Municipal Services Agency Intergovernmental Support Agreement ***PMSA*** (NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1)))

6. Adopt the FY2022/23 Salary Schedules for Regular Full-Time and the Hourly Wage Schedule for Regular Part-Time Employees (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 1/17/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 7. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of a Local Emergency Related to the January 2023 Storm (Order 23-001) (Exempt from CEQA Per Article 18, Section 15269.c)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

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

8. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Rezone 828 Pacific Street from R-1-6 to R-1-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource and Authorize a Mills Act Contract (Property Tax Savings Program for Historic Structures) (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)

9. Receive Public Testimony on the Proposal to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District Pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (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 (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
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
1/17/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 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.

10. Receive Presentation about Personal Wireless Facilities (Not a Project under CEQA per 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).

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- 1/17/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 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 Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
VALUE DRIVER:

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

DESCRIPTION:

The Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), located in the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, trains military service members in all military branches. DLIFLC conducts a protocol known as the Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) each quarter to assess the motivation, knowledge, and ability to go above and beyond that of the average Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman.

Noncommissioned officers, petty officers, and junior enlisted from each branch compete by displaying their knowledge in a variety of joint service subjects, including History of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Current Affairs and World Events, Customs and Courtesies, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and more. The service member's many weeks of studying and competing in unit boards culminate with an appearance before the DLIFLC Joint Enlisted Board.

As part of the City of Monterey’s longstanding relationship with the DLIFLC and Presidio of Monterey, the City Council frequently recognizes and honors these dedicated award recipients.

The Mayor and City Council will recognize the winners of the fourth DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on January 17, 2023:
 Lance Corporal Eduardo Ramon from the U.S. Marine Corps  Lance Corporal Drevaughn Rankin from the U.S. Marine Corps  Sergeant Aja Mack from the U.S. Marine Corps

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 Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 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.

Attachment: 1. Proclamations
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Attachment 1 Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Attachment 1 Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Attachment 1 Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber*, Garcia, Haffa**, Smith, Williamson*

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference in the afternoon and evening ** Attended remotely by teleconference in the evening only City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Recreation Supervisor, Interim Recreation and Community Services Manager, Senior Accountant, Senior Engineer, Engineering Assistant, Conference Center General Manager, Operations Supervisor (MSC), Police Lieutenant, Executive Assistant (Public Works), Code Compliance Coordinator
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.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

City Clerk Klein called the roll with the full Council in attendance as highlighted above, and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for inperson attendance.

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)
Action: Recognized City staff members for milestone anniversaries and retirements Parks and Recreation Director Larson, Public Works Director Renny, Police Chief Hober, Community Development Director Cole, and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira made brief verbal presentations celebrating milestone anniversaries achieved by Recreation Supervisor Nathan Cota, Streets and Utilities Manager Jeff Glass, and Officer Chad Ventimiglia, and upcoming retirements of Senior Building Inspector Paul Abadilla and Monterey Conference Center General Manager Doug Phillips. Mr. Phillips made brief remarks thanking the City and Council.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who made remarks praising Jeff Glass and Chad Ventimiglia.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Don Williams.

CONSENT ITEMS
Mayor Williamson stated that Items 10, 11, and 12 were being pulled from Consent, and that Item 3 had an administrative error to correct. Councilmember Garcia stated that he would abstain from voting on Items 2 and 3 as he was not a member of the City Council at those meetings.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS, minus Items 10, 11, and 12, correcting the typo in Item 3, and with Councilmember Garcia abstaining on Items 2 and 3:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Approval of Minutes

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) Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Garcia abstaining)

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) Action: Approved as amended (4-0-1, Councilmember Garcia abstaining) Resolutions

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-159 C.S.

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-160 C.S.

6. Approve Removal of the South Crosswalk on Lighthouse Avenue at Prescott Avenue (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
3 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-161 C.S.

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 Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-162 C.S.

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-163 C.S.

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-164 C.S.

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-165 C.S. as amended to make the 2% base salary increase effective the first full pay period following Council approval Human Resources Director Neal presented to Council recommended changes to the proposed resolution and exhibit in order to make the 2% base salary increase effective the first full pay period following Council approval.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-165 C.S. as amended to make the 2% base salary increase effective the first full pay period following Council approval:

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

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-166 C.S.

Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
4 Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who encouraged the City to revisit the boundary lines to make jurisdiction issues easier in emergencies.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to adopt Resolution No. 22-166 C.S. to Authorize 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.

The Council briefly discussed the park, and expressed appreciation that the City is continuing to work as lead agency to pursue improvements.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

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

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 22-167 C.S.

Community Development Director Cole gave a brief presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Vanessa Diffenbaugh, MidPen Housing, addressed the Council in support of the matter. On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi said that the loan has 3% simple interest due at construction closing, and no prepayment penalty. The Council was reminded by staff that in the past, the Council was prepared to give the money to MidPen as a grant, and that a loan was only proposed because of a requirement.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who asked about the timeline and scope of the wait list that would be opened for this project and suggested casting a wider net for developers who might let the City give priority to Monterey residents and workers.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to adopt Resolution No. 22-167 C.S. to 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.

The Council asked staff to bring the matter back to the Council for a report once the financing is in place. Remarks were made looking forward to receiving financial statements and snapshots in the future.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
5 RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
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)
Action: Appointed Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete as agency's real property negotiators
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council continued Items 14 and 15 to the evening session:

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Smith led the Pledge.

City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for in-person attendance.

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

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

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 Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
6 Improvement District Law of 1994 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 22-168, 22-169, and 22-170 C.S.

The Council heard this item first in the evening. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation.

Public comment was received from: John Turner, Paul Martin, and Rob O'Keefe, all of the Monterey County Conventions and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), and Janine Chicourrat, of the Portola Hotel & Spa, who all urged the Council to renew the MCTID; and Tammy Jennings, who asked how the MCTID would be funded. On question, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira explained that the MCTID is funded directly by payments made by hotel guests.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that marketing makes a big impact and that encouraging visitors to stay one more night will increase revenue and services for the City.

Support was expressed for renewing the MCTID under the proposed terms, and the fact that the hospitality partners were in favor of the proposal was cited as a reason.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 22-168, 22-169, and 22-170 C.S.:

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

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 Access Improvements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received and accepted report
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira briefly provided the Council and public with background information on the history of the Measures P and S special sales tax. Assistant Finance Director Sandoval gave the staff presentation, and together with City Engineer Harty answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Carol Chorbajian, Measure P & S Oversight Committee Chair, who provided an update to the Council about the use of slurry seal that is applied to City street segments, and spoke about the importance of tourism dollars.

The Council discussed the matter and thanked City staff and partners. It was highlighted how much more additional revenue Measures P and S have brought to the City than had been expected when the measures were first considered. It was stated that bicycle and pedestrian safety should also be an important priority for the City.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council accepted the report:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
7 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

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) Action: Appointed Councilmember Barber as representative to Cannery Row Business Improvement District, New Monterey Business Association, ReGen Monterey, and Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster and alternate to Community Human Services and Transportation Agency for Monterey County; Appointed Councilmember Garcia as representative to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Council of Monterey Business Associations, and North Fremont Business District; Appointed Councilmember Haffa as representative to Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Community Human Services, Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority, and Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board, and alternate to Central Coast Community Energy, Monterey One Water, and MontereySalinas Transit; Appointed Councilmember Smith as representative to Monterey-Salinas Transit, Old Monterey Business Association, and Transportation Agency for Monterey County; Appointed Mayor Williamson as representative to the Monterey County Fair Fairgrounds Subcommittee, Monterey One Water, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Policy Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Commission Appointments (in line with Council policy), and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and alternate to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency, New Monterey Business Association, North Fremont Business District, Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster, and Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board; and appointed Diane deLorimier as representative for the last year of the current four-year Monterey County Mosquito Abatement District term City Clerk Klein presented the worksheet of needed appointments to the Council. The Council discussed the various outside agencies and committees needing City of Monterey representation. It was stated by Council that there was an interest in revisiting the Boards and Commissions appointments process in the near future.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council appointed Councilmember Barber as representative to Cannery Row Business Improvement District, New Monterey Business Association, ReGen Monterey, and Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster and alternate to Community Human Services and Transportation Agency for Monterey County; Appointed Councilmember Garcia as representative to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Council of Monterey Business Associations, and North Fremont Business District; Appointed Councilmember Haffa as representative to Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Community Human Services, Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority, and Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board, and alternate to Central Coast Community Energy, Monterey One Water, and Monterey-Salinas Transit; Appointed Councilmember Smith as representative to Monterey-Salinas Transit, Old Monterey Business Association, and Transportation Agency for Monterey County; Appointed Mayor Williamson as representative to the Monterey County Fair Fairgrounds Subcommittee, Monterey One Water, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Policy Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Commission Appointments (in line with Council policy), and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and alternate to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency, New Monterey Business Association, North Fremont Business District, Seaside Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
8 Groundwater Basin Watermaster, and Monterey Conference Center Advisory Board; and appointed Diane deLorimier as representative for the last year of the current four-year Monterey County Mosquito Abatement District term:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Multiple members of the Council wished everyone happy holidays and urged all to stay safe and healthy.

Councilmember Garcia thanked his supporters and expressed his gratitude for his appointment to the Council.

Councilmember Smith welcomed Councilmembers Barber and Garcia to the City Council.

Mayor Williamson expressed excitement about the working together with the new Council and spoke about First Night Monterey as an opportunity to come together and celebrate.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira shared that the Christmas in the Adobes event was successful. He shared information about an upcoming holiday drive-through meal in collaboration with the Food Bank of Monterey County at El Estero Park Center. He said that the Monterey Public Library hosts a food drive and waives late fines in exchange for food donations. He said that the first January Council meeting would be canceled. He expressed gratitude to the City Council and said that staff looks forward to working together with Council in 2023.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was not received.

The Council adjourned to closed esession at 8:43 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Klein announced:
cs1. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 30 Fisherman's Wharf
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Michael Ungaro (San Pedro Fish Market Company, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement Action: No reportable action taken
cs2. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes December 20, 2022
9 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 Action: On a "no" vote of 2-3 (Councilmember Barber, Councilmember Haffa, and Mayor Williamson voting no) the Council gave confidential direction to its real property negotiators
cs3. A. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

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

2. Clara Gilliland v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 22CV003170)

3. Francisca Moralez v. City of Monterey et al. (United States District Court Norther District of California Case No. 22-CV-07540)

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

5. Pacific Western Bank v. City and SEI (San Bernadino Superior Court Case No. 2212212)

6. Yessenia Garcia Reveles, et al. v. City of Monterey et al (Monterey County Superior Court Case Nos. 22CV003162 and 22CV000736)

7. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015; Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No. H050157)

8. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v City of Monterey (Riverside County Superior Court Case No.

CVR12103427)

9. Sichel Young v. City of Monterey, et al (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 22CV002243)

10. Cynthia Wills v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division Case No. 21-CV-01998 EMC)
B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3): United Financial Casualty Company Claim received on October 4, 2022
Action: On the existing litigation matters (A.1 through A.10), no reportable action was taken. On the matter of the United Financial Casualty Company claim (B), on a unanimous roll-call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 10:43 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 19 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Christopher Dwight, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: Award Job Order Contract in the Amount of $100,000 to ACCO-Wilson, Inc. dba Geo H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors for Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service (Excluded from NEPA per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (G(5), CEQA Not a Project Under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, Subd. (A) and Pub. Resources Code § 21080, Subd. (B)(1)) ***PMSA***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the specifications for the Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service Job Order Contract (“Project”), which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or her designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors, with a term of one year with the option to renew for two additional one (1) year extensions, and with an annual funding limit of $100,000; and,

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the contract.

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:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns” and Fiscal Stewardship – “Support our military installations (U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, Naval Support Activity Monterey, and U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey) as significant economic drivers in the region.” Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 20 This action is also consistent with the City’s policy to provide services to the U.S. Department of the Army through the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) per the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) between the City of Monterey and the Federal Government.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Two (2) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on October 25, 2022 as follows:

Bidder Grand Total
ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors $57,880 American Chiller Service $75,067
This action does not appropriate any funding. Any projects constructed under this job order contract will be fully funded by the U.S. Department of the Army through the IGSA. There is no minimum dollar value of work guaranteed under this contract, and assignment of work orders is at the sole discretion of the City.

As set forth in Monterey City Code Section 28-9(a), City Council may award individual annual contracts, referred to as job order contracts, none of which may exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for work to be done according to unit prices. The contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and shall be based on plans and specifications for typical work. No job order contract shall exceed three (3) years (including any extensions), except as necessary to complete outstanding work orders that were awarded within the three (3) year period.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

All Army project services provided by PMSA require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (g)(5).

CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a)). CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1)). There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise. Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Department of Defense’s projects’ design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 21 In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could direct staff to advertise for bids for each service individually. However, job order contracts (previously called on-call contracts) have been proven to be an effective tool to complete maintenance in a timely, efficient manner. Job order contracts also give the City the capability to perform emergency repairs on short notice. Non-routine projects will continue to be bid via the formal and informal bidding process as per the City’s purchasing guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Under an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA), the City of Monterey provides services to the U.S. Department of the Army, which are fully reimbursed by the federal government. The City coordinates a variety of projects on the Presidio of Monterey, Ord Military Community, and U.S. Army Signal Activity (USASA) Camp Roberts.

Project
The Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service Job Order Contract will provide preventative maintenance to two chillers and one cooling tower that support the HVAC system at the DEOC. The Project includes bi-monthly, semi-annual, and annual preventative maintenance and provides a readily available workforce to perform emergency repairs and system modifications or alterations of chillers and associated equipment as necessary.

On October 25, 2022, the City received two responsive, responsible bids. For the purpose of awarding this job order contract, the basis for determining the low bidder is the Grand Total Bid.

The Base Bid establishes prices for bi-monthly, semi-annual, and annual preventative maintenance. The Alternate Additive Bid establishes hourly labor rates for trouble calls during normal and non-standard business hours. The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors from Santa Cruz.

ACCO-Wilson, Inc. has performed and successfully completed this kind of work for the City in the past, as well as for other municipal agencies within the State of California. In addition, they have submitted references for their work product. Staff has checked the firm’s references and are comfortable with the ability of the contractor to perform the work successfully.

The contract shall remain in effect for all written work orders issued by the City during a 12- month period beginning with the effective date of the Notice to Proceed or until the exhaustion of the contract limit, whichever occurs first. With successful performance, this contract may be extended for up to two additional 12-month periods with the same, annual contract limit. This contract does not give the contractor exclusive rights to perform all work done for the City.

Certain projects may be performed by City crews or be issued for bid proposals throughout the term of the contract, even if such contracts include this same type of work Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 22

1. Approving the specifications for the Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service Job Order Contract (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7) and granting the Public Works Director, or her designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the contract.

CW/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Geo H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors
John Hansen, Senior Administrative Analyst
Billy Garcia, IGSA Manager
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 23 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AWARD JOB ORDER CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 TO ACCO-WILSON, INC., DBA GEO H. WILSON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS FOR DEFENSE HUMAN

RESOURCES ACTIVITY ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS CENTER (DEOC) CHILLER SERVICE WHEREAS, on the 25th day of October 2022, the City received two (2) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service Job Order Contract; WHEREAS, ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors of Santa Cruz, CA and American Chiller Service of San Leandro, CA submitted responsive, responsible bids;
WHEREAS, the basis for determining the low bidder is the Grand Total Bid. The Base Bid establishes prices for bi-monthly, semi-annual, and annual preventative maintenance. The Alternate Additive Bid establishes hourly labor rates for trouble calls during normal and nonstandard business hours; WHEREAS, the lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors;
WHEREAS, this action does not appropriate any funding. Any projects constructed under this job order contract will be fully funded by the U.S. Department of the Army through the IGSA. There is no minimum dollar value of work guaranteed under this contract, and assignment of work orders is at the sole discretion of the City; and, WHEREAS, all Army project services provided by PMSA require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (g)(5).

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 24 2 In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

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

1. Approves the specifications for the Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center (DEOC) Chiller Service Job Order Contract (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7) and granting the Public Works Director, or her designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, ACCO-Wilson, Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson Mechanical Contractors, with a term of one year with the option to renew for two additional one (1) year extensions, and with an annual funding limit of $100,000; and,

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the contract.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 25 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 20, 2023 through February 16, 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 20, 2023 through February 16, 2023. This action is required to comply with the Brown Act.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 26 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.

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

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 19, 2023 (the expiration date of Resolution No. 22-159 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 20, 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 19, 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 27 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 54953(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 17 lineages of the Omicron variant constituted 99.7% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as of December 24, 2022, as reported by the CDC on January 13, 2022.
 According to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Biweekly Update updated on January 12, 2023, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 5.6 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 7.5% (7-day average for both statistics), with 18 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 February 16, 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 28 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 20, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 16, 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, December 6, 2022, and December 20, 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 17 lineages of the Omicron variant constituted 99.7% of COVID-19 cases in the United States as of December 24, 2022, as reported by the CDC on January 13, 2023;
WHEREAS, according to Monterey County’s COVID-19 Biweekly Update updated on January 12, 2023, the COVID-19 case rate in Monterey County is 5.6 cases per 100,000 people with a test positivity rate of 7.5% (7-day average for both statistics), with 18 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 Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 29 2 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2 Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(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 54953(e)(1). This Resolution expires on February 16, 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 30 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: John Hansen, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Accept an Army Project Award and Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund for the Replace Network Automation Engines (NAE) & Network Control Engines (NCE) Controllers Project Under the Presidio Municipal Services Agency Intergovernmental Support Agreement ***PMSA*** (NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1))) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting an Army project award for the Replace NAE & NCE Controllers Project and authorizing the Finance Director, or her designee, to make the following budget appropriations:

1. Appropriate $425,416.95 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001-5027].

2. Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $425,416.95.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City’s policy to approve all budget adjustments and support the mission of providing project services to the Army through the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City has received an Individual Job Order award and funding under the PMSA’s master IGSA for the purpose of providing investigation, assessment, and necessary upgrades to the Building Automations Systems (BAS) for various buildings at the Presidio of Monterey (POM) and the Ord Military Community (OMC) in the amount of $425,416.95. The requested appropriation of funds is fully funded by the Army through the collection of Special Project Reimbursement Fees. There is no cost impact to the General Fund.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 31 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s projects’ design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.

In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to appropriate the funds. This alternative is not recommended because the City has a contractual agreement to provide project services to the Army at the Presidio of Monterey under the 2016 Intergovernmental Support Agreement. By approving performance of these project services, the success of the City’s partnership with the Army is strengthened.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey provides project management and public works services to the U.S. Army on the Presidio of Monterey, Ord Military Community, and U.S. Army Signal Activity – Camp Roberts under an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA). These costs are fully reimbursed by the Army and support the City’s ongoing partnership with the Federal government. Throughout the year, the Army modifies its allocation of funding for the IGSA depending on the availability of funds and needs analysis.

The Army has executed and awarded an Individual Job Order (IJO) under the IGSA. The existing HVAC system controllers are no longer supported for software updates. Without updates, the risk of unit failure increases dramatically. Failure of the system controller would cause the HVAC system not to function, greatly impacting Garrison mission in numerous buildings.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 32 The primary objective of this IJO is to provide investigation, assessment, and necessary upgrades to the Building Automations Systems (BAS) in various buildings at the POM and OMC including:

M4-SNC with BACnet: POM B277, B617, B618, B627, OMC B4283; M4-NAE with BACnet: POM B450, B451, B611, B630, B647, B650, B651, B660; M4-SNE with LON: POM B610, B628, B842, and B848.

This project will replace the NAE (Network Automation Engines) and NCE (Network Control Engines) controllers with up-to-date models with the latest software patches and upgrades. A comprehensive system testing will be conducted prior to the new system(s) being activated.

The recommended appropriation of funds will be used for the execution and delivery of the Replace NAE & NCE Controllers Project within the City’s Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This new project expenditure budget total of $425,416.95 will be fully offset by an increase in Special Project Reimbursement Fees collected by the City from the Army. This action has no cost impact to the General Fund.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting an Army project award for the Replace NAE & NCE Controllers Project and authorizing the Finance Director, or her designee, to make the following budget appropriations:

1. Appropriate $425,416.95 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001-5027].

2. Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $425,416.95.

JH/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Billy Garcia, IGSA Manager
Christopher Dwight, General Services Superintendent
Richard Llantero, Senior Engineer
Wendy Davies, Finance Manager
Alexandria Girometti, Accounting Assistant
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 33 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ACCEPT AN ARMY PROJECT AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF

FUNDS IN THE PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY PUBLIC WORKS FUND FOR THE ARMY THE

REPLACE NETWORK AUTOMATION ENGINES (NAE) & NETWORK CONTROL ENGINES (NCE) CONTROLLERS PROJECT UNDER THE PRESIDIO MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGENCY INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT ***PMSA***
WHEREAS, a 2022-2023 budget adjustment of $425,416.95 is needed to authorize the payment of Army Replace NAE & NCE Controllers project costs in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund;
WHEREAS, this appropriation adjustment is fully funded by a Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) Individual Job Order (IJO) award issued by the Army; and, WHEREAS, all Army project services provided by PMSA require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

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.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 34 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby accepts an Army project award for the Replace NAE & NCE Controllers Project and authorizes and directs the Finance Director, or her designee, to make the following budget adjustments:

1. Appropriate $425,416.95 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 6 - POM account [650-310-3199-6001-5027].

2. Increase the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $425,416.95.

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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 35 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adopt the FY2022/23 Salary Schedules for Regular Full-Time and the Hourly Wage Schedule for Regular Part-Time Employees (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the FY2022/23 Salary Schedule for regular full-time and The Hourly Wage Schedule for regular part-time employees. The FY 2022/23 schedules reflect salaries previously approved by the City Council from July 1, 2022 to the present.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources and provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, and Government Code section 20636(b)(1), which require governing bodies of local agencies contracting with CalPERS to adopt a publicly available pay schedule.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications to adopting the salary and hourly wage schedules, as they are included in the 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 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:

No alternatives are recommended. The salaries included in the attached resolution have previously been authorized by Council adoption of resolutions.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 36 DISCUSSION:

Local agencies contracting with CalPERS must make available a pay schedule that identifies each position by title, the pay rate amount or ranges for each identified position, and the time base upon which the amounts are established.

