Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, February 7, 2023 (part 8 of 9)

Yes No
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
Yes
No If Yes, see question D.7. Show on map if applicable.

Yes No

5. Provide project map. Include location of project, project benefit and/or service area, and other applicable information.

B. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
If "No" is checked on any question in this section, STOP. Project is ineligible for this solicitation.

Draft 5/18/2018

4. Is the Project Sponsor a Tribe, or does the project provide benefits entirely to a Tribe as defined by Proposition 1? DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1401, Packet Page 1501

Page 2 of 9 ends

C. WORK PLAN, BUDGET, and SCHEDULE

1. Work Plan: Provide a brief description of the Project. List of deliverables is not required. b. Land and Purchase/Easement. Provide a brief description of the scope of work to complete this task, if applicable.
c. Planning/Design/Engineering/Environmental Documentation. Provide a brief description of the scope of work to complete this task, if applicable.
a. Direct Project Administration.

No description or details required to be provided at this time.

Yes No If Yes, Please identify below.

4. Does the project provide a benefit that meets at least one of the Statewide Priorities as defined in the 2016 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines?

5. Will CEQA be completed within 6 months of the Final Award release? See Section E for more details.

Yes
NA, Project is exempt from CEQA
NA, Not a Project under CEQA
NA, Project benefits entirely to DAC/EDA/Tribe, or is a Tribe local sponsor No
Draft 5/18/2018

6. Will all permits necessary to begin construction be acquired within 6 months of the Final Award release? See Section E for more details.

Yes
NA, Project benefits entirely to DAC/EDA/Tribe, or is a Tribe local sponsor No
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1402, Packet Page 1502

Page 3 of 9 ends

2. Budget: Provide preliminary cost estimates for each Budget Category listed in the table below. Budget subject to change.

Category
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Requested Grant
Amount
Cost Share: Non‐
State Fund Source
Other Fund Source* Total Cost
(a) Direct Project Administration
(b) Land Purchase/Easement
(c) Planning/Design/Engineering/ Environmental
Documentation
(d) Construction/Implementation
(e) Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (d) for each
column)
Table 1 - Project Budget
a. Cost Share Waiver Requested (DAC or EDA)? Yes No If Yes, continue below:

Cost Share Waiver Justification: Describe what percentage of the proposed project area encompasses a DAC/EDA, how the community meets the definition of a DAC/EDA, and the water-related need of the DAC/EDA that the project addresses. In order to receive a cost share waiver, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will provide benefits (minimum 25% by population or geography) that address a water-related need of a DAC and/or EDA.
*Identify the source of Other Funds:

Draft 5/18/2018
d. Construction / Implementation. Provide a brief description of the scope of work to complete this task, if applicable.

DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1403, Packet Page 1503

Page 4 of 9 ends

2. Project Physical Benefits Table:

Anticipated Useful Life of Project (years):

Benefit A (Required)
Type of Benefit Claimed: Benefit Units:

Benefit B (Optional)
Type of Benefit Claimed: Benefit Units:

Physical Benefits (At Project completion or Lifetime, as appropriate) (a) (b)
Benefit Added Physical
Benefit Description
Benefit A
Benefit B
Comments: [Include narrative on additional physical benefits, as warranted.] Table 3 – Project Physical Benefits
Quantitative Benefit
(c)
D. OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Operations and Maintenance: On defined construction projects, please identify a source of funding for operations and maintenance.

Table 2 – Project Schedule
Category (a) (b)
Start Date End Date
(a) Direct Project Administration
(b) Land Purchase/Easement
(c) Planning/Design/Engineering/
Environmental Documentation
(d) Construction/Implementation

3. Schedule: Include reasonable estimates of the start and end dates, for each Budget Category listed in Table 2, to match the Budget included in this PIF. Schedule is tentative and subject to change.

Draft 5/18/2018
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1404, Packet Page 1504

Page 5 of 9 ends

proposed project been identified? Yes No
If No, why? If Yes, list the methods (including the proposed project) and estimated costs.

3. Does the proposed project provide physical benefits to multiple regions (or funding area(s)? Yes No If Yes, provide a description of the impacts to the various regions. b. If the proposed project is not the least cost alternative, why is it the preferred alternative? Provide an explanation of any advantages of the proposed project that are different from the alternative project or methods.

4. Least-Cost Alternative
a. Have alternative methods been considered to achieve the same types and amounts of physical benefits as the Draft 5/18/2018
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1405, Packet Page 1505

Page 6 of 9 ends

5. Does the project provide safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes consistent with AB 685? Yes No If Yes, please describe.

6. Does the project employ new or innovative technologies or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of multiple jurisdictions, inducing, but not limited to, water supply, flood control, land use, and sanitation? Yes No If Yes, please describe.

7. If the project provides benefits entirely (100% by population or geography) to a DAC, explain the water-related

8. If the project provides benefits entirely (100% by population or geography) to a Tribe or a Tribe is the sponsor of the project, explain the water-related need of the Tribe and how the project will address the described need.

Draft 5/18/2018
need of the DAC and how the project will address the described need. Explain how the area/community meets the definition of a DAC.

DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1406, Packet Page 1506

Page 7 of 9 ends

Type of Permit Permitting Agency Date Acquired or Anticipated For each permit not yet acquired, describe the following:

No. a. Actions taken to date (include dates of any key meetings, submittals, etc.)
b. Any issues or obstacles that may delay acquisition of permit

1. 2.