Regular employees who work in a full-time (FT) or regular part-time (RPT) classification participate in the City’s retirement system contracted through CalPERS. The Full-Time Salary Schedule reflects the salaries for the majority of City employees working in a full-time classification. The Regular Part-Time Hourly Wage Schedule reflects regular part-time employees as defined by Section 25-2.34 of the City Code, in classifications approved to work between 1,000 and 1,560 hours per fiscal year.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A: FY2022/23 Salary Schedules
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 37 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
ADOPT THE FY2022/23 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR FULL-TIME AND

THE HOURLY WAGE SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the Council has previously authorized the establishment of all employee classifications and salaries for regular full-time and regular part-time employees; WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, and Government Code section 20636(b)(1), require governing bodies of local agencies contracting with CalPERS to adopt a publicly available pay schedule;
WHEREAS, the schedules reflect salaries and hourly wages previously approved by the City Council from July 1, 2022 to the present; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the FY2022/23 salary schedule as reflected in 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 38 City of Monterey
Full-Time and Regular Part-Time
Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Effective: 07-01-22 to 06-30-23
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 39 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (COUNC) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 8101 COUNCIL MEMBER ft counc Step: 1301 215.00 5,160.00 301 8101 MAYOR ft counc Step: 1300 338.00 8,112.00 300
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 40 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEMEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1122 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ftconfidential Step: 5010 9,620.00 230,880.00 010 9201 CITY ATTORNEY pt contract Step: 5002 10,240.00 245,760.00 002 1101 CITY MANAGER ftcontract Step: 5001 10,893.00 261,432.00 001 1110 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5006 8,103.00 194,472.00 006 1106 FINANCE DIRECTOR ftconfidential Step: 5004 8,103.00 194,472.00 004 9200 FIRE CHIEF pt exec Step: 5 9,525.00 228,600.00 005 1112 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR ftconfidential Step: 5277 8,103.00 194,472.00 277 1105 LIBRARY DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5003 8,103.00 194,472.00 003 1292 PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5014 8,103.00 194,472.00 014 1111 POLICE CHIEF ftexec Step: 5007 9,525.00 228,600.00 007 1116 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5009 8,808.00 211,392.00 009 oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 41 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1203 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1015 3,635.00 87,240.00 015 1203 ft mea Step: 2015 3,818.00 91,632.00
1203 ft mea Step: 3015 4,008.00 96,192.00
1203 ft mea Step: 4015 4,209.00 101,016.00
1203 ft mea Step: 5015 4,419.00 106,056.00
1207 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ft mea Step: 1200 6,875.00 165,000.00 200 1207 ft mea Step: 2200 7,237.00 173,688.00
1207 ft mea Step: 3200 7,618.00 182,832.00
1207 ft mea Step: 4200 8,019.00 192,456.00
1207 ft mea Step: 5200 8,441.00 202,584.00
1264 ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR ft mea Step: 1263 5,703.00 136,872.00 263 1264 ft mea Step: 2263 5,988.00 143,712.00
1264 ft mea Step: 3263 6,288.00 150,912.00
1264 ft mea Step: 4263 6,603.00 158,472.00
1264 ft mea Step: 5263 6,934.00 166,416.00
1298 ASSISTANT HR DIRECTOR ft mea Step: 1370 5,703.00 136,872.00 370 1298 ft mea Step: 2370 5,988.00 143,712.00
1298 ft mea Step: 3370 6,288.00 150,912.00
1298 ft mea Step: 4370 6,603.00 158,472.00
1298 ft mea Step: 5370 6,934.00 166,416.00
1208 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1018 4,413.00 105,912.00 018 1208 ft mea Step: 2018 4,633.00 111,192.00
1208 ft mea Step: 3018 4,865.00 116,760.00
1208 ft mea Step: 4018 5,107.00 122,568.00
1208 ft mea Step: 5018 5,362.00 128,688.00
1290 ASST DIR OF INFO RESOURCES ft mea Step: 1357 5,703.00 136,872.00 357 1290 ft mea Step: 2357 5,988.00 143,712.00
1290 ft mea Step: 3357 6,288.00 150,912.00
1290 ft mea Step: 4357 6,603.00 158,472.00
1290 ft mea Step: 5357 6,934.00 166,416.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 42 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1270 CHIEF OF INSPCT SRVC/BLDG OFF. ft mea Step: 1311 6,083.00 145,992.00 311 1270 ft mea Step: 2311 6,384.00 153,216.00
1270 ft mea Step: 3311 6,708.00 160,992.00
1270 ft mea Step: 4311 7,041.00 168,984.00
1270 ft mea Step: 5311 7,392.00 177,408.00
1221 CITY CLERK ft mea Step: 1031 4,703.00 112,872.00 031 1221 ft mea Step: 2031 4,996.00 119,904.00
1221 ft mea Step: 3031 5,291.00 126,984.00
1221 ft mea Step: 4031 5,584.00 134,016.00
1221 ft mea Step: 5031 5,878.00 141,072.00
1254 CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1050 5,703.00 136,872.00 050 1254 ft mea Step: 2050 5,988.00 143,712.00
1254 ft mea Step: 3050 6,288.00 150,912.00
1254 ft mea Step: 4050 6,603.00 158,472.00
1254 ft mea Step: 5050 6,934.00 166,416.00
1266 CONFERENCE CENTER GENERAL MGR ft mea Step: 1303 5,387.00 129,288.00 303 1266 ft mea Step: 2303 5,658.00 135,792.00
1266 ft mea Step: 3303 5,939.00 142,536.00
1266 ft mea Step: 4303 6,238.00 149,712.00
1266 ft mea Step: 5303 6,547.00 157,128.00
1287 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER ft mea Step: 1345 4,414.00 105,936.00 345 1287 ft mea Step: 2345 4,639.00 111,336.00
1287 ft mea Step: 3345 4,868.00 116,832.00
1287 ft mea Step: 4345 5,107.00 122,568.00
1287 ft mea Step: 5345 5,362.00 128,688.00
1121 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II ft mea Step: 1037 4,567.00 109,608.00 037 1121 ft mea Step: 2037 4,795.00 115,080.00
1121 ft mea Step: 3037 5,036.00 120,864.00
1121 ft mea Step: 4037 5,286.00 126,864.00
1121 ft mea Step: 5037 5,548.00 133,152.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 2 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 43 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1247 DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGNR ft mea Step: 1046 6,048.00 145,152.00 046 1247 ft mea Step: 2046 6,351.00 152,424.00
1247 ft mea Step: 3046 6,668.00 160,032.00
1247 ft mea Step: 4046 6,999.00 167,976.00
1247 ft mea Step: 5046 7,351.00 176,424.00
1286 ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER ft mea Step: 1344 4,413.00 105,912.00 344 1286 ft mea Step: 2344 4,633.00 111,192.00
1286 ft mea Step: 3344 4,865.00 116,760.00
1286 ft mea Step: 4344 5,107.00 122,568.00
1286 ft mea Step: 5344 5,362.00 128,688.00
4108 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MGR. ft mea Step: 1334 4,304.00 103,296.00 334 4108 ft mea Step: 2334 4,521.00 108,504.00
4108 ft mea Step: 3334 4,741.00 113,784.00
4108 ft mea Step: 4334 4,983.00 119,592.00
4108 ft mea Step: 5334 5,234.00 125,616.00
1252 FINANCE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1294 3,635.00 87,240.00 294 1252 ft mea Step: 2294 3,818.00 91,632.00
1252 ft mea Step: 3294 4,007.00 96,168.00
1252 ft mea Step: 4294 4,209.00 101,016.00
1252 ft mea Step: 5294 4,419.00 106,056.00
1277 FINANCE MANAGER ft mea Step: 1051 5,182.00 124,368.00 051 1277 ft mea Step: 2051 5,442.00 130,608.00
1277 ft mea Step: 3051 5,714.00 137,136.00
1277 ft mea Step: 4051 6,001.00 144,024.00
1277 ft mea Step: 5051 6,294.00 151,056.00
6307 FLEET MANAGER ft mea Step: 1360 4,127.00 99,048.00 360 6307 ft mea Step: 2360 4,334.00 104,016.00
6307 ft mea Step: 3360 4,550.00 109,200.00
6307 ft mea Step: 4360 4,780.00 114,720.00
6307 ft mea Step: 5360 5,019.00 120,456.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 3 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 44 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1272 GENERAL SRVC SUPERINTENDENT ft mea Step: 1313 5,530.00 132,720.00 313 1272 ft mea Step: 2313 5,802.00 139,248.00
1272 ft mea Step: 3313 6,096.00 146,304.00
1272 ft mea Step: 4313 6,400.00 153,600.00
1272 ft mea Step: 5313 6,719.00 161,256.00
3602 GEO INFO SYS (GIS) COORDINATOR ft mea Step: 1248 3,982.00 95,568.00 248 3602 ft mea Step: 2248 4,181.00 100,344.00
3602 ft mea Step: 3248 4,390.00 105,360.00
3602 ft mea Step: 4248 4,609.00 110,616.00
3602 ft mea Step: 5248 4,840.00 116,160.00
1210 HARBORMASTER ft mea Step: 1020 5,182.00 124,368.00 020 1210 ft mea Step: 2020 5,442.00 130,608.00
1210 ft mea Step: 3020 5,714.00 137,136.00
1210 ft mea Step: 4020 6,001.00 144,024.00
1210 ft mea Step: 5020 6,294.00 151,056.00
1250 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST ft mea Step: 1267 3,635.00 87,240.00 267 1250 ft mea Step: 2267 3,818.00 91,632.00
1250 ft mea Step: 3267 4,008.00 96,192.00
1250 ft mea Step: 4267 4,209.00 101,016.00
1250 ft mea Step: 5267 4,419.00 106,056.00
IT NETWORK ENGINEER I mea Step: 1 4,591.60 110,198.40 380 mea Step: 2 4,819.36 115,664.64
mea Step: 3 5,056.48 121,355.52
mea Step: 4 5,313.36 127,520.64
mea Step: 5 5,573.36 133,760.64
1255 LIBRARY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1028 4,382.00 105,168.00 028 1255 ft mea Step: 2028 4,600.00 110,400.00
1255 ft mea Step: 3028 4,827.00 115,848.00
1255 ft mea Step: 4028 5,072.00 121,728.00
1255 ft mea Step: 5028 5,322.00 127,728.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 4 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 45 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1284 NETWORK ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1338 4,413.00 105,912.00 338 1284 ft mea Step: 2338 4,633.00 111,192.00
1284 ft mea Step: 3338 4,865.00 116,760.00
1284 ft mea Step: 4338 5,107.00 122,568.00
1284 ft mea Step: 5338 5,362.00 128,688.00
1283 PARK OPERATIONS MANAGER ft mea Step: 1337 4,127.00 99,048.00 337 1283 ft mea Step: 2337 4,334.00 104,016.00
1283 ft mea Step: 3337 4,550.00 109,200.00
1283 ft mea Step: 4337 4,780.00 114,720.00
1283 ft mea Step: 5337 5,019.00 120,456.00
1212 PARKING SUPERINTENDENT ft mea Step: 1022 5,182.00 124,368.00 022 1212 ft mea Step: 2022 5,442.00 130,608.00
1212 ft mea Step: 3022 5,714.00 137,136.00
1212 ft mea Step: 4022 6,001.00 144,024.00
1212 ft mea Step: 5022 6,294.00 151,056.00
PLANNING MANAGER mea Step: 1 5,703.00 136,872.00 025
mea Step: 2 5,988.00 143,712.00
mea Step: 3 6,288.00 150,912.00
mea Step: 4 6,603.00 158,472.00
mea Step: 5 6,934.00 166,416.00
1267 PRINCIPAL PLANNER ft mea Step: 1307 4,629.00 111,096.00 307 1267 ft mea Step: 2307 4,862.00 116,688.00
1267 ft mea Step: 3307 5,103.00 122,472.00
1267 ft mea Step: 4307 5,360.00 128,640.00
1267 ft mea Step: 5307 5,627.00 135,048.00
1259 PROPERTY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1030 4,703.00 112,872.00 030 1259 ft mea Step: 2030 4,996.00 119,904.00
1259 ft mea Step: 3030 5,291.00 126,984.00
1259 ft mea Step: 4030 5,584.00 134,016.00
1259 ft mea Step: 5030 5,878.00 141,072.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 5 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 46 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1234 PW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MGR pt mea Step: 1036 5,182.00 124,368.00 036 1234 pt mea Step: 2036 5,442.00 130,608.00
1234 pt mea Step: 3036 5,714.00 137,136.00
1234 pt mea Step: 4036 6,001.00 144,024.00
1234 pt mea Step: 5036 6,294.00 151,056.00
1230 RECREATION MANAGER ft mea Step: 1291 5,182.00 124,368.00 291 1230 ft mea Step: 2291 5,442.00 130,608.00
1230 ft mea Step: 3291 5,714.00 137,136.00
1230 ft mea Step: 4291 6,001.00 144,024.00
1230 ft mea Step: 5291 6,294.00 151,056.00
9205 RISK MANAGER pt mea Step: 1052 4,154.00 99,696.00 052 9205 pt mea Step: 2052 4,360.00 104,640.00
9205 pt mea Step: 3052 4,575.00 109,800.00
9205 pt mea Step: 4052 4,804.00 115,296.00
9205 pt mea Step: 5052 5,044.00 121,056.00
1263 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT ft mea Step: 1262 4,154.00 99,696.00 262 1263 ft mea Step: 2262 4,360.00 104,640.00
1263 ft mea Step: 3262 4,575.00 109,800.00
1263 ft mea Step: 4262 4,804.00 115,296.00
1263 ft mea Step: 5262 5,044.00 121,056.00
1265 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1284 4,154.00 99,696.00 284 1265 ft mea Step: 2284 4,360.00 104,640.00
1265 ft mea Step: 3284 4,575.00 109,800.00
1265 ft mea Step: 4284 4,804.00 115,296.00
1265 ft mea Step: 5284 5,044.00 121,056.00
1246 SENIOR ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1256 5,268.00 126,432.00 256 1246 ft mea Step: 2256 5,546.00 133,104.00
1246 ft mea Step: 3256 5,838.00 140,112.00
1246 ft mea Step: 4256 6,145.00 147,480.00
1246 ft mea Step: 5256 6,468.00 155,232.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 6 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 47 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCS ANALYST mea Step: 1 4,154.00 99,696.00 376 mea Step: 2 4,360.00 104,640.00
mea Step: 3 4,575.00 109,800.00
mea Step: 4 4,804.00 115,296.00
mea Step: 5 5,044.00 121,056.00
1258 SPORTS CENTER MANAGER ft mea Step: 1217 5,182.00 124,368.00 217 1258 ft mea Step: 2217 5,440.00 130,560.00
1258 ft mea Step: 3217 5,713.00 137,112.00
1258 ft mea Step: 4217 5,997.00 143,928.00
1258 ft mea Step: 5217 6,294.00 151,056.00
9214 STREETS & UTILITIES OPERAT MGR ft mea Step: 1363 4,127.00 99,048.00 363 9214 ft mea Step: 2363 4,334.00 104,016.00
9214 ft mea Step: 3363 4,550.00 109,200.00
9214 ft mea Step: 4363 4,780.00 114,720.00
9214 ft mea Step: 5363 5,019.00 120,456.00
1295 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1365 4,127.00 99,048.00 365 1295 ft mea Step: 2365 4,334.00 104,016.00
1295 ft mea Step: 3365 4,550.00 109,200.00
1295 ft mea Step: 4365 4,780.00 114,720.00
1295 ft mea Step: 5365 5,019.00 120,456.00
1291 SYSTEMS AND NETWORK ADMIN ft mea Step: 1358 4,983.00 119,592.00 358 1291 ft mea Step: 2358 5,233.00 125,592.00
1291 ft mea Step: 3358 5,494.00 131,856.00
1291 ft mea Step: 4358 5,770.00 138,480.00
1291 ft mea Step: 5358 6,052.00 145,248.00
1253 URBAN FORESTER ft mea Step: 1321 3,821.00 91,704.00 321 1253 ft mea Step: 2321 4,013.00 96,312.00
1253 ft mea Step: 3321 4,212.00 101,088.00
1253 ft mea Step: 4321 4,422.00 106,128.00
1253 ft mea Step: 5321 4,646.00 111,504.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 7 of 7 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 48 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3310 ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR ft gem Step: 1076 3,173.00 76,152.00 076 3310 ft gem Step: 2076 3,333.00 79,992.00
3310 ft gem Step: 3076 3,501.00 84,024.00
3310 ft gem Step: 4076 3,674.00 88,176.00
3310 ft gem Step: 5076 3,857.00 92,568.00
3313 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1268 2,271.00 54,504.00 268 3313 ft gem Step: 2268 2,385.00 57,240.00
3313 ft gem Step: 3268 2,504.00 60,096.00
3313 ft gem Step: 4268 2,630.00 63,120.00
3313 ft gem Step: 5268 2,762.00 66,288.00
3320 ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1285 2,790.00 66,960.00 285 3320 ft gem Step: 2285 2,928.00 70,272.00
3320 ft gem Step: 3285 3,072.00 73,728.00
3320 ft gem Step: 4285 3,228.00 77,472.00
3320 ft gem Step: 5285 3,389.00 81,336.00
3307 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1373 2,060.00 49,440.00 373 3307 ft gem Step: 2373 2,163.00 51,912.00
3307 ft gem Step: 3373 2,271.00 54,504.00
3307 ft gem Step: 4373 2,385.00 57,240.00
3307 ft gem Step: 5373 2,504.00 60,096.00
3307 ft gem Step: 6373 2,630.00 63,120.00
3307 ft gem Step: 7373 2,762.00 66,288.00
5303 AQUATICS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1114 3,095.00 74,280.00 114 5303 ft gem Step: 2114 3,250.00 78,000.00
5303 ft gem Step: 3114 3,413.00 81,912.00
5303 ft gem Step: 4114 3,584.00 86,016.00
5303 ft gem Step: 5114 3,762.00 90,288.00
5301 AQUATICS SPECIALIST II ft gem Step: 1302 1,941.00 46,584.00 302 5301 ft gem Step: 2302 2,037.00 48,888.00
5301 ft gem Step: 3302 2,139.00 51,336.00
5301 ft gem Step: 4302 2,246.00 53,904.00
5301 ft gem Step: 5302 2,358.00 56,592.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 49 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6722 ASSISTANT URBAN FORESTER ft gem Step: 1320 3,254.00 78,096.00 320 6722 ft gem Step: 2320 3,416.00 81,984.00
6722 ft gem Step: 3320 3,588.00 86,112.00
6722 ft gem Step: 4320 3,766.00 90,384.00
6722 ft gem Step: 5320 3,957.00 94,968.00
4202 ASSOCIATE PLANNER ft gem Step: 1097 3,673.00 88,152.00 097 4202 ft gem Step: 2097 3,858.00 92,592.00
4202 ft gem Step: 3097 4,051.00 97,224.00
4202 ft gem Step: 4097 4,254.00 102,096.00
4202 ft gem Step: 5097 4,468.00 107,232.00
6301 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC ft gem Step: 1132 2,881.00 69,144.00 132 6301 ft gem Step: 2132 3,023.00 72,552.00
6301 ft gem Step: 3132 3,180.00 76,320.00
6301 ft gem Step: 4132 3,335.00 80,040.00
6301 ft gem Step: 5132 3,503.00 84,072.00
6501 BUILDING MAINT. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1135 2,677.00 64,248.00 135 6501 ft gem Step: 2135 2,810.00 67,440.00
6501 ft gem Step: 3135 2,955.00 70,920.00
6501 ft gem Step: 4135 3,096.00 74,304.00
6501 ft gem Step: 5135 3,252.00 78,048.00
6502 BUILDING MAINT. SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1136 3,408.00 81,792.00 136 6502 ft gem Step: 2136 3,580.00 85,920.00
6502 ft gem Step: 3136 3,759.00 90,216.00
6502 ft gem Step: 4136 3,945.00 94,680.00
6502 ft gem Step: 5136 4,143.00 99,432.00
6503 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1137 2,048.00 49,152.00 137 6503 ft gem Step: 2137 2,151.00 51,624.00
6503 ft gem Step: 3137 2,258.00 54,192.00
6503 ft gem Step: 4137 2,371.00 56,904.00
6503 ft gem Step: 5137 2,489.00 59,736.00
6503 ft gem Step: 6137 2,613.00 62,712.00
6503 ft gem Step: 7137 2,744.00 65,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 2 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 50 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 4306 BUILDING TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1196 3,260.00 78,240.00 196 4306 ft gem Step: 2196 3,423.00 82,152.00
4306 ft gem Step: 3196 3,596.00 86,304.00
4306 ft gem Step: 4196 3,775.00 90,600.00
4306 ft gem Step: 5196 3,966.00 95,184.00
BUSINESS LICENSE INSPECTOR gem Step: 1 3,023.00 72,552.00 247 gem Step: 2 3,180.00 76,320.00
gem Step: 3 3,335.00 80,040.00
gem Step: 4 3,503.00 84,072.00
gem Step: 5 3,675.00 88,200.00
6702 CEMETERY COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1157 3,095.00 74,280.00 157 6702 ft gem Step: 2157 3,250.00 78,000.00
6702 ft gem Step: 3157 3,413.00 81,912.00
6702 ft gem Step: 4157 3,584.00 86,016.00
6702 ft gem Step: 5157 3,762.00 90,288.00
6710 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1165 2,369.00 56,856.00 165 6710 ft gem Step: 2165 2,489.00 59,736.00
6710 ft gem Step: 3165 2,614.00 62,736.00
6710 ft gem Step: 4165 2,744.00 65,856.00
6710 ft gem Step: 5165 2,881.00 69,144.00
4308 CODE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1326 3,586.00 86,064.00 326 4308 ft gem Step: 2326 3,765.00 90,360.00
4308 ft gem Step: 3326 3,954.00 94,896.00
4308 ft gem Step: 4326 4,151.00 99,624.00
4308 ft gem Step: 5326 4,361.00 104,664.00
6805 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER ft gem Step: 1353 2,429.00 58,296.00 353 6805 ft gem Step: 2353 2,553.00 61,272.00
6805 ft gem Step: 3353 2,680.00 64,320.00
6805 ft gem Step: 4353 2,812.00 67,488.00
6805 ft gem Step: 5353 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 3 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 51 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6510 CUSTODIAN ft gem Step: 1143 1,602.00 38,448.00 143 6510 ft gem Step: 2143 1,684.00 40,416.00
6510 ft gem Step: 3143 1,767.00 42,408.00
6510 ft gem Step: 4143 1,854.00 44,496.00
6510 ft gem Step: 5143 1,950.00 46,800.00
6203 ELECTRICIAN ft gem Step: 1124 3,095.00 74,280.00 124 6203 ft gem Step: 2124 3,250.00 78,000.00
6203 ft gem Step: 3124 3,413.00 81,912.00
6203 ft gem Step: 4124 3,584.00 86,016.00
6203 ft gem Step: 5124 3,762.00 90,288.00
6727 ENGINEERING ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1343 3,173.00 76,152.00 343 6727 ft gem Step: 2343 3,333.00 79,992.00
6727 ft gem Step: 3343 3,501.00 84,024.00
6727 ft gem Step: 4343 3,674.00 88,176.00
6727 ft gem Step: 5343 3,857.00 92,568.00
6728 ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1364 3,587.00 86,088.00 364 6728 ft gem Step: 2364 3,763.00 90,312.00
6728 ft gem Step: 3364 3,959.00 95,016.00
6728 ft gem Step: 4364 4,151.00 99,624.00
6728 ft gem Step: 5364 4,361.00 104,664.00
1297 ENGINEERING PROGRAMS ANALYST ft gem Step: 1040 3,673.00 88,152.00 040 1297 ft gem Step: 2040 3,858.00 92,592.00
1297 ft gem Step: 3040 4,051.00 97,224.00
1297 ft gem Step: 4040 4,254.00 102,096.00
1297 ft gem Step: 5040 4,468.00 107,232.00
6725 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1090 2,882.00 69,168.00 090 6725 ft gem Step: 2090 3,024.00 72,576.00
6725 ft gem Step: 3090 3,177.00 76,248.00
6725 ft gem Step: 4090 3,335.00 80,040.00
6725 ft gem Step: 5090 3,503.00 84,072.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 4 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 17, Packet Page 52 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1276 ENVIRONMENTAL REG ANALYST ft gem Step: 1329 3,673.00 88,152.00 329 1276 ft gem Step: 2329 3,858.00 92,592.00
1276 ft gem Step: 3329 4,051.00 97,224.00
1276 ft gem Step: 4329 4,254.00 102,096.00
1276 ft gem Step: 5329 4,468.00 107,232.00
6517 EVENT & SALES ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1086 2,271.00 54,504.00 086 6517 ft gem Step: 2086 2,385.00 57,240.00
6517 ft gem Step: 3086 2,504.00 60,096.00
6517 ft gem Step: 4086 2,630.00 63,120.00
6517 ft gem Step: 5086 2,762.00 66,288.00
6507 EVENT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1140 3,095.00 74,280.00 140 6507 ft gem Step: 2140 3,250.00 78,000.00
6507 ft gem Step: 3140 3,413.00 81,912.00
6507 ft gem Step: 4140 3,584.00 86,016.00
6507 ft gem Step: 5140 3,762.00 90,288.00
6513 EVENT SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1144 3,409.00 81,816.00 144 6513 ft gem Step: 2144 3,580.00 85,920.00
6513 ft gem Step: 3144 3,759.00 90,216.00
6513 ft gem Step: 4144 3,945.00 94,680.00
6513 ft gem Step: 5144 4,143.00 99,432.00
3318 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1288 2,500.00 60,000.00 288 3318 ft gem Step: 2288 2,627.00 63,048.00
3318 ft gem Step: 3288 2,759.00 66,216.00
3318 ft gem Step: 4288 2,896.00 69,504.00
3318 ft gem Step: 5288 3,043.00 73,032.00
3324 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1289 2,767.00 66,408.00 289 3324 ft gem Step: 2289 2,904.00 69,696.00
3324 ft gem Step: 3289 3,052.00 73,248.00
3324 ft gem Step: 4289 3,204.00 76,896.00
3324 ft gem Step: 5289 3,365.00 80,760.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 5 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 18, Packet Page 53 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5209 FACILITIES MAINT. COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1305 3,673.00 88,152.00 305 5209 ft gem Step: 2305 3,858.00 92,592.00
5209 ft gem Step: 3305 4,050.00 97,200.00
5209 ft gem Step: 4305 4,254.00 102,096.00
5209 ft gem Step: 5305 4,468.00 107,232.00
6504 FACILITY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1138 2,257.00 54,168.00 138 6504 ft gem Step: 2138 2,370.00 56,880.00
6504 ft gem Step: 3138 2,489.00 59,736.00
6504 ft gem Step: 4138 2,614.00 62,736.00
6504 ft gem Step: 5138 2,744.00 65,856.00
5205 FACILITY COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1111 3,095.00 74,280.00 111 5205 ft gem Step: 2111 3,250.00 78,000.00
5205 ft gem Step: 3111 3,413.00 81,912.00
5205 ft gem Step: 4111 3,584.00 86,016.00
5205 ft gem Step: 5111 3,762.00 90,288.00
3109 FIELD ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1172 2,184.00 52,416.00 172 3109 ft gem Step: 2172 2,293.00 55,032.00
3109 ft gem Step: 3172 2,408.00 57,792.00
3109 ft gem Step: 4172 2,529.00 60,696.00
3109 ft gem Step: 5172 2,656.00 63,744.00
FIRE PREV PLANS EXAM/INSPECTOR gem Step: 1 3,620.00 86,880.00 369 gem Step: 2 3,802.00 91,248.00
gem Step: 3 3,991.00 95,784.00
gem Step: 4 4,192.00 100,608.00
gem Step: 5 4,399.00 105,576.00
3329 FIRE PREVENTION TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1324 2,745.00 65,880.00 324 3329 ft gem Step: 2324 2,882.00 69,168.00
3329 ft gem Step: 3324 3,024.00 72,576.00
3329 ft gem Step: 4324 3,177.00 76,248.00
3329 ft gem Step: 5324 3,335.00 80,040.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 6 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 19, Packet Page 54 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5212 FITNESS SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1375 3,996.00 95,904.00 375 5212 ft gem Step: 2375 3,800.00 91,200.00
5212 ft gem Step: 3375 3,989.00 95,736.00
5212 ft gem Step: 4375 4,188.00 100,512.00
5212 ft gem Step: 5375 4,397.00 105,528.00
6810 FUND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1356 3,021.00 72,504.00 356 6810 ft gem Step: 2356 3,173.00 76,152.00
6810 ft gem Step: 3356 3,330.00 79,920.00
6810 ft gem Step: 4356 3,496.00 83,904.00
6810 ft gem Step: 5356 3,671.00 88,104.00
6720 GREENBELT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1115 2,664.00 63,936.00 115 6720 ft gem Step: 2115 2,798.00 67,152.00
6720 ft gem Step: 3115 2,936.00 70,464.00
6720 ft gem Step: 4115 3,088.00 74,112.00
6720 ft gem Step: 5115 3,241.00 77,784.00
GUEST SERVICE SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,025.00 48,600.00 372 gem Step: 2 2,128.00 51,072.00
gem Step: 3 2,235.00 53,640.00
gem Step: 4 2,346.00 56,304.00
gem Step: 5 2,462.00 59,088.00
6111 HARBOR COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1359 3,095.00 74,280.00 359 6111 ft gem Step: 2359 3,250.00 78,000.00
6111 ft gem Step: 3359 3,413.00 81,912.00
6111 ft gem Step: 4359 3,584.00 86,016.00
6111 ft gem Step: 5359 3,762.00 90,288.00
6110 HARBOR MAINT. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1269 2,677.00 64,248.00 269 6110 ft gem Step: 2269 2,810.00 67,440.00
6110 ft gem Step: 3269 2,955.00 70,920.00
6110 ft gem Step: 4269 3,096.00 74,304.00
6110 ft gem Step: 5269 3,252.00 78,048.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 7 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 20, Packet Page 55 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6102 HARBOR MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1186 2,881.00 69,144.00 186 6102 ft gem Step: 2186 3,023.00 72,552.00
6102 ft gem Step: 3186 3,180.00 76,320.00
6102 ft gem Step: 4186 3,335.00 80,040.00
6102 ft gem Step: 5186 3,503.00 84,072.00
6105 HARBOR SECURITY WORKER ft gem Step: 1120 2,429.00 58,296.00 120 6105 ft gem Step: 2120 2,551.00 61,224.00
6105 ft gem Step: 3120 2,681.00 64,344.00
6105 ft gem Step: 4120 2,813.00 67,512.00
6105 ft gem Step: 5120 2,956.00 70,944.00
4208 HCD COORDINATOR-PROJ &PROGRAMS ft gem Step: 1230 3,268.00 78,432.00 230 4208 ft gem Step: 2230 3,430.00 82,320.00
4208 ft gem Step: 3230 3,602.00 86,448.00
4208 ft gem Step: 4230 3,783.00 90,792.00
4208 ft gem Step: 5230 3,972.00 95,328.00
6512 HISTORIC FAC. SR. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1203 3,017.00 72,408.00 203 6512 ft gem Step: 2203 3,170.00 76,080.00
6512 ft gem Step: 3203 3,331.00 79,944.00
6512 ft gem Step: 4203 3,499.00 83,976.00
6512 ft gem Step: 5203 3,671.00 88,104.00
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 335 gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR gem Step: 1 3,095.00 74,280.00 361 gem Step: 2 3,250.00 78,000.00
gem Step: 3 3,413.00 81,912.00
gem Step: 4 3,584.00 86,016.00
gem Step: 5 3,762.00 90,288.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 8 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 21, Packet Page 56 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3322 HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1280 2,790.00 66,960.00 280 3322 ft gem Step: 2280 2,928.00 70,272.00
3322 ft gem Step: 3280 3,072.00 73,728.00
3322 ft gem Step: 4280 3,228.00 77,472.00
3322 ft gem Step: 5280 3,389.00 81,336.00
4307 HVAC SENIOR TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1306 3,112.00 74,688.00 306 4307 ft gem Step: 2306 3,269.00 78,456.00
4307 ft gem Step: 3306 3,430.00 82,320.00
4307 ft gem Step: 4306 3,603.00 86,472.00
4307 ft gem Step: 5306 3,783.00 90,792.00
3107 INFORMATION TECH SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1378 3,095.00 74,280.00 378 3107 ft gem Step: 2378 3,250.00 78,000.00
3107 ft gem Step: 3378 3,414.00 81,936.00
3107 ft gem Step: 4378 3,584.00 86,016.00
3107 ft gem Step: 5378 3,762.00 90,288.00
3108 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST ft gem Step: 1377 3,673.00 88,152.00 377 3108 ft gem Step: 2377 3,858.00 92,592.00
3108 ft gem Step: 3377 4,051.00 97,224.00
3108 ft gem Step: 4377 4,254.00 102,096.00
3108 ft gem Step: 5377 4,468.00 107,232.00
4301 INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1100 3,587.00 86,088.00 100 4301 ft gem Step: 2100 3,763.00 90,312.00
4301 ft gem Step: 3100 3,959.00 95,016.00
4301 ft gem Step: 4100 4,151.00 99,624.00
4301 ft gem Step: 5100 4,361.00 104,664.00
3206 IT APPLICATION ENGINEER I ft gem Step: 1255 3,532.00 84,768.00 069 3206 ft gem Step: 2255 3,710.00 89,040.00
3206 ft gem Step: 3255 3,895.00 93,480.00
3206 ft gem Step: 4255 4,090.00 98,160.00
3206 ft gem Step: 5255 4,296.00 103,104.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 9 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 22, Packet Page 57 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE IT APPLICATION ENGINEER II gem Step: 1 4,243.00 101,832.00 038 gem Step: 2 4,455.00 106,920.00
gem Step: 3 4,678.00 112,272.00
gem Step: 4 4,911.00 117,864.00
gem Step: 5 5,156.00 123,744.00
IT APPLICATION ENGINEER III gem Step: 1 4,590.00 110,160.00 080 gem Step: 2 4,819.00 115,656.00
gem Step: 3 5,060.00 121,440.00