3. Table 4 - CEQA Timeline
CEQA STEP COMPLETE? (y/n) ESTIMATED DATE TO COMPLETE
Initial Study
Notice of Preparation
Draft EIR/MND/ND
Public Review
Final EIR/MND/ND
Adoption of Final EIR/MND/ND
Notice of Determination
a. Please explain and justify how the timeline was developed.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL

1. Please fill out the Table below, CEQA Timeline, if applicable:

No.

1. 2.

3. 2. Permit Acquisition Plan:

List all permits needed to complete project. If the project does not provide benefits entirely to a DAC, all permits needed to begin construction must be acquired within 6 months of funding award or by Agreement execution, whichever occurs first.

Draft 5/18/2018
n.
n.

DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1407, Packet Page 1507

Page 8 of 9 ends

b. Would the proposed project work in, over, or under navigable water of the US or discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the US?
Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
c. Will the proposed project have the potential to affect historical, archaeological, or cultural resources? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
d. Will the proposed project discharge into a water of the US? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
e. Will the proposed project divert the natural flow of the river, stream, or lake? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:

Yes No If Yes, please explain:

3. Permitting Checklist: This checklist is provided as a courtesy for documentation purposes. Not all permits are listed. a. Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? Draft 5/18/2018
f. Will the proposed project change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? Yes No If Yes, please explain:

DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1408, Packet Page 1508

Page 9 of 9 ends

g. Will the proposed project use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
h. Will the proposed project deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
i. For water supply projects, do you need to obtain a water right? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:
j. Is the proposed project within the defined coastal zone? Yes     No    If Yes, please explain:

Draft 5/18/2018
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1409, Packet Page 1509 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-C
AUGUST 14, 2018 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1410, Packet Page 1510 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1411, Packet Page 1511 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: August 14, 2018, 10am
Meeting Location: MPWMD Conference Room or WebEx (info below) Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Review of 2014 IRWM plan objectives & comparison of IRWM plan objectives with other related plans, in particular the Carmel River Watershed Assessment

3. Discussion on objectives & project priorities

4. Review of the Regional Water Management Group Memorandum of Understanding, discussion on potential 2018 revisions and process/timing for new signatories

5. Brief status update on 2018 project solicitation process & schedule

6. Other updates from meeting participants
WebEx Info:

Carmel River Task Force / IRWMP
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
10:00 am | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) | 2 hrs Meeting number (access code): 622 316 559
Meeting password: 1122
When it's time, join the meeting.

Join by phone
1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Toll-free calling restrictions
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1412, Packet Page 1512 Critical Issues Addressed
No CRTF Objectives & Associated Actions
IRWM Objectives
Fulfilled
Action Type 1. Water
Quantity

2. Water
Qualit
y

3. Flood
Mgt

4. Estuar
y
Lagoon

5. special
Satus
Species

6. Dam
Mgt

7. Wildir
e Mgt

8. Erosion
Sediment

9. Geomorp
hology

10. Drought
/Climat
e

11. Public
Safety

12. Public
Access &
Awarenes
s
Related Past & Current
Projects and Programs
with Descriptions (from
January 2018 list)
1 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT
1A Continue support of the Carmel River Watershed Task
Force (CRTF). The CRTF meets quarterly and is open to
all stakeholders in the watershed. The purpose of this
group is to achieve the successful outcome of
watershed projects identified in the Carmel River
watershed plan, and other needs in the watershed.

RC-2, RC-3, RC-4 Watershed
Partnerships

X X X X X X X X X X X

1. Watershed
Coordination (RCDMC),
ongoing RTF meetings
(RCDMC, tbd) [1]
1B Expand volunteer activities, and maintain the existing network of volunteers in the Carmel River Basin to
provide planning, labor, outreach, and mapping
services throughout the watershed. If possible,
coordinate across existing volunteer programs.

RC-2, RC-3 Watershed
Partnerships
X

1. Watershed Awareness
Events (RCDMC); 2.

Carmel River Heritage
Area Project (CRWC),
Volunteer Monitoring
Programs (CWC); 3.

Watershed Tours (CRWC)
1C Continue and expand an outreach program to increase
the public’s awareness about how groundwater
pumping in the alluvial aquifer and uplands directly
impacts surface water flows in the Carmel River.

RC-3 Education
X X X

1. Water Conservation
Programs (Cal-Am and
MPWMD); 2. Watershed
Tours (CRWC); 3.

Watershed Manual
(RCDMC) [2]
1D Educate the public to comply with the county's
landscaping codes, and expand water conservation
programs to areas beyond the existing MPWMD
boundary in the watershed. Programs may include
rebates for low flow fixtures & the encouragement of
drought tolerant landscaping.

RC-3 Education
X X X

1. Water Conservation
Programs (Cal-Am and
MPWMD); 2. Watershed
Awareness Events
(MCRCD); 3. Watershed
Manual (RCDMC)
1E Conduct outreach program to inform watershed
residents about the impacts past and present activities have on streambank stability.

RC-3 Education
X X X

1. Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
(NRCS); 2. Watershed
Tours (CRWC); 3.

Watershed Awareness
Events (RCDMC); 4. Watershed Manual
(RCDMC) [3]
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1413, Packet Page 1513 1F Continue and expand existing resource conservation
and stewardship programs for the community and
actively disseminate information to residents and
landowners through peer to peer groups and multimedia outreach.