gem Step: 4 5,313.00 127,512.00
gem Step: 5 5,576.00 133,824.00
6508 LAUNDRY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1250 1,165.00 27,960.00 250 6508 ft gem Step: 2250 1,226.00 29,424.00
6508 ft gem Step: 3250 1,284.00 30,816.00
6508 ft gem Step: 4250 1,351.00 32,424.00
6508 ft gem Step: 5250 1,414.00 33,936.00
LEAD CUSTODIAN gem Step: 1 2,256.80 54,163.20 142
gem Step: 2 2,370.16 56,883.84
gem Step: 3 2,488.72 59,729.28
gem Step: 4 2,613.52 62,724.48
gem Step: 5 2,743.52 65,844.48
6304 LEAD MECHANIC ft gem Step: 1254 3,023.00 72,552.00 254 6304 ft gem Step: 2254 3,180.00 76,320.00
6304 ft gem Step: 3254 3,335.00 80,040.00
6304 ft gem Step: 4254 3,503.00 84,072.00
6304 ft gem Step: 5254 3,675.00 88,200.00
3316 LEGAL SECRETARY ft gem Step: 1078 2,500.00 60,000.00 078 3316 ft gem Step: 2078 2,627.00 63,048.00
3316 ft gem Step: 3078 2,759.00 66,216.00
3316 ft gem Step: 4078 2,896.00 69,504.00
3316 ft gem Step: 5078 3,043.00 73,032.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 10 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 23, Packet Page 58 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5101 LIBRARIAN ft gem Step: 1104 2,962.00 71,088.00 104 5101 ft gem Step: 2104 3,108.00 74,592.00
5101 ft gem Step: 3104 3,265.00 78,360.00
5101 ft gem Step: 4104 3,426.00 82,224.00
5101 ft gem Step: 5104 3,597.00 86,328.00
3101 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1063 2,082.00 49,968.00 063 3101 ft gem Step: 2063 2,185.00 52,440.00
3101 ft gem Step: 3063 2,294.00 55,056.00
3101 ft gem Step: 4063 2,410.00 57,840.00
3101 ft gem Step: 5063 2,530.00 60,720.00
3102 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1064 2,271.00 54,504.00 064 3102 ft gem Step: 2064 2,385.00 57,240.00
3102 ft gem Step: 3064 2,504.00 60,096.00
3102 ft gem Step: 4064 2,630.00 63,120.00
3102 ft gem Step: 5064 2,762.00 66,288.00
3104 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III ft gem Step: 1066 2,404.00 57,696.00 066 3104 ft gem Step: 2066 2,526.00 60,624.00
3104 ft gem Step: 3066 2,653.00 63,672.00
3104 ft gem Step: 4066 2,785.00 66,840.00
3104 ft gem Step: 5066 2,926.00 70,224.00
6718 MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1299 2,170.00 52,080.00 299 6718 ft gem Step: 2299 2,279.00 54,696.00
6718 ft gem Step: 3299 2,393.00 57,432.00
6718 ft gem Step: 4299 2,510.00 60,240.00
6718 ft gem Step: 5299 2,637.00 63,288.00
6109 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1216 2,709.00 65,016.00 216 6109 ft gem Step: 2216 2,845.00 68,280.00
6109 ft gem Step: 3216 2,985.00 71,640.00
6109 ft gem Step: 4216 3,136.00 75,264.00
6109 ft gem Step: 5216 3,293.00 79,032.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 11 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 24, Packet Page 59 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3328 MARINA HARBOR ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1298 2,878.00 69,072.00 298 3328 ft gem Step: 2298 3,020.00 72,480.00
3328 ft gem Step: 3298 3,174.00 76,176.00
3328 ft gem Step: 4298 3,332.00 79,968.00
3328 ft gem Step: 5298 3,500.00 84,000.00
MEDIA SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 094
gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
MEDICAL RECORDS ASSISTANT gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 711 gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
6515 OPERATIONS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1322 3,095.00 74,280.00 322 6515 ft gem Step: 2322 3,250.00 78,000.00
6515 ft gem Step: 3322 3,413.00 81,912.00
6515 ft gem Step: 4322 3,584.00 86,016.00
6515 ft gem Step: 5322 3,762.00 90,288.00
6506 OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1139 3,409.00 81,816.00 139 6506 ft gem Step: 2139 3,580.00 85,920.00
6506 ft gem Step: 3139 3,759.00 90,216.00
6506 ft gem Step: 4139 3,945.00 94,680.00
6506 ft gem Step: 5139 4,143.00 99,432.00
6703 PARK ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1158 2,429.00 58,296.00 158 6703 ft gem Step: 2158 2,553.00 61,272.00
6703 ft gem Step: 3158 2,680.00 64,320.00
6703 ft gem Step: 4158 2,812.00 67,488.00
6703 ft gem Step: 5158 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 12 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 25, Packet Page 60 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6704 PARK MAINTENANCE CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1194 2,489.00 59,736.00 194 6704 ft gem Step: 2194 2,614.00 62,736.00
6704 ft gem Step: 3194 2,744.00 65,856.00
6704 ft gem Step: 4194 2,881.00 69,144.00
6704 ft gem Step: 5194 3,023.00 72,552.00
6705 PARK MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1160 2,743.00 65,832.00 160 6705 ft gem Step: 2160 2,880.00 69,120.00
6705 ft gem Step: 3160 3,020.00 72,480.00
6705 ft gem Step: 4160 3,171.00 76,104.00
6705 ft gem Step: 5160 3,333.00 79,992.00
6701 PARK MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1156 3,173.00 76,152.00 156 6701 ft gem Step: 2156 3,333.00 79,992.00
6701 ft gem Step: 3156 3,501.00 84,024.00
6701 ft gem Step: 4156 3,674.00 88,176.00
6701 ft gem Step: 5156 3,857.00 92,568.00
6706 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1161 2,048.00 49,152.00 161 6706 ft gem Step: 2161 2,151.00 51,624.00
6706 ft gem Step: 3161 2,258.00 54,192.00
6706 ft gem Step: 4161 2,371.00 56,904.00
6706 ft gem Step: 5161 2,489.00 59,736.00
6706 ft gem Step: 6161 2,613.00 62,712.00
6706 ft gem Step: 7161 2,744.00 65,856.00
6606 PARKING CONTROLS TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1274 2,826.00 67,824.00 274 6606 ft gem Step: 2274 2,966.00 71,184.00
6606 ft gem Step: 3274 3,113.00 74,712.00
6606 ft gem Step: 4274 3,273.00 78,552.00
6606 ft gem Step: 5274 3,434.00 82,416.00
6601 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ft gem Step: 1145 2,429.00 58,296.00 145 6601 ft gem Step: 2145 2,553.00 61,272.00
6601 ft gem Step: 3145 2,680.00 64,320.00
6601 ft gem Step: 4145 2,812.00 67,488.00
6601 ft gem Step: 5145 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 13 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 26, Packet Page 61 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6605 PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1149 3,408.00 81,792.00 149 6605 ft gem Step: 2149 3,580.00 85,920.00
6605 ft gem Step: 3149 3,759.00 90,216.00
6605 ft gem Step: 4149 3,945.00 94,680.00
6605 ft gem Step: 5149 4,143.00 99,432.00
6615 PARKING MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1159 2,881.00 69,144.00 159 6615 ft gem Step: 2159 3,023.00 72,552.00
6615 ft gem Step: 3159 3,180.00 76,320.00
6615 ft gem Step: 4159 3,335.00 80,040.00
6615 ft gem Step: 5159 3,503.00 84,072.00
6604 PARKING MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1148 3,408.00 81,792.00 148 6604 ft gem Step: 2148 3,580.00 85,920.00
6604 ft gem Step: 3148 3,759.00 90,216.00
6604 ft gem Step: 4148 3,945.00 94,680.00
6604 ft gem Step: 5148 4,143.00 99,432.00
6608 PARKING MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1151 2,048.00 49,152.00 151 6608 ft gem Step: 2151 2,151.00 51,624.00
6608 ft gem Step: 3151 2,258.00 54,192.00
6608 ft gem Step: 4151 2,371.00 56,904.00
6608 ft gem Step: 5151 2,489.00 59,736.00
6608 ft gem Step: 6151 2,613.00 62,712.00
6608 ft gem Step: 7151 2,744.00 65,856.00
6616 PARKING SERVICES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1116 3,676.00 88,224.00 116 6616 ft gem Step: 2116 3,858.00 92,592.00
6616 ft gem Step: 3116 4,050.00 97,200.00
6616 ft gem Step: 4116 4,254.00 102,096.00
6616 ft gem Step: 5116 4,468.00 107,232.00
6617 PARKING SERVICES REPRESENTATIV ft gem Step: 1117 2,258.00 54,192.00 117 6617 ft gem Step: 2117 2,371.00 56,904.00
6617 ft gem Step: 3117 2,489.00 59,736.00
6617 ft gem Step: 4117 2,613.00 62,712.00
6617 ft gem Step: 5117 2,744.00 65,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 14 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 27, Packet Page 62 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6618 PARKING SERVICES SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1118 2,790.00 66,960.00 118 6618 ft gem Step: 2118 2,928.00 70,272.00
6618 ft gem Step: 3118 3,072.00 73,728.00
6618 ft gem Step: 4118 3,228.00 77,472.00
6618 ft gem Step: 5118 3,389.00 81,336.00
6711 PARKS CRAFTS LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1264 2,637.00 63,288.00 264 6711 ft gem Step: 2264 2,769.00 66,456.00
6711 ft gem Step: 3264 2,904.00 69,696.00
6711 ft gem Step: 4264 3,049.00 73,176.00
6711 ft gem Step: 5264 3,205.00 76,920.00
6305 PARTS CLERK ft gem Step: 1253 2,258.00 54,192.00 253 6305 ft gem Step: 2253 2,371.00 56,904.00
6305 ft gem Step: 3253 2,489.00 59,736.00
6305 ft gem Step: 4253 2,613.00 62,712.00
6305 ft gem Step: 5253 2,744.00 65,856.00
4305 PLANS EXAMINER ft gem Step: 1258 3,765.00 90,360.00 258 4305 ft gem Step: 2258 3,954.00 94,896.00
4305 ft gem Step: 3258 4,151.00 99,624.00
4305 ft gem Step: 4258 4,360.00 104,640.00
4305 ft gem Step: 5258 4,575.00 109,800.00
3201 POLICE RECORDS/DETENTION SUP. ft gem Step: 1191 3,673.00 88,152.00 191 3201 ft gem Step: 2191 3,858.00 92,592.00
3201 ft gem Step: 3191 4,051.00 97,224.00
3201 ft gem Step: 4191 4,254.00 102,096.00
3201 ft gem Step: 5191 4,468.00 107,232.00
3209 POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1346 2,271.00 54,504.00 346 3209 ft gem Step: 2346 2,385.00 57,240.00
3209 ft gem Step: 3346 2,504.00 60,096.00
3209 ft gem Step: 4346 2,630.00 63,120.00
3209 ft gem Step: 5346 2,762.00 66,288.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 15 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 28, Packet Page 63 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3205 POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1068 2,745.00 65,880.00 068 3205 ft gem Step: 2068 2,882.00 69,168.00
3205 ft gem Step: 3068 3,024.00 72,576.00
3205 ft gem Step: 4068 3,177.00 76,248.00
3205 ft gem Step: 5068 3,335.00 80,040.00
4105 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1092 3,267.00 78,408.00 092 4105 ft gem Step: 2092 3,429.00 82,296.00
4105 ft gem Step: 3092 3,603.00 86,472.00
4105 ft gem Step: 4092 3,785.00 90,840.00
4105 ft gem Step: 5092 3,973.00 95,352.00
4102 QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1234 3,587.00 86,088.00 234 4102 ft gem Step: 2234 3,763.00 90,312.00
4102 ft gem Step: 3234 3,959.00 95,016.00
4102 ft gem Step: 4234 4,151.00 99,624.00
4102 ft gem Step: 5234 4,361.00 104,664.00
5208 RECREATION COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1292 3,095.00 74,280.00 292 5208 ft gem Step: 2292 3,250.00 78,000.00
5208 ft gem Step: 3292 3,413.00 81,912.00
5208 ft gem Step: 4292 3,584.00 86,016.00
5208 ft gem Step: 5292 3,762.00 90,288.00
9581 RECREATION SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1323 2,106.00 50,544.00 323 9581 ft gem Step: 2323 2,213.00 53,112.00
9581 ft gem Step: 3323 2,324.00 55,776.00
9581 ft gem Step: 4323 2,440.00 58,560.00
9581 ft gem Step: 5323 2,561.00 61,464.00
5201 RECREATION SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1259 3,621.00 86,904.00 259 5201 ft gem Step: 2259 3,800.00 91,200.00
5201 ft gem Step: 3259 3,989.00 95,736.00
5201 ft gem Step: 4259 4,188.00 100,512.00
5201 ft gem Step: 5259 4,397.00 105,528.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 16 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 29, Packet Page 64 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE RISK SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,683.00 64,392.00 371
gem Step: 2 2,815.00 67,560.00
gem Step: 3 2,954.00 70,896.00
gem Step: 4 3,104.00 74,496.00
gem Step: 5 3,259.00 78,216.00
6516 SALES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1081 3,095.00 74,280.00 081 6516 ft gem Step: 2081 3,250.00 78,000.00
6516 ft gem Step: 3081 3,413.00 81,912.00
6516 ft gem Step: 4081 3,584.00 86,016.00
6516 ft gem Step: 5081 3,762.00 90,288.00
4201 SENIOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER ft gem Step: 1251 4,024.00 96,576.00 251 4201 ft gem Step: 2251 4,226.00 101,424.00
4201 ft gem Step: 3251 4,437.00 106,488.00
4201 ft gem Step: 4251 4,656.00 111,744.00
4201 ft gem Step: 5251 4,890.00 117,360.00
4302 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1101 3,765.00 90,360.00 101 4302 ft gem Step: 2101 3,954.00 94,896.00
4302 ft gem Step: 3101 4,151.00 99,624.00
4302 ft gem Step: 4101 4,360.00 104,640.00
4302 ft gem Step: 5101 4,575.00 109,800.00
6511 SENIOR CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1205 3,017.00 72,408.00 205 6511 ft gem Step: 2205 3,170.00 76,080.00
6511 ft gem Step: 3205 3,331.00 79,944.00
6511 ft gem Step: 4205 3,499.00 83,976.00
6511 ft gem Step: 5205 3,671.00 88,104.00
6514 SENIOR CUSTODIAN ft gem Step: 1257 1,843.00 44,232.00 257 6514 ft gem Step: 2257 1,935.00 46,440.00
6514 ft gem Step: 3257 2,033.00 48,792.00
6514 ft gem Step: 4257 2,136.00 51,264.00
6514 ft gem Step: 5257 2,244.00 53,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 17 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 30, Packet Page 65 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6505 SENIOR FACILITY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1211 2,676.00 64,224.00 211 6505 ft gem Step: 2211 2,810.00 67,440.00
6505 ft gem Step: 3211 2,947.00 70,728.00
6505 ft gem Step: 4211 3,095.00 74,280.00
6505 ft gem Step: 5211 3,253.00 78,072.00
SENIOR INFORMATION TECH SPECIA gem Step: 1 3,447.00 82,728.00 084 gem Step: 2 3,619.00 86,856.00
gem Step: 3 3,800.00 91,200.00
gem Step: 4 3,990.00 95,760.00
gem Step: 5 4,190.00 100,560.00
1279 SENIOR LOCKSMITH ft gem Step: 1331 3,017.00 72,408.00 331 1279 ft gem Step: 2331 3,170.00 76,080.00
1279 ft gem Step: 3331 3,331.00 79,944.00
1279 ft gem Step: 4331 3,499.00 83,976.00
1279 ft gem Step: 5331 3,671.00 88,104.00
6707 SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1162 2,489.00 59,736.00 162 6707 ft gem Step: 2162 2,614.00 62,736.00
6707 ft gem Step: 3162 2,744.00 65,856.00
6707 ft gem Step: 4162 2,881.00 69,144.00
6707 ft gem Step: 5162 3,023.00 72,552.00
6613 SENIOR PARKING CONTROLS TECH. ft gem Step: 1275 3,095.00 74,280.00 275 6613 ft gem Step: 2275 3,250.00 78,000.00
6613 ft gem Step: 3275 3,414.00 81,936.00
6613 ft gem Step: 4275 3,585.00 86,040.00
6613 ft gem Step: 5275 3,762.00 90,288.00
6611 SENIOR PARKING ENFOR. OFFICER ft gem Step: 1154 2,783.00 66,792.00 154 6611 ft gem Step: 2154 2,922.00 70,128.00
6611 ft gem Step: 3154 3,066.00 73,584.00
6611 ft gem Step: 4154 3,222.00 77,328.00
6611 ft gem Step: 5154 3,383.00 81,192.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 18 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 31, Packet Page 66 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6803 SENIOR PARTS CLERK ft gem Step: 1347 2,677.00 64,248.00 347 6803 ft gem Step: 2347 2,810.00 67,440.00
6803 ft gem Step: 3347 2,955.00 70,920.00
6803 ft gem Step: 4347 3,096.00 74,304.00
6803 ft gem Step: 5347 3,252.00 78,048.00
3207 SENIOR POLICE SERVICES TECH. ft gem Step: 1070 2,882.00 69,168.00 070 3207 ft gem Step: 2070 3,024.00 72,576.00
3207 ft gem Step: 3070 3,177.00 76,248.00
3207 ft gem Step: 4070 3,335.00 80,040.00
3207 ft gem Step: 5070 3,503.00 84,072.00
4104 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1093 3,587.00 86,088.00 093 4104 ft gem Step: 2093 3,763.00 90,312.00
4104 ft gem Step: 3093 3,959.00 95,016.00
4104 ft gem Step: 4093 4,151.00 99,624.00
4104 ft gem Step: 5093 4,361.00 104,664.00
6206 SENIOR STREET MAINT. WORKER ft gem Step: 1126 2,489.00 59,736.00 126 6206 ft gem Step: 2126 2,614.00 62,736.00
6206 ft gem Step: 3126 2,744.00 65,856.00
6206 ft gem Step: 4126 2,881.00 69,144.00
6206 ft gem Step: 5126 3,023.00 72,552.00
6212 SIGN CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1183 2,677.00 64,248.00 183 6212 ft gem Step: 2183 2,810.00 67,440.00
6212 ft gem Step: 3183 2,955.00 70,920.00
6212 ft gem Step: 4183 3,096.00 74,304.00
6212 ft gem Step: 5183 3,252.00 78,048.00
SPECIAL EVENT COORDINATOR gem Step: 1 2,976.00 71,424.00 106 gem Step: 2 3,125.00 75,000.00
gem Step: 3 3,282.00 78,768.00
gem Step: 4 3,446.00 82,704.00
gem Step: 5 3,617.00 86,808.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 19 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 32, Packet Page 67 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5102 SPECIAL SERVICES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1199 3,143.00 75,432.00 199 5102 ft gem Step: 2199 3,298.00 79,152.00
5102 ft gem Step: 3199 3,464.00 83,136.00
5102 ft gem Step: 4199 3,637.00 87,288.00
5102 ft gem Step: 5199 3,820.00 91,680.00
5204 SPORTS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1110 3,095.00 74,280.00 110 5204 ft gem Step: 2110 3,250.00 78,000.00
5204 ft gem Step: 3110 3,413.00 81,912.00
5204 ft gem Step: 4110 3,584.00 86,016.00
5204 ft gem Step: 5110 3,762.00 90,288.00
6204 STREET & UTILITIES SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1252 3,023.00 72,552.00 252 6204 ft gem Step: 2252 3,173.00 76,152.00
6204 ft gem Step: 3252 3,333.00 79,992.00
6204 ft gem Step: 4252 3,501.00 84,024.00
6204 ft gem Step: 5252 3,674.00 88,176.00
6208 STREET MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1128 2,743.00 65,832.00 128 6208 ft gem Step: 2128 2,880.00 69,120.00
6208 ft gem Step: 3128 3,020.00 72,480.00
6208 ft gem Step: 4128 3,171.00 76,104.00
6208 ft gem Step: 5128 3,333.00 79,992.00
6209 STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1129 2,048.00 49,152.00 129 6209 ft gem Step: 2129 2,151.00 51,624.00
6209 ft gem Step: 3129 2,258.00 54,192.00
6209 ft gem Step: 4129 2,371.00 56,904.00
6209 ft gem Step: 5129 2,489.00 59,736.00
6209 ft gem Step: 6129 2,613.00 62,712.00
6209 ft gem Step: 7129 2,744.00 65,856.00
5308 SUSTAINABILITY ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1374 3,173.00 76,152.00 374 5308 ft gem Step: 2374 3,333.00 79,992.00
5308 ft gem Step: 3374 3,501.00 84,024.00
5308 ft gem Step: 4374 3,674.00 88,176.00
5308 ft gem Step: 5374 3,857.00 92,568.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 20 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 33, Packet Page 68 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3103 TECHNOLOGY SVCS. SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1271 2,790.00 66,960.00 271 3103 ft gem Step: 2271 2,928.00 70,272.00
3103 ft gem Step: 3271 3,072.00 73,728.00
3103 ft gem Step: 4271 3,228.00 77,472.00
3103 ft gem Step: 5271 3,389.00 81,336.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 21 of 21 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 34, Packet Page 69 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MFCOA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2205 ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF ft fma Step: 1325 7,537.00 180,888.00 325 2205 ft fma Step: 2325 7,911.00 189,864.00
2205 ft fma Step: 3325 8,310.00 199,440.00
2205 ft fma Step: 4325 8,725.00 209,400.00
2205 ft fma Step: 5325 9,160.00 219,840.00
1209 DIVISION CHIEF ft fma Step: 1019 6,429.00 154,296.00 019 1209 ft fma Step: 2019 6,751.00 162,024.00
1209 ft fma Step: 3019 7,089.00 170,136.00
1209 ft fma Step: 4019 7,442.00 178,608.00
1209 ft fma Step: 5019 7,815.00 187,560.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 35, Packet Page 70 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MFFA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2204 DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL ft mffa Step: 1209 4,648.00 111,552.00 209 2204 ft mffa Step: 2209 4,880.00 117,120.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 3209 5,125.00 123,000.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 4209 5,377.00 129,048.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 5209 5,647.00 135,528.00
2201 FIRE CAPTAIN ft mffa Step: 1059 4,425.00 106,200.00 059 2201 ft mffa Step: 2059 4,646.00 111,504.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 3059 4,878.00 117,072.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 4059 5,120.00 122,880.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 5059 5,376.00 129,024.00
2203 FIRE ENGINEER ft mffa Step: 1060 3,822.00 91,728.00 060 2203 ft mffa Step: 2060 4,012.00 96,288.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 3060 4,214.00 101,136.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 4060 4,425.00 106,200.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 5060 4,646.00 111,504.00
2206 FIREFIGHTER ft mffa Step: 1062 3,466.00 83,184.00 062 2206 ft mffa Step: 2062 3,638.00 87,312.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 3062 3,822.00 91,728.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 4062 4,012.00 96,288.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 5062 4,214.00 101,136.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 36, Packet Page 71 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (PLMA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6724 ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF ft plma Step: 1340 7,463.00 179,112.00 340 6724 ft plma Step: 2340 7,835.00 188,040.00
6724 ft plma Step: 3340 8,228.00 197,472.00
6724 ft plma Step: 4340 8,639.00 203,336.00
6724 ft plma Step: 5340 9,071.00 217,704.00
1214 POLICE LIEUTENANT ft plma Step: 1024 6,476.00 155,424.00 024 1214 ft plma Step: 2024 6,800.00 163,200.00
1214 ft plma Step: 3024 7,144.00 171,456.00
1214 ft plma Step: 4024 7,501.00 180,024.00
1214 ft plma Step: 5024 7,874.00 188,976.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 37, Packet Page 72 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MPA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2103 POLICE OFFICER ft mpa Step: 1057 4,183.00 100,392.00 057 2103 ft mpa Step: 2057 4,392.00 105,408.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 3057 4,615.00 110,760.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 4057 4,841.00 116,184.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 5057 5,081.00 121,944.00
2105 POLICE SERGEANT ft mpa Step: 1058 5,106.00 122,544.00 058 2105 ft mpa Step: 2058 5,359.00 128,616.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 3058 5,629.00 135,096.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 4058 5,909.00 141,816.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 5058 6,210.00 149,040.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 38, Packet Page 73 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (RPT) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9373 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT rpt rpt 673Step: 1 26.22 673
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 2 27.53
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 3 28.91
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 4 30.36
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 5 31.89
9329 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT rpt rpt 643Step: 1 23.77 643 9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 2 24.96
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 3 26.21
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 4 27.53
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 5 28.91
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 6 30.36
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 7 31.89
9999 AQUATICS SPECIALIST I ptrpt 000Step: 1 18.69 475
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 2 19.62
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 3 20.61
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 4 21.64
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 5 22.75
9534 ARTIFACT SPECIALIST rpt rpt 485Step: 1 26.22 485
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 2 27.53
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 3 28.90
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 4 30.35
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 5 31.87
CULTURAL ARTS ASSISTANT rpt Step: 1 25.21 639
rpt Step: 2 26.47
rpt Step: 3 27.80
rpt Step: 4 29.19
rpt Step: 5 30.66
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 39, Packet Page 74 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9339 CUSTODIAN rpt rpt 471Step: 1 18.47 471
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 2 19.42
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 3 20.38
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 4 21.41
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 5 22.50
9664 FACILITY ATTENDANT rpt rpt 545Step: 1 26.02 545
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 2 27.35
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 3 28.69
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 4 30.13
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 5 31.62
9615 HARBOR SECURITY WORKER rpt rpt 713Step: 1 28.04 713 9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 2 29.42
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 3 30.91
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 4 32.44
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 5 34.07
LAUNDRY ATTENDANT rpt Step: 1 13.48 580
rpt Step: 2 14.11
rpt Step: 3 14.84
rpt Step: 4 15.54
rpt Step: 5 16.32
9526 LEAD PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR rpt rpt 525Step: 1 22.44 525 9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 2 23.54
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 3 24.73
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 4 25.97
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 5 27.25
9515 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I rpt rpt 547Step: 1 24.97 547
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 2 26.24
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 3 27.53
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 4 28.93
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 5 30.36
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 2 of 4 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 40, Packet Page 75 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9513 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II rpt rpt 548Step: 1 26.24 548
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 2 27.53
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 3 28.91
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 4 30.36
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 5 31.89
9524 LIFEGUARD rpt rpt 492Step: 1 15.17 492
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 2 15.86
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 3 16.70
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 4 17.52
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 5 18.40
9665 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER rpt rpt 482Step: 1 28.04 482 9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 2 29.42
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 3 30.91
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 4 32.44
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 5 34.07
9662 PARKING SERVICES REPRESENTATIV rpt rpt 714Step: 1 26.05 714 9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 2 27.36
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 3 28.71
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 4 30.14
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 5 31.66
9518 PHYSICAL THERAPIST rpt rpt 535Step: 1 47.48 535
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 2 49.86
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 3 52.36
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 4 54.96
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 5 57.71
9528 RECREATION SPECIALIST rpt rpt 476Step: 1 24.29 476 9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 2 25.51
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 3 26.79
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 4 28.12
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 5 29.56
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 41, Packet Page 76 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9519 SITE DIRECTOR/AFTERSCHOOL rpt rpt 513Step: 1 16.93 513 9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 2 17.78
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 3 18.67
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 4 19.59
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 5 20.59
TOT ACTIVITY LEADER rpt Step: 1 16.93 491
rpt Step: 2 17.78
rpt Step: 3 18.67
rpt Step: 4 19.59
rpt Step: 5 20.59
9716 WHARF ATTENDANT rpt rpt 707Step: 1 25.06 707
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 2 26.29
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 3 27.60
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 4 28.98
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 5 30.43
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 42, Packet Page 77 City Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of a Local Emergency Related to the January 2023 Storm (Order 23-001) (Exempt from CEQA Per Article 18, Section 15269.c)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of a Local Emergency related to the January 2023 storm.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code section 11-14(b) requires the City Council to ratify the City Manager’s proclamation of a local emergency within seven days, and every 14 days thereafter until conditions warrant termination of the emergency status. When the emergency conditions cease to exist, the City Council shall terminate the local emergency. The draft resolution proposes to automatically terminate the emergency on January 26, 2023 as the perilous weather conditions are not anticipated to last beyond that date.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The amount of damage at this point is currently unknown. If necessary, staff will come back to Council at a later date to appropriate funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15269.c) because the City is adopting a Resolution declaring a local emergency related to COVID-19. Specific actions are needed to prevent or mitigate the conditions cause by the storm. The actions proposed are immediate actions and are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City’s citizens.

ALTERNATIVES:

No alternatives are recommended.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 78 DISCUSSION:

Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency on January 4, 2023 to exist throughout the State of California due to atmospheric river systems. On January 9, 2023, the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services of the City, activated the Emergency Operations Center due to an impactful weather system and in anticipation of heavy rain, flooding, strong and damaging winds, power outages, fallen trees, landslides and rockslides in hilly terrain. According to the National Weather Service, both flooding and fallen trees are a threat to life and property in the City.

In addition, on January 11, 2023, Monterey County Emergency Services advised that there is a high probability that the Salinas River will flood all access points into the Monterey Peninsula starting on January 12, 2023, and lasting through the evening of Sunday, January 15, 2023.

Should this occur, anyone who is on the Monterey Peninsula when flooding occurs will not be able to leave, and anyone who is not on the peninsula will not be able to enter.

Due to the high probability that the Salinas River would flood all access points into the Monterey Peninsula, the City planned to accommodate public safety staff that reside outside of the perimeter by providing hotel accommodations in the City. This will avoid impacts to staffing levels and ensure that the workforce is sufficient to continue to provide emergency services in the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution
Exhibit A - City Manager Proclamation dated January 12, 2023 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 79 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER’S PROCLAMATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE JANUARY 2023 STORM (ORDER 23-001)
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency. (Exhibit A.) This Resolution will provide City Council confirmation of, and agreement with, the Proclamation made by the City Manager.

Ratification of the City Manager’s proclamation will allow the City to adequately plan, prepare, and deploy resources to effectively respond to the conditions caused by the storm; WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 11-4(b)(4) requires the City Council to ratify the City Manager’s proclamation of a local emergency within seven days; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15269.c) because the City is adopting a Resolution declaring a local emergency related to COVID-19. Specific actions are needed to prevent or mitigate the conditions caused by the storm. The actions proposed are immediate actions and are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City’s citizens.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, pursuant to City Code section 11-4(b)(4) and Government Code section 8630, hereby ratifies, confirms, and is in agreement with, and incorporates herein, the Proclamation made by the City Manager declaring that a local emergency exists in the City of Monterey.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, that this emergency shall automatically terminate on January 26, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. unless sooner terminated or extended by the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Mayor of Said City
__________________________
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 80 Office of the City Manager
Monterey, California 93940

PROCLAMATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AND RELATED ORDERS OF

THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
ORDER 23-001
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 38791, the City Council may provide for a chief executive who, during periods of great public calamity such as an extraordinary flood or storm, has complete authority over the City and the right to exercise all police power vested in the City by the Constitution and general laws;
WHEREAS, the City Manager is designated as the Director of Emergency Services pursuant to City Code section 11-1(a);
WHEREAS, City Code section 11-4(b)(4) empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City caused by such conditions as flood or storm and the City Council is not in session, provided that the emergency is confirmed by the City Council in seven days; WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 11-4(b)(9) states that the Director of Emergency Services shall have the power during a proclaimed emergency to make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property which are or may be affected by the emergency, including the temporary suspension of local ordinances and regulations, provided that such actions shall be confirmed at the earliest practical time by the City Council; WHEREAS, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency on January 4, 2023, to exist throughout the State of California due to atmospheric river systems; WHEREAS, on January 9, 2023, the City Manager, as the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Monterey, activated the Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”) due to an impactful weather system and in anticipation of heavy rain, flooding, strong and damaging winds, power outages, fallen trees, landslides and rockslides in hilly terrain. According to the National Weather Service, both flooding and fallen trees are a threat to life and property in the City and neighboring communities;
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, Monterey County Emergency Services advised that there is a high probability that the Salinas River will flood all access points into the Monterey Peninsula starting on January 12, 2023, and lasting through the evening of Sunday, January 15, 2023. Should Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 81 this occur, anyone who is on the Monterey Peninsula when flooding occurs will not be able to leave, and anyone who is not on the Monterey Peninsula will not be able to enter; and WHEREAS, public safety staff is critical to the success of addressing the impending flood and providing emergency services in the City of Monterey. Many public safety staff reside outside of the perimeter of the potentially affected roadway chokepoints, and the staffing levels could face enormous negative impacts.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth, are true and correct, and are adopted as findings in support of this proclamation and order.

SECTION 2. During the existence of this emergency, pursuant to Government Code section 8634 and 8568, during the period of this emergency, the following procedures otherwise required of the City by ordinance or other local regulation shall be waived where strict compliance would hinder or delay the mitigation effects of the emergency:
a. Entering contracts;
b. Incurring obligations;
c. Employment of permanent and temporary workers;
d. Utilization of volunteer workers;
e. Appropriation and expenditure of public funds;
f. Securing hotel rooms for public safety and other critical staff who reside outside of the perimeter of the Salinas River flood to ensure that they are available for the duration of the emergency, and for those who may be forced to stay inside the perimeter due to no egress; and
g. Waiver of public funds when in the public interest.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this proclamation and order is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections.

SECTION 4. This proclamation and order take precedence over ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith.

SECTION 5. Duration. The local emergency shall not remain in effect for a period more than seven days unless it has been ratified by the City Council.

January 12, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
_____________________________ ______________________________________ Date and Time Hans Uslar, City Manager and
Director of Emergency Services
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 82 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Rezone 828 Pacific Street from R1-6 to R-1-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource and Authorize a Mills Act Contract (Property Tax Savings Program for Historic Structures) (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to rezone 828 Pacific Street from R-1-6 to R-1-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource; and

2. Adopt a resolution authorizing a Mills Act Contract (property tax savings program for historic structures) for 828 Pacific Street.

VALUE DRIVERS:

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND DIVERSITY – Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey is one of the most historic cities in the United States; therefore, the City has placed value on these resources by identifying the preservation of historic resources as a goal in the Historic Preservation Element. One of the ways this goal is achieved is through the implementation of General Plan Program a.1.7, which states: “Maintain and update the City’s historic incentive programs to support historic property owners, including grant programs, land use incentives, flexible zoning and parking standards, property tax relief, Historic Building Code, and expedited processing for historic resources” (City of Monterey 2005, Amended 2019, pg. 109).

H-2 zoning is intended to identify and protect historic resources in the City that would be recognized as resources of local historic importance, and their significance would not be generally recognized outside the immediate area of the Monterey Peninsula.

Mills Act contracts provide a financial benefit to property owners to offset the additional maintenance costs associated with ownership of a historic property. Through the contract, the City is assured that the historic property will be maintained.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 83 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Each property owner pays approximately 1% annually of the assessed value of their property in property taxes and approximately 20% of those property taxes are passed through to the City.

Most Mills Act contract properties recognize 40-60% savings in taxes, depending on how the County Assessor estimates the site’s rental rate.

The following chart represents the approximate reduction in property taxes that would be passed to the City under the Mills Act:

Property Address Standard Property
Tax
Standard Tax Passed
to City (20%)
Mills Act Rate Tax
Passed to City (40-
60% Reduction)
828 Pacific Street $9,850.00 $1,970.00 $788.00-$1,182.60 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mills Act contracts require that all work performed subsequent to entering into a contract is consistent with those standards.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would not impact a resource of critical concern. The project proposes maintenance of a historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The project would have a positive impact in that a historic resource would be maintained. The environment is not particularly sensitive (existing building and landscaped areas).

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. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The project proposes maintenance of a building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. No cumulative impacts would occur.

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 exist at the site. The building is an existing structure and the surrounding environment is an established residential area. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The project proposes to maintain the structure consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, a significant effect would not occur.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 84 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 proposes maintenance of a building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The property is not located on or viewable from a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic highways would not occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project would have no impact to hazardous waste sites.

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 building is eligible as a local historic resource and the addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The building maintenance would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project would not cause an adverse change to the historic resource.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to rezone or approve a Mills Act Contract for the property.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The owner of 828 Pacific Street is requesting designation of the H-2 (City Historic Resource) overlay zoning for 828 Pacific Street and to enter into a Mills Act Contract with the City of Monterey.

Historic Zoning
As required by Monterey City Code, an intensive historic survey was submitted as part of the application. According to the intensive survey prepared by qualified architectural historian Margaret E. Clovis, M.A., the subject property qualifies as a local historic resource based on California Register Criteria 2 and 3. Attachment 2 contains the entire analysis.  Criterion 2: Properties can be eligible under California Register Criterion Two (Person) if the property is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. The architectural historian (Meg Clovis) determined thehe property is eligible under California Register Criterion Two (Person) as the family home of John and Agatha Giamona, who lived at the property for over sixty years, and were one of Monterey’s pioneering Sicilian fishing families. The Paolo and Francesca Giamona home at 150 Pacific Street is no longer extant and this is the only remaining house related to the family in Monterey.
 Criterion 3: Properties can be eligible under California Register Criterion Three (Design) if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that represent the work of a master; or that possess high artistic values.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 85 The Giamona’s Spanish Revival cottage is eligible under this criterion because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the style adapted to a working-class residence.

Character defining features of the cottage include its (1) stucco exterior and tile roof, (2) all original window and door openings, (3) stucco chimney, (4) tile vents in gable, (5) arched picture window and porch entrance, and (6) bay window with conical roof. Additionally, the property retains six aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, feeling, and association; one integrity aspect (workmanship) is not applicable. 828 Pacific Street
Mills Act Contract
A Mills Act Contract is an agreement between the City of Monterey and the property owner of a City-designated historic building. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes and the City is assured that the historic building will be preserved. The City’s Contract requires that the historic building be maintained in good condition. The Contract includes the following Conditions of Approval:

1. An identification plaque shall be installed describing the building as an historic resource.

The plaque text, design, and materials shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation;

2. The building shall be made available for an annual tour; and, Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 86

3. The property owner shall maintain the property in good general repair and make any or all repairs as necessary. The roof, exterior and interior walls, and electrical and plumbing systems will be inspected on a regular basis.

On October 13, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the historic zoning and Mills Act proposal. After discussion, the HPC voted to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the historic zoning, and voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mills Act contract.

On October 25, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property at 828 Pacific Street from R-1-6 to R-1-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource.