WS-5, RC-3 Education
X

1. MEarth Projects; 2.

Watershed Education
Center at Garland Park
(MPRPD) "Experience
Carmel River"; 3.

Interpretive Panels
(BSLT); 4. Watershed
Interpretive Signage
Project (CRWC);
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
(NRCS); Pharmaceutical
Drug Collection (CRWC);
Watershed Awareness
Events (RCDMC);
Watershed Manual
(RCDMC); Watershed
Tours (CRWC); [4]
1G Develop and implement a non-native vegetation and
wildlife education, monitoring, and eradication
program.

EV-1, EV-2 Watershed
Managemen
t
X X
Watershed Manual
(RCDMC)
1H Develop educational public outreach materials that
summarize recommendations for restoration,
protection, and conservation efforts to improve and
expand CRLF habitat and the habitat of other species of concern in the Carmel River watershed.

EV-1 Education
X X

1. Watershed Education
Center at Garland Park
(MPRPD); 2. "Experience
Carmel River"
Interpretive Panels
(BSLT); 3. Watershed
Awareness Events
(RCDMC); 4. Watershed
Manual (RCDMC); 5.

Watershed Tours (CRWC)
[5]
1I Conduct periodic trash removal and outreach events
throughout the watershed to remove urban debris and
trash from the Carmel River and its tributaries.

WQ-2 Watershed
Managemen
t X X

1. Pharmaceutical Drug
Collection (CRWC); 2.

Watershed Awareness
Events (RCDMC) [6]
1J Expand the Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring
Program incorporating local schools, Snapshot & First
Flush program participants, and other interested
stakeholders to tie into existing programs and to
include all the main tributaries.

RC-3 Education
X X

1. Volunteer Monitoring
Program (CWC); 2.

Pharmaceutical Drug
Collection (CRWC) [7]
2 SUPPORT OF LANDOWNER OUTREACH AND LAND

ACQUISITION PROJECTS
2A Acquire or accept, in fee title or easement, lands that provide multiple benefits to the watershed such as:
improving natural habitat and functions, facilitating
recovery of listed aquatic and terrestrial species
including Steelhead trout and CRLF, reduce flood and
erosion risk, and improve public access.

FP-1, FP-4, EV-1, EV2, EV-4, EV-5, RCWatershed
Managemen
t

X X X X X X X X X X X

1. Odello East land
donation (Eastwood,
BSLT); 2. Rancho Canada
acquisition (TPL, MPRPD,
TU, SLC); 3. San Clemente
Dam Removal Site land
transfer.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1414, Packet Page 1514 2B Support plans to expand public access to the Carmel
River and watershed with willing landowners.

EV-4 Access
X

1. South Bank Recreation
Trail (BSLT); 2. Parks
General Plans (State
Parks CASP, MPRPD Palo
Corona Regional Park) [8]
2C Encourage public and private landowners to adopt and employ nutrient source reduction practices.

RC-3 Education
X X X

1. Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
(NRCS)
2D Implement landowner outreach program to recruit
participants with achievable projects to improve extent of CRLF habitat and the habitat of other species of
concern in the Carmel River watershed.

EV-1 Watershed
Partnerships X X

1. Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
(NRCS); 2. Watershed
Manual (RCDMC)
3 MAINTAINANCE, RESTORATION AND

ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL STREAM HABITAT
3A Maintain, restore and enhance natural stream
functions & features to provide high quality habitat for steelhead, CRLF, and other species of concern.

EV-1, Watershed
Managemen
t
X X X

1. Gravel Injection Project
(MPWMD); 2. Steelhead
Habitat Ehancement
(CRSA); 3. Steehlead
Fisheries Mitigation
Measures; 4. San
Clemente Dam Removal
Restoration (SCC, NMFS,
Cal-Am); 5. Carmel River

FREE (BSLT, MCRMA,
State Parks, MPRPD) [9]
3B Restore and revegetate unstable banks and incised
reaches of tributaries and mainstem areas based on
Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) tributary
assessments.

EV-1, Watershed
Managemen
t X X X X X

1. Bank Stabilization
Projects (MPWMD); 2.

Riparian Vegetation and
Materials Management
(MPWMD) [10]
3C Implement BMPs for erosion prevention to reduce
sediment deposition throughout the watershed
including the main tributaries and the main stem of the Carmel River.

FP-1, EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t X X X X

1. Road Assessments
(RCDMC); 2. Watershed
Manual (RCDMC); 3.

Gravel Injection Project
(MPWMD)? [11]
3D Expand programs for watershed-wide coordinated
riparian vegetation restoration that includes removal of non-native vegetation and post-project monitoring and
maintenance.

FP-1, EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t
X X

1. Post San Clemente
Dam Removal Impact
Monitoring (CSUMB) [12]
4 LAGOON AND LOWER CARMEL RIVER MANAGEMENT
4A Develop an adaptive management program for water
quality and quantity in the lagoon.

WQ-2, FP-1, FP-2, EV1, EV-2, EV-3, RC-1Watershed
Managemen
t

X X X X

1. CR Lagoon Restoration
(State Parks); 2. CR
Lagoon Beach Clean Up
(MEarth); 3. CR Lagoon
Ecosystem Protective
Barrier (EPB); 4. CR
Mitigation Bank
(Caltrans); 5. Carmel River
FREE [13]
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1415, Packet Page 1515 4B Support efforts to provide supplemental water to
lagoon.