KC/mb
Attachments: 1. Ordinance with Exhibit A (Map)

2. Resolution Authorizing Mills Act Contract with Exhibit A (Legal Description) and Exhibit B (Maintenance Schedule)

3. Intensive Historic Survey
e: Ben Michael Beesley and Shannon Highfield, Applicant/Property Owner Margaret E. Clovis, M.A., Architectural Historian
Monterey Vista 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 87 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
REZONING THE PROPERTY AT 828 PACIFIC STREET AS A CITY HISTORIC RESOURCE FROM R-1-6 TO R-1-6-H-2
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Ben Michael Beesley and Shannon Highfield, owners of the residence at 828 Pacific Street, requested H-2 (City Historic Resource) overlay zoning; WHEREAS, adoption of H-2 zoning requires the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to recommend to the Planning Commission (PC) to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance rezoning the property;
WHEREAS, as required by Monterey City Code, an intensive historic survey (DPR 523B form) prepared in June 2022 by Qualified Architectural Historian Margaret E. Clovis, M.A. was submitted as part of the application;
WHEREAS, the subject property is significant under Criterion 2 (Person) as the family home of John and Agatha Giamona, who lived at the property for over sixty years, and were one of Monterey’s pioneering Sicilian fishing families. The Paolo and Francesca Giamona home at 150 Pacific Street is no longer extant and 828 Pacific Street is the only remaining house related to the family in Monterey. The property is also significant under Criterion 3 (Design) as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that represent the work of a master; or that possess high artistic values. The Giamona’s Spanish Revival cottage is eligible under this criterion because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the style adapted to a working-class residence;
WHEREAS, the HPC, at a properly noticed public hearing on October 13, 2022, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, and adopted a resolution recommending that the PC recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property and Mills Act contract;
WHEREAS, the PC, at a properly noticed public hearing on October 25, 2022, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property; WHEREAS, the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2022, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and, Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 88 2 WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mills Act contracts require that all work performed subsequent to entering into a contract is consistent with those standards. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 proposes maintenance of a building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The property is not located on or viewable from a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic highways would not 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. The Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 89 building is eligible as a local historic resource and the addition of H-2 overlay zoning would add an additional layer of protection to the resource. The building maintenance would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The project would not cause an adverse change to the historic resource.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 3: The property at 828 Pacific Street is hereby rezoned from R-1-6 to R-1-6- H-2, as shown in Exhibit A.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of ______ , 202__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 90

EXHIBIT A
828 Pacific Street
Subject property
Rezoning from R-1-6
to R-1-6-H-2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 91 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AUTHORIZING A MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 828 PACIFIC STREET WHEREAS, Ben Michael Beesley and Shannon Highfield, owners of the residence at 828 Pacific Street, submitted the required application and information to enter into a Mills Act Contract with the City of Monterey, including a detailed legal description (Exhibit A) and maintenance schedule that covers the life of the contract (Exhibit B); WHEREAS, a Mills Act Contract is an agreement between the City of Monterey and the property owner of a City-designated historic building;
WHEREAS, the property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes and the City is ensured that the historic building will be preserved; WHEREAS, granting the contract will serve to offset the costs of maintaining the resource;
WHEREAS, the City could expect to receive reduced tax revenue as a result of the Mills Act Contract in the amount of approximately $788.00-$1,182.00 annually; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the property meets the eligibility requirements for the Mills Act Program in that it meets the eligibility requirements for H-2 overlay zoning and the property owner has applied to rezone the property, and granting the contract will serve to offset the costs of maintaining the resource;
WHEREAS, the authorization of the Mills Act contract will be in effect 30 days after City Council approval of the rezone;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the addition of H-2 overlay zoning to the property will not result in significant changes to land use limitations and will maintain a designated historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Mills Act contracts require that all work performed subsequent to entering into a contract is consistent with those standards. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The addition of H-2 overlay zoning would not impact a resource of critical concern. The project proposes maintenance of a historic building consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The project would have a Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 92 2 positive impact in that a historic resource would be maintained. The environment is not particularly sensitive (existing building and landscaped areas).

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 that it hereby authorizes a Mills Act contract for the property at 828 Pacific Street, with Exhibit A (Legal Description) and Exhibit B (Maintenance Schedule) attached hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of _________, 202__, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 93 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 94

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
828 Pacific Street

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 95 Exterior Frequency Date Completed Costs Annually 5 Years 10 years 15-20 Years 20 years + Paint Every 15 years 2020 $ 10,000.00 X
Re-Roof flat roof Every 15 years $ 15,000.00 X
Replace Spanish roof tiles Every 40 years $ 5,000.00 X
Roof repairs Annually $ 500.00 X
General Maintenance Annually $ 1,000.00 X
Fence/gate Maintenance Every 5 years $ 1,000.00 X
Replace front hedges One - time $ 5,000.00 X
Replace gates One - time $ 2,500.00 X
Add front gate One - time $ 2,500.00 X
Sewer lateral replacement Every 10-15 years Jun-22 $ 10,000.00 X Termite inspection Every 10 years May-22 $ 200.00 X
Clean gutters and down spots Annually $ 200.00 X
Trim fruit trees Annually $ 1,000.00 X
Interior Frequency Date Completed Costs Annually 5 Years 10 years 15-20 Years Installed new water heater 20 years May-22 $ 3,000.00 X Update electrical One - Time $ 17,000.00 X
Add GFCI/outlets One - Time $ 500.00 X
Replace windows as needed As needed $ 500.00 X
Change exterior light fixtures One - Time $ 1,000.00 X
Replace furnace Every 20 years $ 17,000.00 X
Paint interior Every 7-10 years 22-Jun $ 5,000.00 X
828 Pacific Street, Monterey
Maintenance Plan
Shannon Highfield and Ben Beesley - 831-236-6876

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 96 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # ___________________________________________
HRI # ______________________________________________
Trinomial ___________________________________________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code ______ Reviewer ______________________ Date _______________________

Page 1 of 6 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 828 Pacific Avenue
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Monterey Date 2012 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address 828 Pacific Ave. City Monterey Zip 93940
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 001-602-004
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting and boundaries) The wood frame, Spanish Revival style cottage located at 828 Pacific Street in Monterey was built in 1939. The house has a shallow setback from Pacific Street. At 1367 square feet, it has an essentially square plan and is topped by a low-pitched, red tile roof. As is typical with Spanish Revival homes, the overhang in the eaves is negligible. The house was reroofed in 2007 with the same materials. Exterior walls are covered with white stucco. The building’s front elevation is asymmetrical (a common feature of the style) and is divided into three distinct sections: a front-facing, projecting gable section with picture window and three tile vents; the entry porch; and a three-sided, slanted bay topped with a conical roof. The front facing gable, with its four-point arched window, sweeps down to create a roof over the entrance porch, which is accessed by concrete steps. The same four-point arch is repeated in the entry porch. The front door is located to the side of the porch. Paired double-hung windows separate the area between the bay and the porch. Fenestration throughout the house is generally (continued on p. 3)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Front Elevation,
05/2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: 1939 Historic
Prehistoric Both
Polk City Directories, Sanborn Maps
*P7. Owner and Address:

Ben Beesley
828 Pacific Ave
Monterey, CA 93940
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Meg Clovis
14024 Reservation Rd.

Salinas, CA 93908
*P9. Date Recorded: 06/2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, Single family residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) None *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List)
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 97 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary # __________________________________________
HRI # _____________________________________________

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 6 ends

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Giamona House B1. Historic Name: Giamona House
B2. Common Name: 828 Pacific Avenue
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Constructed in 1939; BP99-0133 (3/16/1999) Reroof; BP99-0166 (4/23/1999) Install new windows.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Albert Seeno
*B10. Significance: Theme Early 20th Century Expansion (1900-1939) Area Monterey
Period of Significance: 1939 Property Type: Building Applicable Criteria: CR 2 & 3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Address integrity.)
John Giamona (1910-1976) and his new bride Agatha Arcidicono (1917-2000) moved into the house at 828 Pacific Street shortly after their marriage and lived there for the rest of their lives. Both John and Agatha were the children of Sicilian immigrants. John’s parents, Paulo and Francesca, left Italy in 1898 and settled in Martinez, a community that attracted many Sicilian fishing families. John was eight years old when Paulo Giamona moved the family to Monterey. They were one of the first fishing families that were lured to Monterey through the efforts of Pietro Ferrante (Francesca’s uncle) and the Booth Canneries. Their new home was at 150 Pacific Street, a neighborhood where many other Sicilian families settled. Paolo invested in a second generation lampara boat, the St. George, which was built by the Monterey Boat Works in 1925. The St. George launched the Giamona family’s fishing legacy.

Paolo’s sons – John, Joe, and Horace – followed in their father’s footsteps and bought a larger vessel, the St. Christopher. As a purse seiner, the St Christopher could hold 150 tons of sardines. Like many other Monterey fisherman, Paolo and his sons sailed to Alaska for the salmon season. It was here, in 1961, that the St. Christopher went down in Alaskan waters. (continued on p. 4) (This space reserved for official comments.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes): HP6 *B12. References:

Monterey Historic Preservation Ordinance
National Historic Landmark District & Downtown Area Context Statement, 2012
Sanborn Maps
Building File, Monterey Planning & Building Depts.

National Register Bulletin 15
Polk’s City Directories
U.S. Census & Voter Registration Records
Assessor Records & Monterey Newspapers
Italian Fishing Families of Monterey, Italian Heritage Society of Monterey
B13. Remarks
*B14. Evaluator: Meg Clovis
*Date of Evaluation: 07/2021
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 98 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 3 of 6 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 06/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
P3a. Description (continued)
double hung. Window glass was replaced in 2003 utilizing the same window openings. A stucco chimney is located on the north elevation.

Figure 1: Original plans for the Giamona House
Character-defining features include:
▪ Stucco exterior and tile roof
▪ All original window and door openings
▪ Stucco chimney
▪ Tile vents in gable
▪ Arched picture window and porch entrance
▪ Bay window with conical roof
Figure 2: View of backyard and garage
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 99 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 4 of 6 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 06/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
B10. Significance (continued)
The Giamona House was built by Albert D. Seeno (1916-2000). Albert Seeno’s parents were Sicilian immigrants who settled in Pittsburg (then known as Black Diamond). Like the Giamonas, their background was in fishing, but Albert had a talent for building. He founded his construction company in 1938 in Monterey, where his wife Rose Ann Russo was born and raised. He later moved his company back to the east bay, where he became one of the area’s most prominent real estate developers. His company built more than 30,000 homes, and dozens of shopping centers, apartment buildings and offices. When he started out his goal was to provide affordable houses for working class families, and the Giamona house exemplifies this objective.

Evaluation for Significance
Historians use National Register Bulletin 15
1 as a guide when evaluating a property’s significance
whether on a local, state, or national level. As a first step, to determine whether or not a property is significant, it must be evaluated within its historic context. Although the Giamona house is just outside the boundaries of the National Historic Landmark District and Downtown Area Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey
2 this document provides the most pertinent context, specifically within the theme of Early 20
th Century Expansion (1900-1939). This theme is summarized as follows:

Development of Monterey in the early twentieth century is important because it was a period of unprecedented growth for the city. The enormous success of the sardine industry, along with a renewed military presence in the area, fueled extensive commercial and residential development in downtown Monterey. During this period, Alvarado Street, long the town’s commercial center, became a much denser commercial corridor, while the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown were built out to accommodate a rapidly growing population. As the city grew, the businesses and neighborhoods of downtown Monterey continued to cater to an ethnically diverse population that included persons of Chinese, Japanese, Italian, and Portuguese descent, among others.

The City of Monterey’s Historic Zoning Ordinance (Article 15) reiterates the role of National Register Bulletin 15 in the evaluation of historic resources and the City’s adopted eligibility criteria for H-2 zoning3is cited in Section 38-76. Properties eligible for H-2 zoning must meet either the National Register criteria or the California Register criteria and are generally described as historic event, person, design, or information potential and are fully defined in National Register Bulletin 15, California PRC 5024.1, and CCR Title 14 Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 et. Seq. For the purposes of this evaluation, the California Register criteria is used.

Properties can be eligible for California Register Criterion 1 (Event) if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. This can be a specific 1 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service. 1998. 2 National Historic Landmark District and Downtown Area Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey.

Architectural Resources Group. Adopted February 21, 2012. 3 H-2 zoning is intended to identify and protect historic resources in the City that would be recognized as resources with local historic importance and their historic importance would not be generally recognized outside the immediate area of the Monterey Peninsula.

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 100 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 5 of 6 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 06/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
event, pattern of events, or trend. The Giamona House is not eligible under Criterion 1 as no specific event led to the construction of the house and no important event took place in the house.

The Giamona House is eligible under California
Register Criterion Two (Person) as the family home
of John and Agatha Giamona, who lived at the
property for over sixty years, and were one of
Monterey’s pioneering Sicilian fishing families. The
Paolo and Francesca Giamona home at 150 Pacific
Street is no longer extant and this is the only
remaining house related to the family in Monterey.

Figure 3: Paolo and Francesca Giamona
Properties can be eligible under California Register Criterion Three (Design) if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that represent the work of a master; or that possess high artistic values. The Giamona’s Spanish Revival cottage is eligible under this criterion because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the style adapted to a working-class residence.

The Giamona House is not eligible under California Register Criterion Four (Information Potential) because there is no evidence in the historic record that the site or building may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity
Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance. There are seven aspects of integrity including Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association.

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. The Giamona House is in its original location.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property. Only two changes, a reroof (which replaced the tiles in kind) and window replacements (which used the original openings) have been made to the Giamona House. It retains all of its characterdefining features and therefore its original Spanish Revival design.

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. The Giamona House retains its neighborhood setting.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern to form a historic property. The Giamona House retains the majority of the exterior Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 101 State of California -- The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial

Page 6 of 6 ends

*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 06/2022  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
materials from its period of significance. As stated, the roof tiles have been replaced in kind and the window glass has been changed. These changes are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This aspect of integrity is not applicable to the Giamona House.

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The Giamona House retains the majority of its physical features and is able to convey the building’s connection with the theme of early 20th century expansion in Monterey.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 828 Pacific Street was the home of the Giamona family for over sixty years and has changed little since they lived there.

Summary: The Giamona House retains six aspects of integrity, and one aspect is not applicable.

Conclusion
The Giamona House meets California Register eligibility criteria 2 and 3 at the local level, and therefore meets the requirements for inclusion in the City of Monterey’s adopted survey list and for H-2 zoning.

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 102 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Public Testimony on the Proposal to Renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District Pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive public testimony on the proposed renewal of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Holding the public meeting is a required element of the MCTID renewal process. A public hearing will be held on February 21, 2023 on the renewal of the MCTID and the levy of assessments on lodging businesses, and if there is no majority protest, district will be renewed, and the assessment levied.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None immediately. The City will continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey to cover its costs of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

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, Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 103 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 choose not to hold the public meeting, which would stop the renewal process for the MCTID. Staff does not recommend this option.

DISCUSSION:

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. The MCTID is formed under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The five-year term of the MCTID is set to expire on December 31, 2023, and the required number of lodging business owners have submitted a written petition to renew the district. Pending successful renewal of the MCTID, the Owner’s Association will request to modify the current MCTID term to end early on June 30, 2023, with the renewed district beginning on July 1, 2023.

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

Tourism improvement districts have been used successfully 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-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside (participating cities are subject to change until the final public hearing and adoption of the resolution renewing the district).

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; and
 They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 104 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 5) 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, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside. The cities of Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, and Soledad were originally intended to be part of the District, but have chosen not to be part of the MCTID. 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 one percent (1%) of the amount of the assessment collected within their respective jurisdictions to cover their costs of collection and administration.

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. 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 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.

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’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 105 Current MCTID Assessment Rate Per Night:

Hotel Type Zone 1 Zone 2
Full Service $2.00 $2.50
Limited Service $1.00 $1.50
Proposed MCTID Initial Assessment Rate Per Night:

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
MCTID Renewal Process
December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO RENEW (Completed - 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 initiated 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 (Completed - Attachment 2) The City Council adopted a resolution requesting 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 (Completed - Attachment 3)
Procedural guidelines for the formation of the MCTID were adopted in a separate resolution. These guidelines cover the petition process, protest submittals, protest requirements, protest withdrawals, majority protest, and tabulation process.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 106 January 6, 2023 NOTICE (Completed)
Written notice was mailed to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the renewed MCTID.

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

February 21, 2023 FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
4:00 pm City Council Chambers located at Few Memorial Hall of Records, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California, 93940. Please see the meeting agenda when posted for details on teleconference participation. Agendas will be published at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

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.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, if protests totaling less than 50% of the proposed assessments are received, the Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them.

If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to renew the MCTID, the City Council shall adopt a resolution of renewal.

Attachments: 1. Resolution of Intention

2. Resolution Requesting Consent

3. Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines

4. MCTID Management District Plan
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 107 RESOLUTION NO. 22-168 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 108 2 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action 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:

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 109 3 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.

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 110 4 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 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 111

EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 112 RESOLUTION NO. 22-169 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 113 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 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 114 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 115 RESOLUTION NO. 22-170 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,
 Mail to City Clerk, 580 Pacific Street, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940, or DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 116  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.

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 117 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.

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 118 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.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 119 2023-2033

MONTEREY COUNTY

TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
November 2,
2022January 6,
2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 120

CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................5 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................7 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES..............................................................................10 A. Annual Service Plan ..................................................................................................10 B. Annual Assessment Budget........................................................................................12 C. California Constitutional Compliance ........................................................................13 D. Assessment................................................................................................................14 E. Penalties and Interest .................................................................................................15 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...........................................................16 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................17 A. Owners’ Association..................................................................................................17 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance........................................17 C. Annual Report ...........................................................................................................17 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................29 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE....................................................................................36 APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY ..............................................................................38 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 121 MCTID Management District Plan 3
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, and 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 122 MCTID Management District Plan 4
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 123 MCTID Management District Plan 5
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 124 MCTID Management District Plan 6
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 125 MCTID Management District Plan 7
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, and 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, and 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 126 MCTID Management District Plan 8
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 127 MCTID Management District Plan 9
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 128 MCTID Management District Plan 10
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 27, Packet Page 129 MCTID Management District Plan 11
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 28, Packet Page 130 MCTID Management District Plan 12
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 29, Packet Page 131 MCTID Management District Plan 13
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 30, Packet Page 132 MCTID Management District Plan 14
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 31, Packet Page 133 MCTID Management District Plan 15
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 32, Packet Page 134 MCTID Management District Plan 16
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 33, Packet Page 135 MCTID Management District Plan 17
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 34, Packet Page 136 MCTID Management District Plan 18
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 35, Packet Page 137 MCTID Management District Plan 19
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 36, Packet Page 138 MCTID Management District Plan 20
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 37, Packet Page 139 MCTID Management District Plan 21
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 38, Packet Page 140 MCTID Management District Plan 22
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 39, Packet Page 141 MCTID Management District Plan 23
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 40, Packet Page 142 MCTID Management District Plan 24
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 41, Packet Page 143 MCTID Management District Plan 25
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 42, Packet Page 144 MCTID Management District Plan 26
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 43, Packet Page 145 MCTID Management District Plan 27
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 44, Packet Page 146 MCTID Management District Plan 28
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
(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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 45, Packet Page 147 MCTID Management District Plan 29
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 46, Packet Page 148 MCTID Management District Plan 30
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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 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
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 47, Packet Page 149 MCTID Management District Plan 31
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
Economy Inn 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 48, Packet Page 150 MCTID Management District Plan 32
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 49, Packet Page 151 MCTID Management District Plan 33
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 50, Packet Page 152 MCTID Management District Plan 34
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 51, Packet Page 153 MCTID Management District Plan 35
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 52, Packet Page 154 MCTID Management District Plan 36
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 53, Packet Page 155 MCTID Management District Plan 37
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 54, Packet Page 156 MCTID Management District Plan 38
November 2, 2022January 6, 2023
APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 55, Packet Page 157 TID Funding Analysis
Monterey, California
Prepared for:

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 56, Packet Page 158 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 57, Packet Page 159 1 Introduction
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 58, Packet Page 160 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 59, Packet Page 161 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 60, Packet Page 162 Monterey Visitor Economy: 2 Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 61, Packet Page 163 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 62, Packet Page 164 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 63, Packet Page 165 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 64, Packet Page 166 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 65, Packet Page 167 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 66, Packet Page 168 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 67, Packet Page 169 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 68, Packet Page 170 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 69, Packet Page 171 3 MCCVB Performance
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 70, Packet Page 172 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 71, Packet Page 173 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 72, Packet Page 174 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 73, Packet Page 175 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 74, Packet Page 176 4 Growing the Visitor Economy
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 75, Packet Page 177 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 76, Packet Page 178 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 77, Packet Page 179 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 78, Packet Page 180 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 79, Packet Page 181 5 Competitive Funding Analysis
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 80, Packet Page 182 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 81, Packet Page 183 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 82, Packet Page 184 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 83, Packet Page 185 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 84, Packet Page 186 Impact of TID Funding on the 6 Monterey Economy
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 85, Packet Page 187 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 86, Packet Page 188 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 87, Packet Page 189 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 88, Packet Page 190 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 89, Packet Page 191 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 90, Packet Page 192 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 91, Packet Page 193 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 92, Packet Page 194 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 93, Packet Page 195 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 94, Packet Page 196 Appendix: The National Impact of
Tourism Improvement Districts
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 95, Packet Page 197 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 96, Packet Page 198 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 97, Packet Page 199 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 98, Packet Page 200 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 99, Packet Page 201 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 100, Packet Page 202 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 101, Packet Page 203 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 102, Packet Page 204 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 103, Packet Page 205 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 104, Packet Page 206 Appendix 2: The ROI of Destination Marketing
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 105, Packet Page 207 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 106, Packet Page 208 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 107, Packet Page 209 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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 108, Packet Page 210 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Receive Presentation about Personal Wireless Facilities (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council accept the presentation.

VALUE DRIVERS:

The City Council Value Drivers do not explicitly address wireless communication facilities.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Monterey City Code has contained regulations governing personal wireless facilities for many years as described in the Discussion Section. At the next City Council meeting (February 7, 2023), the Council will be asked to consider a replacement ordinance.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City will continue to collect permit fees under its existing fee schedule for permits reviewed under Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4. As of November 4, 2022, the City incurred $269,039.19 in outside legal counsel costs in connection with the facilitation and review of the Wireless Subcommittee’s ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the City Council to the legal framework of personal wireless facilities and provide background information about the City of Monterey’s process to update the wireless ordinance. The only alternative is to accept or not accept the presentation.

Date: 1/17/2023
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 211 DISCUSSION:

The City has amended its Personal Wireless Facilities Ordinance several times. The most recent amendments include Ordinance 3498 (April 15, 2014), Ordinance 3552 (October 18, 2016, and Ordinance 3586 (October 16, 2018). In addition, the City adopted Ordinance 3609 (February 4, 2020) and added Chapter 32, Article 8, to require undergrounding of all utilities, telecommunications and non-telecommunications, in all new development and for existing utilities that are part of a redevelopment project. The new ordinance that will be considered at the February 7, 2023 City Council public hearing addresses the evolving state and federal regulations and case law decisions since the last updates.

Legal Context
For all types of wireless facilities, the City can exercise its police power to regulate the placement, except to the extent the exercise of that police power has been preempted or limited by federal or state law. Numerous limitations have been adopted at the federal level to facilitate deployment of national wireless networks and provide certain procedural protections to applicants. State laws also place some limits on local authority. Some of the laws are decades old and were adopted to facilitate the deployment of the initial national wireless networks. In the past 10+ years, as demand for wireless services has grown significantly with the widespread use of smartphones and other wireless devices, new laws and new FCC orders interpreting existing laws have been adopted at the urging of the wireless industry to speed deployment and further limit local control. Within these state and federal limitations, the City still retains significant authority to regulate wireless siting, particularly regarding aesthetics. The major limitations on local authority are summarized below.

1. National Wireless Deployment Policy – To facilitate the deployment of national wireless networks, federal law provides that no local decision or regulation can “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” the provision of personal wireless services.1 o The Ninth Circuit developed a test to determine whether a decision by a local government constitutes an “effective prohibition.” The Ninth Circuit test requires the showing of (1) a significant gap in the carrier’s service coverage and (2) the proposed facility is “the least intrusive means” of filling the significant gap, having considered the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. The “least intrusive” determination looks to find an alternative that comes closest to meeting local design and siting standards for placement of wireless facilities. o The FCC’s 2018 Small Cell Order rejected the Ninth Circuit’s “significant gap/least intrusive means” test and established a different “materially inhibits” test that would apply, at least for small cells. Under the FCC’s “materially inhibits” standard, an effective prohibition showing could be made by demonstrating a “significant gap/least intrusive means.” But that is not the only way. Under this new test, “a state or local legal requirement could materially inhibit service in numerous ways—not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide an existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a 1 Although personal wireless services do not include data/broadband services, the FCC’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order stated that any facilities including small cells deployed to provide personal wireless services benefit from the protections under federal law even if they also provide other comingled services, such as broadband. Both wireless carriers and telephone companies that deploy wireless facilities such as small cells for wireless carriers are entitled to these protections.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 212 particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services. Thus, an effective prohibition includes materially inhibiting additional services or improving existing services.” o The FCC’s 2018 Moratoria Order established local government moratoria on the processing of wireless and telecommunications facilities applications would create an effective prohibition of service and banned moratoria.

2. Uniform National RF Emissions Guidelines – federal law provides that the FCC has authority to establish national RF emissions guidelines, and localities cannot make wireless siting decisions based on environmental/health effects of RF emissions and may only ensure applicant has shown it will comply with FCC guidelines.2

3. Timely Final Action on Applications – federal law requires action on wireless applications must be “within a reasonable period,” and state law provides a “deemed approved” remedy for failure to timely act.
o Under FCC orders interpreting federal law, local governments must process wireless applications and take final action within presumptively reasonable timelines or “shot clocks” that range between 60 days and 150 days, depending on the type of wireless application. Final action means completion of all administrative appeals. The applicable timeline may be “tolled” or extended in limited circumstances, either by issuing a timely notice of incompleteness or by mutual agreement with the applicant. o State law provides a “deemed approved” remedy for a failure to meet these FCC shot clocks.3 This state law’s deemed granted remedy is not available for proposed placements on fire department facilities.

4. Written Denials – federal law requires that denials must be in writing and based on substantial evidence.

5. Non-Discrimination – federal law requires that there be no unreasonable discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services.

6. Expedited Appeals – federal law provides that judicial review must be sought within 30 days after the governmental entity has taken “final action,” and, once the action is filed, the court must “hear and decide” it “on an expedited basis.”

7. Ministerial Approvals for Certain Modifications to Existing Wireless Facilities— a 2012 federal law requires that certain modifications and expansions to existing wireless facilities (known as Eligible Facilities Requests or EFRs) cannot be denied and must be approved.

Detailed FCC rules for EFRs must be applied to determine which types of changes (height/width, etc.) to existing wireless facilities qualify. FCC rules also established a 60-day shot clock for EFRs, and a “deemed granted” remedy if a local government fails to act within the shot clock.

8. Federal Limits on Regulation of Aesthetics of Small Cells – The FCC Small Cell Order found that aesthetic requirements imposed on placements of small cells could create an 2 Gov. Code Section 65850.6(f) which took effect in 2007, recognizes federal authority over RF emissions regulation and prohibits localities from taking into account RF emissions in evaluating proposed wireless facilities, except to the extent authorized by federal law. 3 Gov. Code 65964.1.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 213 “effective prohibition” of service in some specific circumstances. The FCC Small Cell Order (as modified and upheld by the Ninth Circuit in 2020) requires that aesthetic standards for small cells must be: (1) reasonable (meaning technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments); and (2) published in advance. Regarding regulation of the spacing between facilities, the FCC recognized that some spacing requirements may violate federal law but others may be reasonable aesthetic requirements.” Minimum spacing requirements be evaluated by the same standards that apply to other aesthetic conditions in the Small Cell Order.

9. Limits on Fees Related to Small Cells. The FCC Small Cell Order found that unreasonable fees on the deployment of small cells could create an effective prohibition, and established that fees must be cost-based and reasonable.4 The FCC also established a safe harbor amount for small cell applications that was deemed conclusively reasonable:
$500 (for up to 5 small cell sites in 1 application; $100 being reasonable for each additional).

The safe harbor for any and all recurring annual fees for placements on local governmentowned poles was established at $270 per small cell.

10. State Telephone Franchise to Use Public Rights-of-Way. Longstanding state law grants a franchise to telephone corporations to place their facilities in the public rights-of-way5 and places some limits on local authority to control these installations by telephone corporations, including wireless companies and facilities. However,
 Localities can regulate use and repair of public streets, location of poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets to the extent not preempted by CPUC regulation.6
o CPUC regulates safety of placements on utility poles. CPUC General Orders establish the safety rules for construction of power and communications infrastructure, and local governments cannot impose requirements that conflict with these orders. For example, the CPUC requires a minimum safety separation between power lines and pole-top antennas.
 Localities can impose reasonable regulation on the aesthetics and safety of telephone installations. Facilities must be constructed in such a manner and at such points as not to “incommode the public use of the road or highway.”7 T-Mobile W., LLC v.

City & Cnty. of. San Francisco (2019) held that discretionary review considering aesthetics is allowed.
 Localities have the power to reasonably regulate the “time, place, and manner” in which roads are accessed by telephone corporations. Requiring permits is allowed.

This must be applied to all entities in an “equivalent” manner.8 4 Gov. Code 50030, which took effect in 1998, limits the permit fees that can be charged to telephone corporations for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities including wireless, to the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged and may not be levied for general revenue purposes.
5 Pub. Util. Code § 7901.
6 Pub. Util. Code § 2902.
7 Id.
8 Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 214

11. Ministerial Approval of Emergency Generators on Macro Cell Sites. Until Jan. 1, 2024, a temporary state law imposes a 60-day shot clock and mandatory local approval of qualifying emergency generators at macro cell sites. The law does not apply to small cells, distributed antenna systems, or rooftop facilities.9
City of Monterey Personal Wireless Service Facilities Background Information After years of uncontroversial project reviews and permits issued, the issue of wireless service facilities siting reached a flashpoint on March 15, 2018 when ExteNet proposed 13 wireless facilities in the Monte Vista neighborhood. Previous projects had typically sought to place wireless facilities on towers and flag poles on private land that would serve a large geographic area (macro cells). ExteNet’s proposal differed in two ways from previous applications– it sought to place smaller facilities serving smaller geographic areas (small cells) and they were to be predominately located on existing utility poles in the public right-of-way. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended denial of 10 of the 13 small cell applications. ExteNet then withdrew 12 of the 13 applications. The one that was not withdrawn (277 Mar Vista Drive @ 7 Cuesta Vista Drive) was recommended for approval by staff. Public comment was received from 38 members of the public in opposition and the Planning Commission denied the application. The facilities were not installed. However, it became clear that ExteNet’s project was not an anomaly but part of a larger industry trend to deploy small cells as part of their expansions and upgrades to 4GLTE and now 5G networks. The City’s experience triggered years of public policy debate, revised ordinances, participation in national litigation efforts to retain local authority, and ultimately the ordinance that is before the Council. A summary of key milestones include:
2018
April 4, 2018: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA ) provided a draft ordinance to the City of Monterey
April 17, 2018: City Council directed Planning Commission to: 1) Consider Options for Strengthening the City’s Wireless Application Requirements; and 2) Make a Recommendation to the City Council that is Consistent with Federal Regulations
June 26, 2018: Planning Commission recommended wireless subcommittee to City Council
July 17, 2018: City Council received report on risks of moratorium August 2, 2018: FCC formally adopts Moratoria Order banning express and de facto moratoria on processing wireless and telecommunications permit applications
August 7, 2018: City Council appointed Wireless Subcommittee.

Wireless Subcommittee Meets 20 Times in 2018:
9 Gov. Code 65850.75.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 215 August 23 & 30, September 6, 12, 13, 19, October 1, 19, 26, & 29, November 2, 9, 16, 19, & 30, December 7, 10, 14, 17, & 21 At the first Wireless Subcommittee meeting on August 23, 2018, staff presented a draft ordinance to the Subcommittee and recommended an expedited approach to the issue. The Wireless Subcommittee took the following action: On a motion by Subcommittee Member Brassfield, seconded by Subcommittee Member Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Wireless Subcommittee adopted a two-prong approach wherein the Subcommittee first addresses the draft ordinances proposed by the citizens and Mr. Van Eaton be allowed to reply to new laws and applications that would catch us surprised today and subsequently address creating a shortened Wireless Ordinance with lengthened regulations.

September 18, 2018: City Council authorized joining a coalition of communities represented by Best, Best & Krieger (Joe VanEaton, Esq.) to bring court challenge of the FCC proposed orders that will, among other things, limit local control over small cell facilities and drastically reduce wireless permitting timelines.

September 19, 2018: Staff recommended limited ordinance changes to the Planning Commission
September 25, 2018: Limited wireless ordinance changes considered by the Planning Commission. The changes were those determined to be the minimum necessary to comply with evolving regulations. The Subcommittee further continued its debates on the MVNA draft ordinance through 2019.

September 27, 2018: FCC formally adopts Small Cell Order October 16, 2018: City Council adopts limited wireless ordinance changes.

November 27, 2018: Planning Commission approved wireless checklist. 2019
May 17, 2019: Encroachment ordinance introduction at City Council. The Encroachment ordinance establishes parameters for undergrounding which was a priority of the MVNA.

July 8, 2019: Further encroachment ordinance discussion and changes to wireless ordinance at City Council.

July 9, 2019: Wireless Subcommittee meets.

September 5 & 6, 2019: Wireless Subcommittee 4- 1 vote to recommend MVNA ordinance to the Planning Commission with substantial changes.

October 15, 2019: Staff requests Council dissolve subcommittee. The Wireless Subcommittee is not dissolved at this time.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 216 December 4 & 5, 2019: Wireless Subcommittee meets
December 17, 2019: City Council dissolved the subcommittee 2020
February 4, 2020: Council passes encroachment ordinance on second reading.

August 12, 2020: 9th Circuit ruling in the Portland case, upholding Moratoria Order and most of the Small Cell Order
September 28, 2020: Coalition of Cities (including Monterey) Petition for the full appellate court to review the ruling in the Portland litigation
October 22, 2020: 9th Circuit denied request to review ruling in the Portland litigation 2021
March 22, 2021: Coalition of Cities petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the ruling in the Portland litigation.

June 28, 2021: U.S. Supreme Court denies request to review 9th Circuit decision in the Portland litigation.
2022
April 26, 2022: First Planning Commission hearing on the Wireless Subcommittee’s draft ordinance.

Staff presented the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission. Ten members of the public provided public comment at the meeting and 22 emails were received.

The Planning Commission continued to June 28, 2022 so staff could review the comments received.

June 28, 2022: Planning Commission meeting was cancelled because, sadly, Joe Van Eaton, Esq. died. Gail Karish, a BB&K telecom partner who worked closely with Mr. Van Eaton, stepped in.

August 9, 2022: Second Planning Commission hearing on the draft ordinance.

Staff presented a revised draft ordinance that included some changes due to the public comments received. Ten members of the public provided public comment and 14 emails were received and posted to the City’s website.

The Commission discussed the ordinance and public comments and made a motion to: continue the item to a date certain of September 13, 2022 to Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 217 allow staff to do an analysis of the Subcommittee draft in comparison to the current proposal to respond to recommendations on a point-by-point basis and explain which recommendations were added to the ordinance and why September 13, 2022: Third Planning Commission hearing on the draft ordinance.

Staff presented:
1) a detailed comparison of the Subcommittee Draft Ordinance to the ordinance presented to the Planning Commission on August 9. The document included approximately 90 endnotes to explain each edit. 2) a matrix responding to questions raised by Commissioner Brassfield as directed by the Planning Commission.
3) Additional information about setbacks, mock-ups, removal bonds, and specific designs
Seven members of the public provided public comment, and six (6) emails were received and posted to the City’s website. The Commission continued to a date certain of September 27, 2022, to allow staff to research and discuss mockups, setbacks, bonds, and specified designs not yet addressed from submitted public comments.

September 27, 2022: Fourth Planning Commission hearing on the draft ordinance Staff presented additional information about (1) setbacks; (2) mock ups; (3) removal bonds; and (4) specific designs.

Eight members of the public provided public comment and nine emails were received and posted to the City’s website.

The Commission continued the item to a date certain of October 25, 2022 to specify that: mockups are not required but photo simulations are required both from a distance and close-up; facilities must be separated by a minimum of 250 feet to avoid visual clutter; distances from schools and residences must be 100 feet minimum excluding situations in which effective prohibition could be proven; and, standardized pole design shall be included in the draft Ordinance.

October 25, 2022: Fifth Planning Commission hearing on the draft ordinance Staff presented the following changes to the ordinance:
 mockups are not required but photo simulations are required both from a distance and close-up
 facilities in the public rights-of-way must be separated by a minimum of 250 feet to avoid visual clutter
Staff recommended that no buffer from schools and residences of 100 feet be included.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 218 Nine (9) members of the public provided public comment, and four (4) emails were received and posted to the City’s website.

The Commission discussed this information and adopted a Resolution (Commissioners Dawson and Brassfield voting no) recommending an Ordinance to the City Council repealing and replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 related to wireless communication facilities as presented, with added conditions that a 100-foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive.

Next Steps
Staff will present the draft ordinance for personal wireless facilities at the February 7, 2023 City Council meeting. No City Council action is requested at this time other than to receive the presentation.

Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2022

2. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2022

3. Planning Commission Minutes, September 13, 2022

4. Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 2022

5. Planning Commission Minutes, October 25, 2022
All public correspondence received during 2022 can be accessed at monterey.org/wireless. e: All Neighborhood and Business Associations
Wireless Interest List
Former Wireless Subcommittee Members
Verizon
AT&T
Comcast
T-Mobile
Dish Wireless
Qualtek Wireless
Jean Rasch
Nina Beety
Susan Nine
Hans Jannasch
Pat Venza
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, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 219

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
April 26, 2022
4:00 PM – 6:30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Freeman, Reed*, Brassfield*, Dawson, Fletcher*, Latasa, Millich* * Participated remotely by videoconference
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, City Attorney Davi, Administrative Assistant Cleary
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-026 C.S.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and Administrative Assistant Cleary provided information to the public on how to participate and provide public comment during the meeting.

1. Meeting Procedures

CONSENT ITEMS
Approval of Minutes

2. April 12, 2022
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

Commissioner Dawson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Commissioner Latasa seconded the motion. Vice Chair Reed said he missed the evening session of April 12, 2022, but will vote to approve the minutes as he was present for the afternoon session.

On a motion by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the April 12, 2022 minutes as submitted:

AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa, Millich
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
***End of Consent Agenda***
DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 220 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday April 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 26, 2022
2 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nina Beety shared concerns that meetings on important matters are scheduled for the afternoon, barring attendance of full-time workers, and the City’s Compatible Use Plan was initiated without transparency. Ms. Beety asked the Planning Commission to act on these concerns as they limit confidence in the City following rules and respecting the public while conducting their business.

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Amending City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8) ACTION: Continued to June 28, 2022.

Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Ms. Cole added suggested continuance of the item to address concerns raised through a high number of public comments. City Attorney Davi was also present and answered Commissioners’ questions.

Responding to Vice Chair Reed’s question, Ms. Cole said mock-ups were proposed to be installed on the subject building or in a cordoned-off area so the public could see the impact, but staff did not recommend this going forward.

Responding to Chair Freeman’s question, City Attorney Davi said School Districts can exempt themselves from City regulations and the City also does not have jurisdiction on Federal land.

Regarding Commissioner Latasa’s question, Ms. Cole said wireless facility applications are treated the same as Major Use Permits, which require a $4,000 deposit to cover costs of staff time, specialized engineers, and outside consultants. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question about the “shot clock” and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Ms. Davi affirmed these items do not need to be recodified in the City’s Wireless Ordinance as they are already codified at the State and Federal level. To Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding noticing, Ms. Cole replied that applicants can either contact the City for a property owner notice list or utilize a private title company. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding mockups and Draft Ordinance, Kim said the Ordinance provides opportunity for pre-approval of certain types of projects and mock-ups may be necessary to show their designs.

Commissioner Dawson said public comments received from Andrew Campanelli and Verizon conflict and asked how to resolve this issue since they are both considered experts in the field.

Ms. Cole said the City uses legal staff specializing in telecommunication laws to provide independent advice to the City on these issues.

To Commissioner Millich’s question about the Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance Report, Ms.

Cole confirmed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standard is the standard cellular providers must meet.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 221 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday April 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 26, 2022
3 The Planning Commission requested staff review the following items on the Draft Wireless Ordinance (Exhibit A to Draft Resolution):
• Page 4, Section 3 – The abbreviations “ALUC” and “FAA” should be mentioned as “Airport Land Use Commission” and “Federal Aviation Administration” the first time referenced and abbreviated in subsequent references.
• Page 4, Section 3.b-3.d – Consider rewording “The City shall refer objects…to the ALUC and FAA” for clarity.
• Page 5, Section D.2.a – Consider specifying “appropriate engineer” since there are three types of engineers discussed in the text.
• Page 7, Section E.3.d – Paragraph title is missing.
• Page 7, Section E.3.e.iv – Consider language outlining what will be done to address aging camouflage and colors changing from exposure to the elements. • Page 7, Section E.3.f – This section is not formatted in a sentence and other sections include sentences.
• Page 9, Section E.3.m.i – Consider rewording the last sentence of paragraph for clarity. • Page 9, Section E.3.m.ii.d – Consider specifying who sworn statements are from. • Page 10, Section E.3.p – Consider clarifying the statement “Information regarding the radio units that will be installed at the site, including the manufacturer’s name and manufacturer’s specifications…” as equipment make and model could change. • Page 11, Section E.3.u – Consider rewording “a permit must issue” for clarity. • Page 11, Section E.3.u.v – Consider specifying that coverage maps must include areas outside the City.
• Page 11, Section E.3.u.v – Regarding service coverage maps, consider that if certain areas show need for increased service capability, a wireless facility could be placed on another political entity’s land instead of under City jurisdiction. • Page 13, Section 4.d – Title uses phrase – Facilities Should Permit Collocation. Is the word should needed?
• Pages 15-16, Section E.5.b – Text uses the word “unless” in regard to denial. Consider changing to reflect approval or denial.
• Page 16, Section E.5.c – Consider rewording for clarity so meaning is more definitive. • Page 17, Section E.7.c – Consider specifying who makes the consideration and what guidelines the decision is based on.
• Page 18, Section E.7.g.ii – Clarify that the 50-inch maximum height refers to height of equipment and not height off the ground.
• Page 18, Section E.7.g.ii – Consider starting with a requirement that the equipment is “the smallest size possible” as some other approved sites are substantial in size. • Page 20, Section 7.l – Consider ADA (sidewalk width)
• Page 21, Section F.8.a – Is attractive nuisance the correct word? • Page 21, Section F.9.a – Consider rewording the first sentence for clarity. • Page 30, Section P – Consider specifying “shall” and “must” are equivalent in meaning. • Provide information about how a coverage gap affects the right for poles. • Consider setbacks such as Calabasas Ordinance
• Entire Draft Ordinance – Includes the word “should” 18 times and “encourages” three times. Consider changing to stronger language.
• Entire Draft Ordinance – Find the word “may” or “may not” and change to be stronger.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 222 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday April 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 26, 2022
4 • Mock up – Consider requiring mock-ups but they do not have to installed in the field on a building or pole.

Public Comments
Former Wireless Subcommittee Member Susan Nine expressed concern with the number of changes in the Draft Ordinance as the City Council said the Subcommittee’s work would last.

She requested that mock-ups, community noticing, wind testing, and regulating facility colocation be included in the Ordinance and suggested changing “should” to “shall” throughout.

Monterey resident Ray Meyers spoke of electromagnetic radiation and said he had reviewed wireless applications that were misleading and lacking information. He suggested applications be required to contain complete information and be reviewed by an independent RF engineer.

Monterey resident Gina Jett said the proposed Ordinance is weak and more information is available regarding rules for cell towers in residential areas. She spoke of attorney Andrew Campanelli and the need for an iron-clad Wireless Ordinance, and recommended that the City of Monterey follow the City of Carmel’s lead and hire Mr. Campanelli for Draft Ordinance review.

Pat Venza, Monterey Vista Neighborhood resident, said when 13 wireless facilities were previously proposed for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, drive-by testing was done to confirm wireless coverage in the area. She suggested this requirement be added to the Ordinance so the City would not have to rely on potentially inaccurate computer-generated maps.

Laurie Putnam said she lives in Monterey directly across from a cell tower permitted and she suggested the Ordinance include requirements for monitoring Conditions of Approval. It is an undue burden for residents to do the monitoring.

Daniel Dotterrer, Monterey Vista Neighborhood resident and member of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA), spoke of the 13 previously proposed Extenet wireless facilities, suggesting he supports everything included in the Association’s public comment. Mr.

Dotterrer suggested utilizing as strong as possible local control and input from the community.

Hans Jannasch, Monterey Vista Neighborhood resident and MVNA member, also spoke of the Extenet wireless facilities and said it is important to require mock-ups, even if not on the structure itself. Mr. Jannasch also said it is important to mark each pole where a facility will be added and suggested further examination of the City of Calabasas’s setback requirements.

Monterey Vista resident Jean Rasch showed appreciation for the advanced Agenda Packet publication. She said the neighborhood is still less represented in the Ordinance than preferred and suggested it be as restrictive as possible for time, place, manner, and aesthetics. Ms. Rasch said 1,000-foot setbacks, notice of temporary cell facilities, and correct scientific documents should all be required. She also suggested that the City utilize Mr. Campanelli and his team.

Monterey Resident Nina Beety said all residents including renters and business owners should be notified of wireless applications instead of only property owners and suggested the notice radius be increased to 500-1,000 feet. She also said it is helpful when reading an Ordinance to have all the laws included even if they are already codified elsewhere. Ms. Beety suggested generic poles can be erected on City property allowing companies to post mock-up equipment.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 223 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday April 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 26, 2022
5 She also said the Draft Ordinance presented is not the Subcommittee’s draft, but rather Staff’s draft, and that the Subcommittee’s draft should be brought back.

Marcello Cosentino, Monterey Vista Neighborhood resident, said he is opposed to having small cell towers in the neighborhood littering the scenic vistas and suggested small cell towers are dangerous for humans and wildlife. Mr. Cosentino suggested all projects with view, noise, or environmental impacts undergo California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.

Commissioner Comments
Ms. Davi announced that Joseph Van Eaton and Gail Karish of Best, Best, and Krieger have significant expertise and were present to answer questions.

Commissioner Dawson said the Wireless Subcommittee was disbanded a year and a half ago and a lot has happened around small cell towers since then. He asked Mr. Van Eaton and Ms.

Karish if they could summarize those changes. Mr. Van Eaton said one of the largest issues is the FCC’s decision that a significant gap in coverage and least intrusive alternatives are no longer the test to determine cell tower location. He also said another issue is the number of changes the FCC made to provisions relating to concealment versus stealth, meaning an operator may be able to ignore an adopted concealment condition unless clear Conditions of Approval with timelines are set forth and made obvious for each project. Ms. Karish added that implementation has moved to litigation, so there are more areas where the laws or FCC orders are not entirely clear and are subject to different interpretations. She also said there is starting to be more litigation to resolve ambiguities in the law, but that is at a very early stage.

Commissioner Millich said it is important to get as much protection as possible for the residential areas and suggested the Commission concentrate on making clear what is and is not allowed.

Commissioner Brassfield said he is gratified to hear what Mr. Van Eaton had to say and he is glad people went to the meeting to discuss the matter. He noted that there is only a certain amount of time to address these issues and he appreciates everyone’s efforts.

Vice Chair Reed said he feels mock-ups are a necessary part of the Ordinance, even if it is a small mock-up that can be done in a way that makes sense and is not regressive to the applicant.

He stated he did not review the video suggested by public commenters because as a Planning Commissioner he believes it best to listen to advice given by the City Attorney and attorneys provided by the City. He also recommended that a new single-color redline version of the Draft Ordinance be prepared and circulated for clarity. Vice Chair Reed agreed that something must be done to protect the citizens and that the public comments are helpful, but suggested it is necessary to listen to guidance of the experts being provided.

Commissioner Fletcher said a tremendous amount of work went into the Draft Ordinance over the past few years and he appreciates everyone’s efforts. He said he also appreciates all the comments submitted and said they have been helpful in considering the issues.

Commissioner Latasa said the shot clock is unreasonable and unrealistic and asked if any municipalities have tried to challenge it. Mr. Van Eaton said the issue was raised unsuccessfully twice by a group of municipalities, including the City of Monterey, before the Ninth Circuit Court.

Commissioner Latasa asked about the City of Calabasas’s setbacks and Mr. Van Eaton said creating setbacks could leave the City with no areas for wireless facilities, making it easy for DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 224 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday April 26, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday April 26, 2022
6 cellular carriers to win in Court. Ms. Karish said setbacks are challenging because when carriers look at the rules they examine the cumulative impact of all the rules. Commissioner Latasa concurred with Vice Chair Reed that a model should be required to help the public understand how proposed facilities will look.