EV-1 Watershed
Partnerships X X X X

1. State Parks Well
Project; 2. CR Lagoon
Water Augmentation
(CAWD) [14]
4C Support the development and implementation of a
lagoon/estuary and barrier beach restoration and
management plan.

EV-1 Watershed
Partnerships

X X X X X

1. CR Lagoon Ecosystem
Protective Barrier (EPB);

2. Interim Flood
Management in Lower CR
(Monterey Co.) [15]
5 MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS
5A Carmel River Floodplain Restoration & Environmental
Enhancement
FP1, FP-2, FP-3, FP-4,
EV-1, EV-2, EV-3, EV4, EV-5, RC-1, RC-2
Project

X X X X X X
(MCRMA, BSLT, State
Parks, MPRPD)
6 SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
6A Support implementation of a water supply project that minimizes the export of water from the Carmel River
basin during the dry season that causes the chronic
reduction in flow and meets the goals of State Water
Resources Control Board Order 95/10.

WS-1, WS-3, WS-4 Watershed
Managemen
t X X X X X

1. Water Supply Project
(Cal-Am); 2. Aquifer
Storage and Recovery
Phases 1 & 2 (MPWMD)
[16]
6B Develop projects to maintain or increase water storage in the watershed.

WS-3 Watershed
Managemen
t

X X X X
6C Reduce the amount of water extracted from the Carmel River Basin during summer months, including
implementing additional offstream storage to replace
summer water use, irrigation upgrades, adding
instream use to water rights holders as allowed uses (to avoid irrigation simply to retain the water right in our use it or lose it system), temporary or permanent
forbearance agreements for water use .

WS-1, WS-3, WS-4 Project
X X X

1. Aquifer Storage and
Recovery (ASR) project
(MPWMD), Rancho
Canada Forbearance (TPL,

MPRPD, SLC, TU)
7 WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION
7A Develop and implement an integrated wildland fire and hazardous fuels management plan
N/A Watershed
Managemen
t
X X
8 FLOOD PROTECTION
8A Reduce the risk of flood damage by supporting the
evaluation and implementation of multi- objective
flood control projects.

FP-1, FP-2, RC-1 Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. CSA 50 Flood Flood
Control Report Projects
(Monterey Co.), including
CRFREE; 2. Interim
Lagoon Flood
Management in Lower CR
(Monterey Co.); 3. Carmel
River Abutment at
Rancho Canada Village
(Rancho Canada) [17]
9 WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1416, Packet Page 1516 9A Cooperate with local agencies to plan and implement
watershed-wide restoration projects of riparian and
upland habitat to benefit California red-legged frogs
(CRLF), steelhead, and other species of concern.

Funding should address development of a monitoring
plan for CRLF and other benchmark species.

EV-1, EV-2, RC-4 Watershed
Partnerships
X

1. Carmel Area State
Parks General Plan
Update (State Parks); 2.

MPRPD General Plan for
Palo Corona and other
park units, Lobos Corona
Parklands Project (State
Parks, MPRPD, BSLT and
PLF); 3. CR Riparian
Vegetation and Materials
Management (MPWMD)
[18]
10 STEELHEAD BENEFIT PROJECTS
10A Continue fish rescue programs in main stem and
tributaries when appropriate.

EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. Steelhead Rescues
(CRSA); 2. Sleepy Hollow
Facility Improvements
(MPWMD); 3. Sleepy
Hollow Steelhead Rearing
Facility (SHSRF) Raw
Water Intake & Water
Supply System Upgrade
[19]
10B Support efforts to evaluate the future of Los Padres Dam and modify the Los Padres Dam spillway for
downstream fish migration.

EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t X X

1. Los Padres Reservoir -
Management of Capacity
Loss (Cal-Am); Los Padres
Water Release for Habitat
Management (MPWMD)
[20]
10C Develop and implement plan to identify, remove or
modify fish passage barriers within the watershed
EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. Cachagua Creek &
Potrero Creek Fish
Passage Barrier Removal
(Trout Unltd); 2. San
Clemente Dam Removal
and River Reroute (CalAm); 3. Steelhead Barrier
Assessments in Potrero
Creek and Garzas Creek
(MPWMD) [21]
10D Provide fish passage around dams and diversions EV-1 Watershed Managemen
t
X X

1. San Clemente Dam
Removal and River
Reroute [22]
10E Continue and expand the MPWMD and CRSA Large
Woody Debris (LWD) program, including further LWD
recruitment location studies and installation of
redwood & Douglas fir root balls in reaches of the river that would benefit most from the introduction of LWD.

EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t X

1. LWD Installation in
Carmel River Lagoon 2.

MPWMD Project -
upper/mid watershed;
CRSA Carmel Lagoon LWD
project [23]
10F Expand the current fisheries assessment and
monitoring program to include tributaries and multiple
mainstem locations to quantify steelhead habitat
utilization and migration patterns throughout the
Carmel River Watershed. This expansion should include
funding to evaluate methods to count fish at selected
monitoring stations.

EV-1 Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. Steelhead Barrier
Assessments in Potrero
Creek and Garzas Creek
(MPWMD); 2. Steelhead
Tagging Project (Hopkins)
[24]
11 DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION AND

STUDIES FOR CARMEL RIVER MANAGEMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1417, Packet Page 1517 11A Support studies on areas with wells located in upland areas (fractured rock) and the connection they may
have to creeks and ultimately the Carmel River Alluvial Aquifer.

N/A Watershed
Managemen
t
X X

1. Water Extraction Study
in Upland Areas
(MPWMD)
11B In cooperation with Monterey County Public Works
Department, conduct assessments of all roads in the
watershed. Identify and prioritize treatments that will minimize erosion and restore natural stream function.

N/A Watershed
Managemen
t X

1. Schulte Rd.

Documentation and Data
Collection BSLT Property;

2. Schulte Road Bridge
Replacement (Monterey
Co. PW) [25]
11C Continue to develop, update and support MPWMD’s
ground water and surface water flow model.

N/A Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. Schulte Road Bridge
Replacement (Monterey
Co. PW) [26]
11D Develop and maintain a public-accessible database of CRLF data for the Carmel River Watershed.

RC-3 Watershed
Managemen
t
X X

1. San Clemente Dam
Removal Benefits Study
[27]
11E Develop studies for genetic characterization of CR
steelhead and population assessments
N/A
12 MONITORING PROGRAMS
12A Establish a sediment transport monitoring program in concert with the surface flow monitoring program of
MPWMD for the main stem and tributaries.

N/A Watershed
Managemen
t
X X X

1. CSUMB Watershed
Institute monitoring
program [28]
12B Plan and implement monitoring programs of key
indicator species (Benthic macroinvertebrates and
birds) in areas where riparian vegetation has been
restored.

N/A Watershed
Managemen
t
X

1. Bird and Wildlife
Surveys and Projects
(BSLT); 2. Bird Monitoring
and Research (VWS); 3.

The CR Bird Conservation
Plan (BSLT); 4. Rancho
Canada Nest Boxes,
Water Quality Testing,
Macro-Invert Studies,
Habitat Restoration
(Rancho Canada Golf
Course) [29]
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1418, Packet Page 1518 [1] 1. The Resource Conservation District of Monterey County chaired the CRTF for three years under a grant program. The CRWC has volunteered to continue coordinating and chairing the CRTF indefinitely. The CRTF meets quarterly to share developments and projects in the watershed and to set priorities for further work and for collaborative applications for grants. [2] 1. Every 2 years, Cal Am applies to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and as part of the application they ask for funding for various conservation programs. If approved, consumers then have a small surcharge on their bill to run the conservation programs. Some of these conservation programs are:

Rebates for more-efficient indoor toilets, dishwashers and washing-machines; Outdoor rebates for grey water systems, rainwater catchments, turf replacement, and smart irrigation; and, Landscape grant program: Cal Am and MPWMD will go to public institutions, such as schools, and replace dirt with drought-tolerant plants or update their irrigation systems.

2. In the summer of 2012, the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy started conducting periodic public and student tours of the watershed as part of their education and outreach programs. The four and six hour tours provide visitors with the opportunity to learn about the importance and the history of the watershed while highlighting both the sustainability concerns and the projects that are being implemented to address them. The MPRPD is a partner on the public tours. The tour stops at important sites in the watershed including the DeDampierre Park, Garland Park, the Carmel River State Beach, the former San Clemente Dam site, and Los Padres Dam. Staff from the MPWMD, the MPRPD, and State Parks, may provide additional support at the various stop sites. The watershed tours were partially funded through grants from the Community Foundation, and a new AmericanWater Environmental grant is providing funds for public tours of the former San Clemente Dam site. The Baskin Foundation provided funds for watershed tours with public school students who are in a program entitled Recruitment in Science Education (RISE); these students are all from low-income families and hope to be the first in their families to attend college. [3] 1. The EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers in the State of California (NRCS 2012). In the Carmel River Watershed, the NRCS works primarily with rangelands. Through this yearly program, the NRCS assists landowners with the implementation of best management practices tailored to address each site’s concerns. The NRCS assists with practices that improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and related resources on agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland (NRCS 2012). Examples of activities in the Carmel River Watershed that are implemented through the EQUIP include fencing off riparian areas, installing troughs out of the streams, and pasture and hay planting.
[4] 1. MEarth (pronounced Me-Earth) is an environmental education nonprofit with the mission to educate and inspire through environmental stewardship. MEarth provides instruction to approximately 5,000 people of all ages, annually from all across Monterey County. Their programs operate at the award-winning Hilton Bialek Habitat, a ten-acre environmental education center which houses a one-acre organic garden/orchard, native plant nursery and demonstration gardens, native grasslands, outdoor amphitheater/bird sanctuary, pond, watershed interpretive area, greenhouses, vermicomposting and composting stations, wood-fired pizza oven/outdoor kitchen, and a LEED- certified multi-purpose "green" classroom. Established as a separate 501(c)3 nonprofit in 2008, MEarth's NatureConnect, FoodConnect, ClassroomConnect and CommunityConnect programs have introduced placed-based, hands-on environmental learning opportunities to both young people and adults from the Central Coast region. www.MEarthCarmel.org
Since the late 1990s, MEarth has received local and national funding to conduct large-scale restoration and hands-on educational experiences at several locations in the Carmel River Watershed. Funding partners such as NOAA/BWET, Audubon, California State and Regional Parks, Fish and Wildlife, the State Coastal Conservancy/Carmel River Steelhead Association, the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy and the City of Carmel have allowed thousands of young people to engage in meaningful work in the Carmel River Watershed, under the guidance of MEarth staff. Interested school or community groups can contact the MEarth office to inquire about field-trips or restoration experiences: (831) 624-1032.