Chair Freeman said many of the submitted comment letters had overarching opinions and some had specific recommendations. She said that as the specific suggestions seem simple it may be easy to determine feasibility. Chair Freeman also suggested that in lieu of a mock-up it may be appropriate to have applicants give an address of an existing installment similar to their proposal.

She noted satellites will supersede wireless in the future, rendering cell towers pointless, but agreed the Ordinance should be as tight as possible to protect neighborhoods and schools.

Vice Chair Reed motioned to continue the item to May 24, 2022. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. The Planning Commission discussed their planned absences over the next scheduled meetings and decided by consensus to continue the item to June 28, 2022, allowing all Commissioners to attend. Vice Chair Reed amended the motion and moved to continue the item to June 28, 2022. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the amended motion.

On a motion by Vice Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to June 28, 2022:

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS

4. Planning Office Update
Update received.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole
Community Development Director
Chair
Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: 272EDBAD-520E-45ED-884C-4BBBA20E8D2E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 225

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
August 09, 2022
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER

AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Fletcher, Brassfield*, Dawson*, Freeman, Latasa, Millich* Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, City Attorney Davi*, Recording Secretary Cleary
* Participated remotely by videoconference
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 the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID19 pandemic.

CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Fletcher called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and Recording Secretary Cleary explained to the public how to participate and provide public comment during the meeting.

1. Meeting Procedures

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING

2. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Repealing and Replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities Exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8) ACTION: Continued to the September 13, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole introduced the item, provided background information regarding the Wireless Ordinance process and status, and answered Commissioner questions.

Gail Karish, Legal Consultant from Best Best & Krieger, provided further details regarding recent legal proceedings involving wireless facilities. Ms. Karish, Ms. Cole, and City Attorney Davi answered Commissioner questions throughout the presentations.

Commissioner Latasa requested a description of the Wireless Subcommittee’s membership.

Ms. Cole supplied details.

Commissioner Millich asked if the City could ban 5G poles in residential areas that are high risk of fire and unable to get fire insurance. Ms. Karish explained the Public Utilities Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AFF2BCC-B9C6-4D9B-9ED7-79956C0AC436 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 226 sets safety requirements for installations of communications and power infrastructure and there are orders addressed by them that specify what a safe structure is.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about Ms. Karish’s work with the City of Carmel and noticing requirements. Ms. Karish provided information. Ms. Davi added that the City of Monterey has notice provisions in the City Code that are applicable to all Use Permits.

Commissioner Freeman asked clarifying questions regarding aesthetics of colocation. Ms.

Karish explained colocation is often preferred to maximize use of existing antennas rather than adding more sites and specified that requirements are in place to ensure utility poles are safe.

Ms. Cole provided background information regarding the Subcommittee’s thoughts on this.

Commissioner Freeman inquired further. Ms. Cole explained the goal in the current proposal is to utilize existing poles.

Commissioner Brassfield asked questions regarding logistics of potential prohibitions. Ms.

Karish explained State Law says the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the only agency to establish standards for safe Radio Frequency (RF) emission and at a local level the City can ensure compliance with existing FCC guidelines and added that local governments cannot regulate based on concerns for RF emissions while applications demonstrate compliance with existing FCC standards.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if there is a cumulative effect of colocation and if the City could effectively object to the number of cell towers in various areas. Ms. Karish described limitations and potential solutions associated with this idea.

Public Comments
Christy Hollenbeck claimed the draft ordinance is not strong enough to protect the City and recommended wireless carriers be required to prove significant gaps in services.

Jeanna Jett suggested residents do not want wireless cell facilities in residential communities and urged the City to hire a new law firm as the Subcommittee’s work is outdated.

Pat Venza expressed confusion with the direction of the ordinance, requested answers to comments and questions submitted by the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, and suggested denying applications that do not prove a significant gap in coverage exists.

Barbara Moore requested that Staff go through the draft ordinance to explain where it differs from the original and provide an analysis describing why recommendations were not followed.

Marta Kraftzeck asked the Commission not to recommend the ordinance as it needs the strongest language possible to deter cell towers near schools and residents.

Former Wireless Subcommittee member Susan Nine said Ms. Karish’s analysis differed from those of other attorneys and suggested Carmel required a significant gap analysis. Ms. Nine supplied reasons why wireless facilities should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AFF2BCC-B9C6-4D9B-9ED7-79956C0AC436 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 227 Nina Beety suggested Staff has not provided the existing ordinance and requested the Planning Commission not to approve this version because ADA section A.2 is missing, the redline version was provided in black and white, and fair housing issues have not been addressed.

Ray Meyers urged the Planning Commission to reject the ordinance, explained wireless regulations have remained the same since 1996 despite modern technology changes, and highlighted needs for evaluation methods, safety verification, graphics showing radiation in twodimensional view, measurements of EMF after installation, and random inspections to verify compliance.

Laurie Putnam claimed conditions are not monitored at a cell tower in the New Monterey neighborhood and suggested investigation to ensure compliance, urging the Commission to find more ways to monitor sites after permits are issued.

Jean Rasch, MVNA president, suggested citizens need the advocacy of the Planning Commission, more dialogue, and responses to the Neighborhood’s submitted comments. Ms.

Rasch asked the Commission not to approve the draft ordinance as MVNA concerns have not yet been addressed.

Vice Chair Fletcher called a five-minute recess and reopened the meeting at 9:16 p.m.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Latasa said the public members of the Subcommittee seemed disappointed and agreed that nothing was provided showing what recommendations were rejected and why.

Commissioner Brassfield said MVNA has been consistent, and the repeat comments were overwhelming, and suggested looking at each recommendation to compare them with the existing and proposed ordinances.

Commissioner Millich asserted that City Attorney staff is doing their best to withstand legal challenge and suggested that tying fire hazard areas to global warming and health and safety is a justified action. Commissioner Brassfield agreed and suggested that when changes are made there should be an explanation.

Commissioner Freeman claimed the public comments downgraded the proposed ordinance, asked why the Subcommittee’s recommendations were not followed, and suggested an analysis of the Subcommittee’s ordinance versus staff recommendation to explain which changes the public were interested in and weighing whether they could be added to the ordinance.

Commissioner Latasa spoke in favor of providing an analysis for the public. Vice Chair Fletcher agreed, citing the need to be sure everyone understands clearly. Ms. Davi provided further details regarding the process and legal limitations.

Commissioner Millich suggested providing a comparison of the Subcommittee draft ordinance and the current proposed draft to exhibit what can or cannot be included and why. Vice Chair Fletcher agreed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AFF2BCC-B9C6-4D9B-9ED7-79956C0AC436 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 228 Commissioner Millich said there are mistakes in the Agenda Packet. Ms. Cole requested an email showing which spelling and grammatical errors need corrections.

Commissioner Latasa motioned to continue the item with conditions to return with a point-bypoint comparison between the two drafts, and Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion.

Commissioner Millich requested adding a requirement to review the City’s ability to deny or oppose 5G poles based on a lack of fire insurance in a high fire hazard area.

Commissioner Latasa amended the motion to include Commissioner Millich’s suggestion.

Discussion followed regarding specifics of the information requested to be included and why.

Ms. Cole restated the amended motion for clarity. Commissioner Freeman seconded the amended motion.

Ms. Cleary stated a date of continuance was not determined and advised selecting a date certain or tabling instead of continuing the item. Ms. Cole suggested continuing the item to September 13, 2022. The motion maker and seconder agreed to add this date to the motion for continuance.

On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of September 13, 2022 to allow staff to do an analysis of the Subcommittee draft in comparison to the current proposal to respond to recommendations on a point-by-point basis and explain which recommendations were added to the ordinance and why:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa, Millich
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Brassfield suggested answering questions submitted for public comment. Ms.

Cole suggested the Commission typically combs through comments and recommends what Staff should focus on and requested direction toward policy issues to explore in more detail.

Commissioner Brassfield offered to organize comments submitted for the August 09, 2022 meeting into a list for Staff reference.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Brassfield asked how the Wireless Subcommittee’s checklist is working. Ms. Cole said the Planning Commission received the checklist in 2019 with a goal to review the checklist for compliance after the ordinance is completed to make sure it complies with the new ordinance.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AFF2BCC-B9C6-4D9B-9ED7-79956C0AC436 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 229

4. Planning Office Update
• Update received.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole
Community Development Director
Vice Chair
Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AFF2BCC-B9C6-4D9B-9ED7-79956C0AC436 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 20, Packet Page 230

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
September 13, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER

AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Fletcher, Millich*, Freeman, Brassfield*, Dawson, Latasa * Participated remotely by videoconference
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, City Attorney Davi (evening session only), Recording Secretary Cleary
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 the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID19 pandemic. ***Afternoon Session Agenda***
4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

CONSENT ITEMS
Approval of Minutes

2. July 26, 2022
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

On a motion by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the April 27, 2022 Minutes as submitted:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich*, Freeman, Brassfield*, Dawson, Latasa
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 21, Packet Page 231 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
2 RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
***End of Consent Agenda***

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Consider 350 Calle Principal Use Permit UP-22-0135 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Adam Ehrlich, J5 Infrastructure Partners on behalf of Dish; Owner: San Carlos Associates, a California Partnership; VAF Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 ACTION: Continued the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022, pending further detailed drawings on elevations of the three locations of the wireless antennas. Applicant agreed to waive the shot clock.

Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Wireless Application Consultant Jerry Hittleman presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Dawson asked if 5G emits a stronger signal than 4G. Mr. Hittleman explained the signal is stronger but only the Radio Frequency (RF) Report could say by how much.

Commissioner Latasa shared concerns regarding safety at the upper-level hotel rooms and inquired about the higher RF emission areas. Mr. Hittleman explained the diagrams in Exhibit D. Vice Chair Fletcher suggested the elevation was drawn incorrectly as the drawings are inconsistent. Commissioner Latasa agreed and said the plans do not reflect the building accurately. Commissioner Brassfield agreed, and the matter was discussed further.

Commissioner Brassfield requested clarification regarding the definition of significant change.

Ms. Cole explained Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations define 6409 applications and outlined applicable criteria and processes for 6409 application evaluations.

Applicant
Applicant Adam Ehrlich was present to answer questions.

Jeff Diether, on behalf of Dish, confirmed antennas broadcast out away from the building and added that 5G broadcasts differently and more directly towards the receiver.

Commissioner Dawson expressed concerns regarding the scale of the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) and asked if it would be broadcast vertically into the hotel rooms. Mr. Diether suggested the drawing included a scale of Electromagnetic Energy (EME) distribution. Ms. Cole asked if Dish would agree to halt the review shot clock to amend the exposure drawings and more accurately show exposure areas, suggesting the Commission could not tell if top rooms are affected as they are not shown on the drawings . Mr. Diether confirmed Dish could pause the shot clock to provide more accurate EME details and asked what other information the Commission may need.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 22, Packet Page 232 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
3 Commissioner Brassfield questioned the difference in power between 4G and 5G. Mr. Diether explained.

Vice Chair Millich asked how long the shot clock would be halted. Ms. Cole offered potential continuation dates and corresponding deadlines.

Commissioner Latasa described inaccuracies of the RF Radius depictions and requested elevation drawings for Franklin and Calle Principal that show the antenna in relation to the tan part of the building. Mr. Diether confirmed that information could be provided.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Freeman moved to continue the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022, pending further detailed drawings on elevations of the three locations of the wireless capsules.

Vice Chair Millich Seconded the motion.

Vice Chair Millich requested that the record show the shot clock timeframe has been waived by the applicant. Vice Chair Fletcher agreed.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Vice Chair Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission, with the applicant agreeing to waive shot clock deadlines, continued the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022, pending further detailed drawings on elevations of the three locations of the wireless capsules:

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

4. Consider 600 Hawthorne Street Use Permit UP-22-0165 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Adam Ehrlich, J5 Infrastructure Partners on behalf of Dish; Owner: First Baptist Church of Monterey c/o Nathan M. Rehn; R-3 Zoning District; Residential – Medium General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; Recommended for Continuance to September 27, 2022
ACTION: Continued to a date certain of September 27, 2022 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole recommended continuing the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022 to allow Staff time to analyze new submittal materials received.

Applicant
None.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 23, Packet Page 233 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
4 Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
None.

On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson, Latasa
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS 5:30 p.m.
***End of Afternoon Session Agenda***
The Planning Commission recessed at 4:53 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
***Evening Session Agenda***
7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVENING)

5. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Repealing and Replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities Exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8) ACTION: Continued to a date certain of September 27, 2022, to research and discuss mockups, setbacks, bonds, and specified designs not yet addressed from submitted public comments
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 24, Packet Page 234 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
5 Community Development Director Cole introduced the item and summarized the current Draft Wireless Ordinance process and status. Legal Consultant Gail Karish provided further details.

Ms. Karish, Ms. Cole, and City Attorney Davi answered Commissioner questions throughout.

Commissioner Freeman identified primary issues raised via public comment and said all were addressed except for administrative permits for temporary cell phone towers, mock-ups, and Planning Commission oversight on submittal forms. Ms. Cole discussed these concerns.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about Subsection E of Exhibit A and how hotel residents are considered. Ms. Cole provided details and examples, explaining the Ordinance encourages wireless facilities in mixed use and commercial areas over residential neighborhoods.

Commissioner Latasa requested more information regarding effective prohibition. Ms. Cole explained carriers could go before the Planning Commission to prove there is an effective prohibition if they wish to apply in an area the City has prohibited or discouraged these facilities.

Vice Chair Millich asked for clarification regarding significant gaps in coverage. Ms. Karish elaborated on the matter. Ms. Davi added that the draft Ordinance does not define “gap in coverage” but instead states an effective prohibition is as the Ninth Circuit tells us it is.

Commissioner Latasa suggested revising the word showing.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about eligible facilities. Ms. Karish explained. Ms. Cole added that 6409 applications are Eligible Facilities Requests and that the draft Ordinance uses FCC definitions.

Commissioner Latasa questioned if a third-party testing process is described in the Ordinance and what the procedure would be. Ms. Cole provided details.

Commissioner Latasa asked what drive test data is. Ms. Cole suggested drive test data is one of many ways to demonstrate effective prohibition and if used the Planning Commission would evaluate results to determine if antennas should be allowed in prohibited or discouraged areas.

Commissioner Latasa asked if the Planning Commission could require mock-ups. Ms. Cole explained it could be a submittal requirement and shared concerns of implementation challenges.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about a comment letter regarding district courts. Ms. Karish provided details, specifying that any Ninth Circuit Court must comply with Ninth Circuit rulings.

Commissioner Brassfield expressed frustration that presiding laws limit the ability to support citizens’ wants and suggested including a cautionary statement in the Ordinance outlining concerns for public health and safety. Ms. Cole referenced the provided cautionary statement example and discussed options.

Vice Chair Millich requested clarification regarding setbacks. Ms. Cole supplied further information. Vice Chair Millich advocated for requiring setbacks from homes and schools.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 25, Packet Page 235 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
6 Vice Chair Millich suggested requiring performance bonds to ensure poles are removed when they are no longer in use.

Public Comments
Jean Rasch, on behalf of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA), urged the Planning Commission to work with the City of Carmel, add drive testing requirements, and assign all costs and responsibilities to vendors.

Susan Nine expressed concern for general misunderstandings of current telecommunications laws, suggesting Grant of Authority provides absolute authority over placement of wireless cell towers unless applicants prove effective prohibition exists. Ms. Nine suggested seeking specialized opinions regarding interpretation of the law.

Judy Schmidt said cell coverage in Monterey is horrible despite drive test indications, asked what percentage of the population actively opposes cell towers, and suggested the group does not reflect views of the whole of Monterey.

Marta Kraftzeck requested the strongest possible ordinance to protect residents and said the current draft is not strong enough as it acquiesces impacts to views by antennas and polemounted equipment.

Pat Venza of Monterey Vista Neighborhood suggested specifying how to collect drive test data to ensure accurate results, expressed confusion with Ninth Circuit requirements, and requested establishment of follow-up measures to ensure Conditions of Approval are followed.

Christy Hollenbeck suggested the Telecommunications Act maintains local authority over decisions of placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities, and alleged that although the City cannot establish effective prohibition it can select the least intrusive placement.

Jeana Jett reiterated previous complaints, questioned the draft Ordinance’s strength, claimed residences are unprotected from potential property devaluation, risk of urban fire and topheavy utility poles, and threats to health, and insisted on a stronger wireless ordinance.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Freeman suggested the previous draft did not entirely reflect Subcommittee concerns or some of the community’s issues and spoke in support of the current draft as it provides answers to questions and concerns raised by the public in previous meetings.

Commissioner Latasa agreed with Commissioner Freeman, spoke in favor of enforcing setbacks from school property lines, confirmed the Ordinance discourages wireless facilities in neighborhoods, noted frustration that health effects of RF emissions were not addressed, and suggested the Ordinance is close but not finished.

Vice Chair Millich shared Commissioner Brassfield’s concerns regarding capability versus necessity and asserted he would support the Ordinance only if it requires a 250-foot setback from school properties and residentially zoned properties. Ms. Davi provided guidance and advised that some schools want wireless facilities on campus as some children do not have DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 26, Packet Page 236 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
7 internet access away from school. Ms. Karish added that the map included with the analysis shows that having that level of setback could result in effective prohibition. Vice Chair Millich suggested enforcing a severability clause and changing the setback amount and restated he would not support the Ordinance without a setback requirement.

Vice Chair Fletcher asked Commissioner Latasa whether he would prefer mockups be included with submittal or addressed at the Planning Commission phase. Commissioner Latasa echoed Ms. Cole, saying all requirements should be included at the Ordinance level, and asked if the City could require mockups only for specific types of applications. Vice Chair Fletcher advocated for establishing an ability to ensure complete understanding of each facility to allow proper analysis. Ms. Cole explained the Ordinance allows the City to regulate aesthetics, summarized the Subcommittee’s thoughts on the matter, and confirmed it is possible to create specific allowed equipment designs.

Commissioner Brassfield agreed with Vice Chair Millich’s suggestion regarding setbacks and spoke in support of the rest of the Ordinance.

Vice Chair Millich moved to continue the item to the next feasible date so feedback can be provided regarding setbacks from schools. Ms. Cole proposed September 27, 2022.

Commissioner Freeman and Chair Fletcher asked Vice Chair Millich to include in the motion issues of mockups, setbacks, and specified designs that had not been addressed from submitted public comments. Vice Chair Millich added all three items to the motion.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about bonding. Ms. Karish stated the City could require removal bonds. Commissioner Latasa suggested that is not a bad idea. Commissioner Freeman agreed. Commissioners concurred with adding bonds to the issues to be researched.

Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion to continue the item to September 27, 2022 with included information regarding the three topics not responded to from public comment.

On a motion by Vice Chair Millich, seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of September 27, 2022, to research and discuss mockups, setbacks, bonds and specified designs not yet addressed from submitted public comments:

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

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 27, Packet Page 237 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 13, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 13, 2022
8 Commissioner Brassfield requested status updates regarding various topics. Ms. Karish provided updates.

Commissioner Dawson shared concerns for access to PG&E equipment designs. Ms. Cole suggested information is available.

Vice Chair Millich requested photos be provided of collocated poles.

Commissioner Freeman noted commenters had come prepared with pre-written comments.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if a wireless engineer could be required to be available for questions at public hearings. Chair Fletcher agreed. Ms. Davi advised against discussing agendized items during the Commissioner Comment period.

Commissioner Latasa requested that vantage points from application photos be less than three blocks away.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Update received.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole
Community Development Director
Chair
Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: C24065B7-B527-4E56-9796-9A99BB896AB8 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 28, Packet Page 238

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
September 27, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER

AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Millich, Brassfield*, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa Commissioners Absent: Fletcher
* Participated remotely by videoconference
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, City Attorney Davi (evening session only), Recording Secretary Cleary
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 the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID19 pandemic. ***Afternoon Session Agenda***
4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Millich, serving as meeting Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

CONSENT ITEMS
Approval of Minutes

2. August 23, 2022
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

On a motion by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the August 23, 2022 Minutes as submitted:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 29, Packet Page 239 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
2 RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
***End of Consent Agenda***

PUBLIC HEARING

4. Consider 600 Hawthorne Street Use Permit UP-22-0165 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Adam Ehrlich, J5 Infrastructure Partners on behalf of Dish; Owner: First Baptist Church of Monterey c/o Nathan M. Rehn; R-3 Zoning District; Residential – Medium General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 ACTION: Approved Use Permit UP-22-0165 to allow modifications to an existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility at 600 Hawthorne Street, pursuant to findings and conditions submitted in the Agenda Report Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Wireless Application Consultant Jerry Hittleman presented the Agenda Report. Community Development Director Cole and Mr. Hittleman answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about worker safety near the proposed antennas. Mr. Hittleman explained the equipment could be turned off if needed and signage would be required. Ms.

Cole added that all signage would have to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.

Commissioner Freeman asked if the proposal would be considered a stealth facility. Mr.

Hittleman confirmed it would.

Applicant
Applicant Adam Ehrlich was present to answer questions.

Jeff Diether, on behalf of Dish, alleged a Point of Contact sign would include a phone number to the network operations center that could shut the site down remotely or create a shutdown schedule for worker access.

Commissioner Dawson asked if signage would be posted at the roof’s edge instead of solely near the cupola. Mr. Diether explained sign placement would be taken into consideration at the engineering phase and signage must follow Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for safe access. Ms. Cole iterated signage requirements.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if master switches are available or if the equipment must be turned off remotely. Mr. Diether suggested it would be done electronically through the Cloud.

Mr. Ehrlich added that three warning signs would be posted to the outer wall of the cupola.

Public Comments
None.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 30, Packet Page 240 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
3 Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dawson asked if this is a 6409 application. Ms. Cole confirmed it is.

Commissioner Dawson suggested that since 6409 applies there is a Federal law saying the project must be approved no matter what. Ms. Cole explained the criteria that defines 6409 applications. Commissioner Dawson and Vice Chair Millich asked clarifying questions regarding the process. Ms. Cole provided details.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit UP-22-0165 to allow modifications to an existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility at 600 Hawthorne Street, pursuant to findings and conditions submitted in the Agenda Report:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Brassfield*, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

5. Consider 350 Calle Principal Use Permit Amendment PA-22-0135 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Adam Ehrlich, J5 Infrastructure Partners on behalf of Dish; Owner: San Carlos Associates, a California Partnership; VAF Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; Recommended for Continuance to October 11, 2022 ACTION: Continued to a date certain of October 11, 2022 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole recommended continuing the item to a date certain of October 11, 2022.

Applicant
Applicants Adam Ehrlich and Jeff Diether were present to answer questions.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
None.

On a motion by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Latasa and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of October 11, 2022:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Brassfield*, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 31, Packet Page 241 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
4 ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS 5:30 p.m.
***End of Afternoon Session Agenda***
The Planning Commission recessed at 4:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with the same Commissioners present as noted above.
***Evening Session Agenda***
7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVENING)

6. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Repealing and Replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities Exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8) ACTION: Continued the item to a date certain of October 25, 2022 to specify that:
mockups are not required but photo simulations are required both from a distance and close-up; facilities must be separated by a minimum of 250 feet to avoid visual clutter; distances from schools and residences must be 100 feet minimum excluding situations in which effective prohibition could be proven; and, standardized pole design shall be included in the draft Ordinance
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole introduced the item, summarized the current Draft Wireless Ordinance process and status, and presented new information. Legal Consultant Gail Karish provided further details. Ms. Karish, Ms. Cole, and City Attorney Davi answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Brassfield suggested requiring applicants to provide better photo simulations than one- or two-dimensional images, asked if distance between facilities could be regulated, and spoke in support of including drive-by data requirements in the Ordinance.

Commissioner Freeman asked if there was a suggested setback distance from schools. Ms.

Cole stated 150 feet was suggested in public comment and shared concern for legal risks.

Commissioner Freeman spoke in favor of pole-mounted styles and suggested considering the wires rather than distance or height.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 32, Packet Page 242 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
5 Commissioner Latasa inquired about requiring scale models or mockups on an as-needed basis. Ms. Cole advised that all requirements should be included in the submission checklist.