They are also always looking for enthusiastic volunteers! Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1419, Packet Page 1519 CommunityConnect programs have introduced placed-based, hands-on environmental learning opportunities to both young people and adults from the Central Coast region. www.MEarthCarmel.org
Since the late 1990s, MEarth has received local and national funding to conduct large-scale restoration and hands-on educational experiences at several locations in the Carmel River Watershed. Funding partners such as NOAA/BWET, Audubon, California State and Regional Parks, Fish and Wildlife, the State Coastal Conservancy/Carmel River Steelhead Association, the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy and the City of Carmel have allowed thousands of young people to engage in meaningful work in the Carmel River Watershed, under the guidance of MEarth staff. Interested school or community groups can contact the MEarth office to inquire about field-trips or restoration experiences: (831) 624-1032.

They are also always looking for enthusiastic volunteers!

2. The Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) owns and manages 12,500 acres of open space and conservation lands, three of these properties within the Carmel River Watershed: The Cachagua Community Center (located at the headwaters of the Carmel River); the Watershed Education Center at Garland Ranch Regional Park (which includes Garland Park, Kahn Ranch and de Dampierre); and, Palo Corona Regional Park. The recently installed permanent interpretive and educational exhibits at Garland Ranch Regional Park are designed to connect students and visitors of all ages to the flora and fauna of the park and the Carmel River. Watershed Education/Visitor Center also offers a native plant drought tolerant, pollinator garden and arboretum with watershed specific vegetation.

The Park District welcomes the public to both Garland Ranch and Palo Corona Regional Parks, where they participate in a Volunteer Naturalist led tour or a variety of activities from theLet’s Go Outdoors! (LGO!) Guide. Some of these offerings include, stargazing, wildlife watching, art and writing, watershed tours, and fire safety classes. The Park District runs numerous stewardship projects. Volunteers are encouraged to participate in activities such as non-native plant removal, trail reporting, stewardship maintenance projects, interpretive programs, and staffing the Visitor Center.

3. Status as of January 2017: Signs completed and installed

4. 22 interpretive signs have been completed and installed, plus two new signs that announce “Entering the Carmel River Watershed (see sample below).” Thanks go to Andy Magnasco of the Carmel Valley Ranch for the installation of all these signs. Due to vandalism, six of the signs have had to be replaced by the Conservancy. [5] 1. The Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) owns and manages 12,500 acres of open space and conservation lands, three of these properties within the Carmel River Watershed: The Cachagua Community Center (located at the headwaters of the Carmel River); the Watershed Education Center at Garland Ranch Regional Park (which includes Garland Park, Kahn Ranch and de Dampierre); and, Palo Corona Regional Park. The recently installed permanent interpretive and educational exhibits at Garland Ranch Regional Park are designed to connect students and visitors of all ages to the flora and fauna of the park and the Carmel River. Watershed Education/Visitor Center also offers a native plant drought tolerant, pollinator garden and arboretum with watershed specific vegetation.

MPRPD offers students, K-8 grade, and teachers a free “Watershed Explorers” class program and professional development workshops funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-California Bay Watershed Education (BWET) grant program. The Watershed Elidhdthd dtitht hltdtdldtdif thd id t
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1420, Packet Page 1520 [5] 1. The Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) owns and manages 12,500 acres of open space and conservation lands, three of these properties within the Carmel River Watershed: The Cachagua Community Center (located at the headwaters of the Carmel River); the Watershed Education Center at Garland Ranch Regional Park (which includes Garland Park, Kahn Ranch and de Dampierre); and, Palo Corona Regional Park. The recently installed permanent interpretive and educational exhibits at Garland Ranch Regional Park are designed to connect students and visitors of all ages to the flora and fauna of the park and the Carmel River. Watershed Education/Visitor Center also offers a native plant drought tolerant, pollinator garden and arboretum with watershed specific vegetation.

MPRPD is scheduled to receive the 190-acre Rancho Cañada Golf Course and clubhouse facility by January 2018. This accessible entrance to Palo Corona Regional Park serves as the main office location, an educational and research site, and a gateway to backcountry hiking and the Big Sur coast. MPRPD is in the process of developing a General Development Plan for Palo Corona Regional Park with public input, to be completed in late-Spring 2018.
[6] 1. Status as of December 2017: Completed and installed at the Carmel Police Department, Pebble Beach Maintenance Center, and Pacific Grove Police Station drop boxes.
[7] 1. Through their Livestock and Land Program, the Coastal Watershed Council monitored water quality parameters at four sites on the Carmel River. The sites monitored were Carmel River at Cachagua Community Park on Nason Rd.; Carmel River at Rosie's Bridge; Carmel River at Schulte Rd; and Carmel River near Rio Rd. and Hwy 1. This program was implemented in 2012, from January through December, for a total of 12 monitoring events. The data was collected by CWC’s staff and volunteers, and their findings are publicly available online on the Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) website and the Coastal Watershed Council’s website. [8] 1. Status as of December 2017: Completed

2. California State Parks is in the process of developing a regional General Plan for the four state park units located in the Carmel area: Carmel River State Beach, Point Lobos State Natural Reserve, Point Lobos Ranch and Hatton Canyon. A second public workshop was held on July 22, 2015 to introduce general plan alternatives as well as conservation projects, visitor uses, and facilities that could be included. Additional public meetings will be held in the upcoming months. California State Parks intends to prepare the Preliminary General Plan and Draft EIR in late 2015 to early 2016 and a Final EIR in 2016 or 2017. They hope to have the General Plan completed by summer of 2018.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1421, Packet Page 1521 [9] 1. This is a Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) project, funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP), and with cooperation by the California American Water Company. This project is a continuation of the District's long-term commitment to improving steelhead spawning habitat in the upper river since 1994. This gravel enhancement is needed because the Los Padres Dam blocks all naturally occurring gravel behind it, thus starving the downstream riverbed of the proper sized material for steelhead spawning. This project involves placing 1,500 tons of clean, river-run, spawning gravel into the Carmel River at three locations just below Los Padres Dam.