Ms. Karish suggested possible solutions and specifics were discussed regarding possibilities and limitations. Commissioner Latasa suggested requiring applicants to submit photo simulations with both a street view and a close-up view to allow the ability to understand project size and scope. Ms. Cole clarified that is achievable, provided examples of what could be required, and said another option is to select design by location or area. Commissioner Latasa asked if the Subcommittee had preferred utilizing existing poles. Ms. Cole confirmed they did.

Ms. Karish added that there is a section in the Draft Ordinance regarding pre-approval of designs.

Commissioner Dawson asked why the FCC does not require drive-by testing for wireless service facilities. Ms. Karish provided details, explaining it cannot be required for some types of applications.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if there are any conflicts in FCC rules and the Charter written by Congress and inquired about proof of significant gaps in coverage. Ms. Karish explained.

Vice Chair Millich recommended utilizing performance bonds to ensure applicants remove unused equipment and suggested amending the setback language over consideration for effective prohibition. Ms. Karish listed legal concerns and example outcomes.

Commissioner Latasa asked about requiring setbacks from residential structures instead of property lines. Ms. Cole explained possible challenges, suggesting structures change more commonly than property lines. Commissioner Latasa expressed concern for proximity of poles to residences. Ms. Cole stated the Ordinance prohibits wireless facilities in residential areas unless effective prohibition is proven.

Ms. Davi provided information regarding the City’s Public Works performance bonds stating they are only required for projects over $150,000.

Public Comments
Nancy Soulé read a previously submitted public comment raising concerns regarding safety hazards, financial risk, and cost responsibility.

Pat Venza of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association requested clarification regarding requirements of drive test data, suggested requiring mock-ups for proposals in residential areas, and suggested potential spaces to house those mockups.

Christy Hollenbeck suggested gathering multiple perspectives regarding legal possibilities and limits, claimed the Ordinance is unenforceable, and urged the Planning Commission to rethink setbacks and significant gaps in coverage.

Marta Kraftzeck suggested the proposal is not strong enough to prevent 5G throughout the City, recommended that the Ordinance require drive test data, opposed allowing increased antenna height and size due to visual impact, and requested protection from the telecommunications industry.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 33, Packet Page 243 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
6 Susan Nine recommended that the City collect call data from wireless companies, supplied reasons why setback requirements from schools and residential properties are preferred, and spoke in favor of maintaining the lowest height limit from the current Ordinance.

Charles Martin spoke in favor of maintaining the beauty and character of the City, alleging that as Monterey is not a technological center it could withstand more stringent requirements and wireless costs could be paid by applicants.

Jean Rasch spoke in favor of enforcing setbacks between poles, advocated for enforcing the smallest maximum equipment size possible, shared concerns regarding enforcing a specific design, and thanked Staff for adding claims for effective prohibition.

Laurie Putnam, from New Monterey, suggested focusing on post-approval processes and compliance enforcement, outlining instances where previously approved projects failed to maintain compliance with approved conditions.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brassfield proposed adhering to advice from the provided legal counsel, articulated concerns regarding public preference conflicting with legal limitations, argued that young people want cell towers and data, and supported the idea of performance bonds.

Vice Chair Millich recessed the meeting at 8:31 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m. with the same five Commissioners present.

Commissioner Freeman summarized public comments not yet addressed including postapproval monitoring and compliance enforcement, ensuring safety and development standards especially on collocated poles, selecting maximum equipment dimensions, and establishing an effective maintenance program.

Commissioner Latasa agreed that the Ordinance is close but not perfect, spoke in favor of requiring photo simulations from two separate angles, suggested the Commission select a minimum distance between facilities, advocated for a 150-foot setback from schools, requested feedback on standardized pole designs, and agreed with Commissioner Freeman regarding maximum equipment size.

Commissioner Dawson showed support for enforcing a minimum distance between poles and creating a standardized pole design. Vice Chair Millich advised considering colocation.

Commissioner Dawson suggested contacting regional authorities like PG&E or the School District to understand their positions on the matter.

Vice Chair Millich reiterated his performance bond suggestion, spoke in favor of a 150-foot setback from schools but not from residences, and advocated for protecting the residents.

Commissioner Dawson cautioned against cluttering neighborhoods with new poles.

Commissioner Freeman agreed and suggested a minimum distance between facilities is key.

Commissioner Latasa requested input regarding setbacks. Ms. Cole suggested requiring setbacks between facilities for aesthetic reasons is feasible. Commissioner Brassfield brought DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 34, Packet Page 244 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
7 up legal concerns. Ms. Karish provided insight. Commissioner Freeman asked Ms. Karish to recommend a reasonable distance. Ms. Karish provided examples and said a common range is 150 to 500 feet between antenna facilities.

Commissioner Dawson suggested having a consultant perform the drive tests to ensure more trustworthy data.

Commissioner Latasa spoke in favor of enforcing setbacks in residential areas. Vice Chair Millich suggested mandating a 150-foot setback.

Commissioner Latasa inquired about the additional pole height and width issue. Ms. Cole disclosed how the proposed measurements were determined. Ms. Karish supplied details regarding equipment makeup. Commissioner Dawson advocated for taking the safest option.

Commissioner Latasa motioned to continue the item to a date certain to specify that: mockups are not required but photo simulations are required both from a distance and close-up; facilities must be separated by a minimum of 250 feet; distances from schools and residences must be 100 feet minimum; and, standardized pole design shall be included in the draft Ordinance.

Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion. Vice Chair Millich suggested adding to the 100- foot setback an exception requiring applicants to provide clear and convincing evidence of effective prohibition where applicable. Ms. Cole requested clarification. Commissioner Latasa elaborated.

Commissioner Freeman suggested stating the City will establish a standardized pole design in the future. Commissioner Latasa revised the motion to include the suggestion.

Recording Secretary Cleary repeated the motion for clarity. Commissioner Latasa specified that the 100-foot setback from facilities and residences should include the Vice Chair’s statement to exclude situations in which the applicant could prove effective prohibition. Vice Chair Millich questioned the legal and appeal processes. Ms. Davi and Ms. Karish explained.

Commissioner Freeman inquired about enforcing the design as approved projects are constructed. Ms. Cole outlined the Building process, saying each site would be inspected prior to Building permit issuance.

Commissioner Brassfield asked why the setback was placed at 100 feet. Commissioner Latasa suggested 150 feet seemed too high and 100 feet might be less restrictive.

Commissioner Latasa asked if language would be included regarding the aesthetic rationale.

Ms. Davi advised the Commission to articulate visual concerns. Commissioner Latasa specified the priority is to establish setbacks based on goals of avoiding visual clutter and limiting visual impact.

Ms. Davi advised that Staff would continue to not recommend to the City Council a setback from residences or schools and clarified that Staff and Planning Commission recommendations may differ. Vice Chair Millich spoke in support of including the notion to avoid visual clutter.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 35, Packet Page 245 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday September 27, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday September 27, 2022
8 Ms. Cole proposed revisiting the discussion at the October 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Latasa revised the motion to continue the item to date certain of October 25, 2022. Commissioner Freeman agreed to the terms of the revised motion.

On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of October 25, 2022 to specify that: mockups are not required but photo simulations are required both from a distance and close-up; facilities must be separated by a minimum of 250 feet to avoid visual clutter; distances from schools and residences must be 100 feet minimum excluding situations in which effective prohibition could be proven; and, standardized pole design shall be included in the draft Ordinance:

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

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Update received.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole
Community Development Director
Vice Chair
Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3138BFF3-3976-4B75-94E9-90D522D4348A ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 36, Packet Page 246

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
October 25, 2022
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman, Brassfield*, Dawson** (remote for evening session only)
Commissioners Absent: Latasa
Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, City Attorney Davi** (remote for afternoon session only), Senior Associate Planner Schmidt** (attended evening session only), Associate Planner Buggert, Recording Secretary Cleary
* Participated remotely by videoconference for full meeting ** Participated remotely by videoconference for partial meeting 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 the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID19 pandemic. ***Afternoon Session Agenda***
4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

CONSENT ITEMS
Approval of Minutes

2. October 11, 2022
ACTION: Approved as submitted.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the October 11, 2022 Minutes as submitted:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 37, Packet Page 247 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
2 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

3. Consider 113 Spray Avenue; Variance Application VA-22-0132 to Increase the Maximum Allowed Building Height from 25 Feet to 30 Feet 4 Inches on a Portion of the Existing Three-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Allen Robinson; Owner Stephen H Meyer Tr.; R-1-6-D1 Zoning District; Low Density Residential Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15270a) - Continue to November 8, 2022 ACTION: Continued item to a date certain of November 08, 2022 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole recommended continuing the item to a date certain of November 8, 2022 as the applicant was unavailable to be present at the hearing.

Applicant
None.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
None.

On a motion by Commissioner Millich, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of November 08, 2022:

PUBLIC HEARING

4. Consider 828 Pacific Street; Application for H-2 Historic Zoning (TM-22-0190); Applicant/Owner Ben Michael Beesley and Shannon Highfield; R-1-6 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5
ACTION: Approved Text/Map Amendment application TM-22-0190 for H-2 Historic Zoning at 828 Pacific Street
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 38, Packet Page 248 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
3 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Chair Fletcher recused from the item because of owned property near the project site. Vice Chair Millich filled-in as Chair while Chair Fletcher was away from the meeting.

Community Development Director Cole introduced the item then Associate Planner Buggert presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Freeman asked if the garage would be included in the historic status. Mr.

Buggert said the garage onsite was not considered as a factor of historicity but if it were on a historic property any future alterations would require a historic permit.

Applicant
Project site owner Ben Beesley was present to answer questions and added that the builder, Albert Seeno, was a Sicilian immigrant and this was one of his first homes built. Commissioner Dawson referenced a street in Old Town called Seeno and said he may have also built boats.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Freeman spoke in full support of approval, suggested it is wonderful to have the working-class cottage as part of the town’s historic resources, and reminded the applicant that the garage must stay as far away from the house as possible to avoid including it in the historic structure.

Commissioner Dawson spoke in support of H-2 historic zoning, suggesting the owner of the house has taken wonderful care of it.

Commissioner Brassfield also spoke in support of approval.

On a motion by Commissioner Dawson, seconded by Commissioner Brassfield and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Text/Map Amendment application TM-22-0190 for H-2 Historic Zoning at 828 Pacific Street:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

5. Consider Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Project – Old Capitol Site; Applicant City of Monterey; Open Space Zoning District; Parks and Open Space General Plan Designation ACTION: Approved a Resolution adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Project – Old Capitol Site DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 39, Packet Page 249 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
4 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Associate Planner Buggert presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Community Development Director Cole announced that Chair Fletcher had returned late from recusal and as he missed some of the presentation, he would be unable to vote on the matter.

Commissioner Dawson asked if the City pays tribes for them to oversee soil disturbance. Mr.

Buggert provided details regarding the process. Mr. Buggert cited regulations regarding the tribe’s association with the project.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if other funding sources have been identified to help with this work. Ms. Cole suggested approval of funds is included in the budgetary process for each year and elaborated that the current phase is preparation of the environmental document so the project could be ready to start once funding is secured. Commissioner Brassfield suggested finding grant funding as more expenditures for this project have been identified.

Commissioner Freeman requested clarification regarding the reason for the proposal. Mr.

Buggert explained that when the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved, these sites had not yet been obtained by the City and could not be included as such, hence the Supplemental MND.

Public Comments
Tom Rowley from Fishermans Flats neighborhood said this was a high priority item with the Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee recognizing the area badly needs cleanup, and thanked staff for working on the project.

Nina Beety shared concerns of stripping habitats or vegetation as well as tree removal potentially not happening in a careful or judicious manner. Ms. Beety stated that the forest is stressed and expressed fear of lower moisture in the forest if vegetation is removed, possibly raising the risk of fire or damage to the ecosystem.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dawson suggested the City needs the fuel cleanup, shared concerns for fire moving uphill into homes, and requested that poison oak be removed in the process.

Commissioner Brassfield provided suggestions to improve water retention capabilities and recommended examining solutions to determine where water retention could be improved.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Project – Old Capitol Site:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 40, Packet Page 250 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
5 RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

6. Consider 350 Calle Principal Use Permit Amendment PA-22-0135 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Adam Ehrlich, J5 Infrastructure Partners on behalf of Dish; Owner: San Carlos Associates, a California Partnership; VAF Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Use Permit Amendment PA-22-0135 to allow modifications to an existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) personal wireless service facility at 350 Calle Principal subject to stated Findings and Conditions of Approval with the additional requirement that prior to issuing a Building permit the plans would be modified to accurately show windows, decks, and elevations
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
On-call Wireless Application Consultant Jerry Hittleman presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Dawson asked if the signage would be posted in Spanish and in English. Mr.

Hittleman deferred to applicant.

Commissioner Brassfield asked where the balcony chairs are in relation to the transmitter. Mr.

Hittleman explained the Radio Frequency (RF) was measured at the deck level if a person is standing on the deck. Vice Chair Millich suggested Mr. Hittleman show where the chairs would be to get an idea of the distance. Mr. Hittleman discussed the matter. Chair Fletcher said he did not think the balconies are deep enough to put chairs on. Commissioner Brassfield referenced an illustration showing chairs to the left and shared concerns for RF emissions being close to chairs on the balconies. Mr. Hittleman provided estimated distances. Ms. Cole explained that the occupational and public exposure areas are substantially above the deck areas.

Applicant
Adam Ehrlich was present to answer questions and said an RF Engineer was present on the call as well.

Commissioner Dawson asked if the safety signs would be posted in more than one language.

Mr. Ehrlich said it appears the signs are only in English. Chair Fletcher asked if signs are required to be posted in more than one language. Mr. Ehrlich said they are not, but dual signs are available and if the Commission would like they can be provided in English and Spanish.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 41, Packet Page 251 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
6 Commissioner Dawson requested that safety signs be posted in Spanish and in English for safety. Chair Fletcher agreed. City Attorney Davi suggested deferring to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules rather than making new ones.

Commissioner Freeman said the project was continued because the original plans did not accurately show the RF emission radius, however, the plans have since been improved and at the Building permit level they will have to be even more comprehensive.

Chair Fletcher agreed and said that although it is a good idea to have signage in two languages, that decision should be referred to the City Attorney. Commissioner Brassfield advised that if the applicant wants to volunteer for dual signage they should not be stopped.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving Use Permit Amendment PA-22-0135 to allow modifications to an existing Dish Wireless LLC (Dish) personal wireless service facility at 350 Calle Principal subject to stated Findings and Conditions of Approval with the additional requirement that prior to issuing a Building permit the plans would be modified to accurately show windows, decks, and elevations:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman, Brassfield, Dawson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS 5:30 p.m.
***End of Afternoon Session Agenda***
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:14 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. After technical difficulties were found and resolved, Chair Fletcher reconvened the meeting again at 7:20 p.m. with all Commissioners present except Commissioner Latasa, who remained absent. ***Evening Session Agenda***
7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nina Beety said she is disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity and could not attend the hearing in person because of barriers due to wi-fi and internet access, and shared concerns regarding public safety. She said the Commission has asked the City to provide information on where the Telecommunications Act intersects with ADA and shared concerns regarding enforcement issues and public safety, alleging there are utility poles in the City that are leaning and unsafe with no penalty and no abatement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 42, Packet Page 252 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
7 PUBLIC HEARING (EVENING)

7. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Repealing and Replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities Exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending an Ordinance to the City Council repealing and replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 related to wireless communication facilities as presented, with added conditions that a 100-foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole introduced the item, provided background information regarding the Wireless Ordinance process and status, and answered Commissioner questions. Gail Karish, Legal Consultant from Best Best & Krieger, provided further details.

Ms. Karish, Ms. Cole, and City Attorney Davi answered Commissioner questions throughout the presentations.

Vice Chair Millich referenced Agenda Packet page 305 to ask why encouraged was used instead of shall regarding how applicants could show effective prohibition. Ms. Karish detailed reasons for utilizing the selected verbiage.

Commissioner Dawson asked how colocation is addressed if several providers use all the poles and what happens when they are less than 250 feet apart. Ms. Cole explained that the setback between poles would be 250 feet. Commissioner Dawson shared concerns for potentially running out of space and discussed the matter with Ms. Karish.

Chair Fletcher inquired about congestion indications when carriers switch from Fourth Generation (4G) to Fifth Generation (5G) services. Ms. Cole said the new technology will predominantly be on utility poles near the public right-of-way.

Chair Fletcher inquired about the provided aesthetic examples of poles and what happened to the City’s goal to put equipment in vaults. Ms. Davi stated the Council adopted an Encroachment Ordinance specifying undergrounding regulations and that part of Wireless equipment is addressed there.

Commissioner Brassfield requested clarification regarding Paul Albritton’s letter. Ms. Karish provided background information regarding effective prohibition standards and challenges involving them.

Commissioner Brassfield shared concerns regarding capacity and ability to regulate wireless facilities while protecting the public, asking who is responsible for ensuring safety and oversight and how general safety operations would be recognized.

Public Comments
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 43, Packet Page 253 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
8 Monterey Vista resident Pat Venza requested clarification and shared concerns regarding proving effective prohibition, gaps in coverage, drive test data, drop call records, denial of service records, setbacks, and safety.

Ray Meyers of Monterey Vista Neighborhood suggested cell towers do not belong in residential areas as faster broadband is unnecessary and can be done via fiberoptics and wifi routers. Mr. Meyers advocated for a 100-foot setback in residential and school areas and requirements to provide models for graphically predicting 2D and 3D field radiation patterns along with topography and elevation of the structures being utilized.

Susan Nine cited wireless Ordinances from other cities, recommended similar regulations for Monterey, and suggested 250 feet between poles is not enough while 500 or 1,000 feet is more appropriate in residential areas.

Nina Beety discussed recommendations and concerns regarding project noticing, standardized designs, CEQA, equipment attached to building exteriors, ADA compliance, public rights-of-way, strand-mounting, temporary cell towers, RF exposure report, mockups, and setbacks.

Marta Kraftzeck encouraged the Planning Commission to maintain a 100-foot setback for aesthetic and safety purposes, shared concerns for noise and health risks, and suggested placing limitations on equipment height and size, view impacts, and potential risk to residents.

Christy Hollenbeck spoke in support of a 500-foot setback, referenced other California cities with similar setbacks requirements, opposed wireless facilities near homes and schools, and urged the Commission to require mockups.

Bruce Zanetta, resident of Monterey Vista Neighborhood and member of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA) Undergrounding Subcommittee, argued in favor of requiring that wireless facilities be undergrounded and enforcing the Commission’s 100-foot setback proposal.

Jean Rash, member of Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA), urged the Planning Commission to support 100-foot setbacks from residents, and require three-dimensional mockups as well as policy issue documentation.

Jeanne Ferrara suggested property values decrease when cell towers are nearby, argued in favor of requiring 100-foot setbacks from schools and residences, three-dimensional mockups, and drive-by testing, then shared concerns for fire risk, global warming, and public health.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Dawson inquired about the feasibility of requiring a 100-foot setback from residences and schools. Ms. Cole explained that Staff’s conclusion was that the 100-foot setbacks to residences and schools eliminates too much of the City from having wireless facilities.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if there was a map showing right-of-way locations where cell towers are preferred instead of in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Cole provided ways the draft DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 44, Packet Page 254 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
9 Ordinance encourages facilities to be in commercial and industrial areas over residential neighborhoods.

Commissioner Freeman outlined the process neighbors and City Staff have gone through to create the Wireless Ordinance, suggested requiring photo simulations and establishing a 250- foot setback with 500-foot coverage, said the 100-foot setback from schools and homes is not viable, and spoke in favor of adopting a standardized pole design.

Vice Chair Millich asked clarifying questions about effective prohibition, argued in favor of enforcing a 100-foot setback from schools and residences, raised questions regarding legal course if a lawsuit occurs, and said wireless facilities do not belong in residential areas.

Chair Fletcher agreed with Vice Chair Millich, suggested limiting visual clutter to preserve aesthetics, and spoke in support of what had been approved at the September 27, 2022 hearing he could not attend.

Commissioner Brassfield recommended requiring applicants to provide three-dimensional mockups with their proposals.

Vice Chair Millich moved to approve the Draft Ordinance as presented, with added conditions that a 100-foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive.

Ms. Davi requested clarification on the motion. Ms. Karish suggested the Ordinance may already fit the condition regarding effective prohibition and discussed verbiage with Vice Chair Millich. Commissioner Brassfield suggested including the phrase in the definitions list.

Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion.

Ms. Cole reiterated the verbiage Vice Chair Millich suggested and Vice Chair Millich confirmed she had listed the changes accurately reflecting the motion.

Commissioner Freeman raised issues with the photo simulation and standardized pole design by area, highlighting potential difficulties with each.

Commissioner Dawson shared concerns regarding the 100-foot setback requirement.

On a motion by Vice Chair Millich, seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending an Ordinance to the City Council repealing and replacing City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 related to wireless communication facilities as presented, with added conditions that a 100- foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive:

AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Dawson
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 45, Packet Page 255 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
10 8. Consider 601 Lighthouse Avenue; Use Permit Application UP-22-0115 to Allow Residential Density to Exceed 30 Units Per Acre (36 Units per Acre Proposed; Exceptional Design Finding Required) for a Commercial Building Conversion to a Mixed Use Building with Five Residential Units, New Interior Parking, Roof Access and Roof Deck, and Ground-level Retail Space; Applicant Ethan Hare, Hare Construction; Owner Monterey 601 Lighthouse Ave, LLC.; PC-LH Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 and Section 15331, Class 31
ACTION: Approved Use Permit application UP-22-0115 to allow residential density to exceed 30 units per acre (36 units per acre proposed; exceptional design finding required) for a commercial building conversion to a mixed-use building with five residential units, new interior parking, roof access and roof deck, and ground-level retail space at 601 Lighthouse with an added condition to eliminate portion of deck railing that would exceed the 35-foot height limit
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Community Development Director Cole added that story poles were installed for the rooftop elevator and reiterated that Staff’s recommendation is to pull back the deck railing from Lighthouse Avenue so it does not exceed 35 feet because the ADA finding could not be met.

Applicant
Applicant Ethan Hare outlined challenges faced with this property, spoke of excitement for adding housing and commercial units while reinvigorating the building, and stated the maximum height could be addressed through collaboration with the City and its Architectural Review Committee.

Public Comments
Bill Blume, project Partner, expressed excitement to get the project moving, said a lot of work had been done to make it a good project, and conveyed hope to make this the shining star of the Lighthouse Corridor.

Project Architect Christopher Barlow shared background information regarding a previous project at the site, said the proposal includes an extra unit, and claimed the project would be a good example for adaptive reuse within the Lighthouse Specific Plan design standards for mixed-use buildings.

Commissioner Brassfield spoke in favor of the design and square footage of the apartments and inclusion of parking, then inquired about fire escape requirements. Mr. Barlow detailed requirements for fire escape safety.

Commissioner Comments
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 46, Packet Page 256 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday October 25, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday October 25, 2022
11 Commissioner Freeman spoke in support of approval as this area was determined ideal for mixed use buildings. Chair Fletcher, Commissioner Millich, and Commissioner Brassfield agreed and commended the design.

Commissioner Freeman moved to approve the proposal with an added condition to eliminate the portion of deck railing that would exceed the 35-foot height limit. Commissioner Brassfield seconded the motion.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Brassfield and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit application UP-22-0115 to allow residential density to exceed 30 units per acre (36 units per acre proposed; exceptional design finding required) for a commercial building conversion to a mixed-use building with five residential units, new interior parking, roof access and roof deck, and groundlevel retail space at 601 Lighthouse with an added condition to eliminate portion of deck railing that would exceed the 35-foot height limit:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Dawson, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Update received.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Brassfield asked if is possible to include the 6409 designation in item titles. Ms.

Cole suggested that may be possible however Staff occasionally disagrees with applicants regarding 6409 applicability so if there is a legal reason it may be done differently.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if a new Planning Commission Member been found. Ms. Cole said the position has been advertised and applications were received and elaborated on the replacement process.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Kimberly Cole
Community Development Director
Chair
Planning Commission
DocuSign Envelope ID: F28E5075-C375-46D5-9E73-E9C0F51E254C ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 1/17/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 47, Packet Page 257

Monterey City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Monterey City Council
January 17, 2023