2. In the lower watershed, CRSA has repaired the AG well in the West Odello Field and uses it to pump approximately 500 gallon per minute into the south arm of the Carmel River Lagoon when the lagoon starts to drop to critical low levels during the summer. This action benefits all wildlife especially steelhead trout and red-legged frogs. Additionally, CRSA has secured most of the materials necessary and has received funding to install large woody debris in the Carmel River from the Highway 1 Bridge to the lagoon to provide habitat for over-summering juvenile steelhead and upstream migrating adult steelhead. In the middle watershed, CRSA works to remove fish passage barriers by hand on all tributaries during fish rescues. CRSA also removes barriers in the upper watershed when observed and with adjacent property owner's permission. In June 2017, the Conservancy approved a grant to Trout Unlimited to prepare design plans for addressing up to three passage barriers on tributaries to the Carmel River. This includes two barriers on San Clemente Creek. TU will prepare designs to remove or modify the barriers and then intends to apply to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for implantation funds. Settlement funds may be used for implementation if TU cannot secure other funding or if matching funds are needed in order to secure outside funding. Work has not yet begun on these designs.

3. Status as of December 2017: Ongoing
[10] 1. Projects to restore and re-vegetate unstable banks and incised reaches of tributaries and mainstream areas based on Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) tributary assessments, engineering and fluvial process determinations.

2. The riparian vegetation, the vegetation that grows along the river, is crucial for the proper physical and biological functions of the river. The riparian vegetation provides important habitat to the fish and wildlife associated with the river and plays a critical role in bank stability and floodplain function. De-vegetation along the Carmel River has promoted channel instability historically, causing loss of land and structural damage in the river’s floodplain (Kondolf and Curry 1986).

To promote the health of the riparian vegetation along the Carmel River, the MPWMD conducts regular assessments of the riparian vegetation.

The MPWMD follows a management plan that includes irrigation, removal of encroached vegetation, and reestablishment of native vegetation with cuttings and seedlings (MPWMD 2004). The MPWMD also manages the wood and woody debris in the river for flood management and habitat improvement purposes.
[11] 1. There were two assessments conducted by the RCD and NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) in Carmel Valley in 2011 and 2012. One assessment was conducted on 1 mile of Parrot Ranch Road, off Cachagua Road and the other ½ mile off the Potrero Creek Trail (on the Santa Lucia Preserve). Another assessment was conducted by a contractor in 2015 on the Big Sur Land Trust Mitteldorf Preserve in the San Jose Creek watershed, which is just south of the Carmel River watershed, but also drains into the Carmel Bay. No other assessments are currently planned*, but the RCD and NRCS can pursue funding based on landowner or road associations' requests.

3. This was a Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) project, funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP), and with cooperation by the California American Water Company. This project was a continuation of the District's longterm commitment to improving steelhead spawning habitat in the upper river since 1994This gravel enhancement was Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1422, Packet Page 1522 [11] 1. There were two assessments conducted by the RCD and NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) in Carmel Valley in 2011 and 2012. One assessment was conducted on 1 mile of Parrot Ranch Road, off Cachagua Road and the other ½ mile off the Potrero Creek Trail (on the Santa Lucia Preserve). Another assessment was conducted by a contractor in 2015 on the Big Sur Land Trust Mitteldorf Preserve in the San Jose Creek watershed, which is just south of the Carmel River watershed, but also drains into the Carmel Bay. No other assessments are currently planned*, but the RCD and NRCS can pursue funding based on landowner or road associations' requests.

In the spring of 2014, the gravel was delivered via truck and trailer from the Central Valley and stockpiled in the open field below the dam. During the summer/fall of 2014/2015 the gravel was placed into the river using a conveyor truck and/or loader. Over time, the gravel will disperse slowly downstream with high winter river flows, eventually seeding up to five miles of the Carmel River with much needed gravel. A proposal to add additional gravel from the San Clemente Dam removal project was submitted to CDFW and NOAA in March 2015. [12] 1. The San Clemente Dam removal poses a large-scale experiment in watershed engineering. Not only is it the largest dam removal in California history, it also includes a world-class example of river construction engineering. Removal of the San Clemente Dam was supposed to reintroduce spawning gravel and large wood to the lower Carmel River, without any significant increase in flood risk or channel stability. Our collective goal is to measure three key variables in many places along the river to characterize the dam removal impact on river morphology and habitat. We are studying the following four parameters to assess those stated goals. 1) We are measuring sediment size distribution to evaluate changes in spawning gravel character through time. 2) We are surveying channel cross sections to assess channel stability and bank erosion through time. 3) We are also using the surveys to assess channel filling that might lead to increased flood risk through time. 4) Lastly, we are inventorying all large wood greater than 15 cm in diameter and 1 m long from the lagoon to Camp Stefani to assess changes related to dam removal.

The newly-constructed river reach located upstream of the removed dam was designed to be generally stable up to the 50-year flood. Assessing the structural evolution of the engineered channel and floodplain will benefit future projects of this kind.

Our monitoring efforts were initiated several years before dam removal so that we could see how the river changes in the post-dam era. [13] 1. At present, California State Parks is working to eradicate non-native plants and weeds at the Carmel River Lagoon. This project includes weed eradication efforts at the Carmel River Lagoon.

2. Status as of December 2017: Ongoing

3. Status as of December 2017: Ongoing

5. Timeline as of August 2017:
•Public release of Draft CEQA/NEPA document has been on hold since beginning of 2017 to further address potential impact issues. An EIR is being prepared and should be ready for public release by early spring 2018. •Caltrans Report and CEQA and NEPA review by Winter of 2017 •Construction to begin in 2019
•Full restoration to be complete by 2030
The Carmel River Floodplain Restoration and Environmental Enhancement Program is a multi-objective, comprehensive project that incorporates elements of flood control, floodplain and habitat restoration, public access, land protection, and protection of special species. Monterey County Resource Management Agency (MCRMA) and BSLT are co-sponsors of this project to restore the southern floodplain in the lower Carmel River and provide flood control to the adjacent urban areas. MCRMA has a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to sponsor the causeway component of the project, and the MCRMA is the lead CEQA agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the NEPA lead agency and Caltrans is a cooperating agency on the NEPA review.

The objectives of this project are to reduce flood flows in urban areas, to increase riparian and wetland habitat, to recharge groundwater and base flows to the Carmel River, to provide habitat connectivity across the floodplain, to protect agricultural land from flooding, to improve water quality, and to create public trails (BSLT, 2010). The main features of this project are: The construction of a 350-ft flood bypass or causeway/bridge under State Hwy 1 to the end of the lagoon, removal of approximately 1,600 feet of non-engineered farm levees on the south bank of the Odello East Property, grading to contour the floodplain with topographic diversity for habitat benefits and two braided distributary channels that tie into the south arm of the Carmel Lagoon to carry floodwaters from the levee openings across the floodplain to the west side of the highway, restoration of over 90 acres of riparian and floodplain habitats, and the creation of public trails for public access and recreation (BSLT, 2016). In June 2016, Clinton Eastwood and Margaret Eastwood donated 79 acres of the Odello East property to BLST for the Carmel River FREE Project, adding to the 49 acres that had been donated in 1997.

Among the flood control benefits, this project will reduce flood risks to Hwy 1 and adjacent developed areas north of the lower Carmel River.

Reconnecting the main stem of the river to the south floodplain and to the area west of Hwy 1 will also help reduce flood threat to infrastructure while providing access for wildlife movement. Habitat restoration is an important component of this project; approximately 90 acres of historic riparian and wetland habitat will be restored, increasing the quality and quantity of important habitat for the resident fish and wildlife. Additional benefits of this project include the protection of over 23 acres of organic farming land, increased groundwater recharge, wildlife connectivity under Highway 1 and increased public access through the creation of a series of recreational trails. Project costs, including pre-construction costs, are roughly $27 million. At present, over $14 million has been secured, but there is a funding gap of approximately $13 million. Current funders include a variety sources including grants as well as funds from private sources, NGOs, the local government and public funding from State and Federal Agencies.
[14] 1. A former agricultural supply well located on State Parks property has been operated in the dry season to augment water in the Lagoon.

The well was operated by the Steelhead Association in the past as a means of augmenting freshwater to the Carmel Lagoon in the summer months in order to benefit steelhead and other aquatic species. Funding may be needed to repair the well, as well as to maintain and pay for electricity. However, the well is also within the footprint of the pending Carmel River Floodplain Restoration Project (CR-FREE) and is planned to be relocated as part of the project. CRSA has decided it would be wise to wait until the well has been relocated before spending grant money to repair the well, and is in the process of finding funding to relocate the well as soon as possible.

2. The Carmel River Lagoon provides important rearing habitat for the steelhead trout, but low water flows, largely due to overdrafting, have diminished its quantity and impaired its quality. For several years, the CAWD has been discharging advanced treated wastewater near the lagoon to filter through the soil and replenish the water level in the lagoon during the dry season, effectively increasing habitat for the steelhead (CAWD, 2012). Treated wastewater, regardless of the level of treatment achieved, cannot be discharged directly into the lagoon due to environmental regulations, and for this reason, augmentation efforts are focused on recharging the groundwater system, which also result in an increase of water in the lagoon. The project could have added up to 300 acre-feet of water per year to the lagoon for fish habitat.

The Carmel River Steelhead Association proposed a project to pump water from a well owned by State Parks and release it into the lagoon during the summer months to improve both quantity and quality of lagoon water. The Conservancy commissioned Balance Hydrologics to evaluate the potential impacts of the high rate of pumping proposed by CRSA (600 gpm).

The Balance report suggested that a lower rate of pumping might make more sense, but others thought the benefits of this lower rate would be limited. The last annual report incorrectly stated that CRSA was no longer pursuing this effort. In follow up conservations with Conservancy staff, CRSA proposed to conduct a study of how much benefit the lower pumping rate could achieve – for instance over how wide an area would reduced water temperatures be seen. Once the study is complete, CRSA and the Conservancy will re-consider whether to pursue this project on a longer-term basis.

2.State Parks Well Project

2.1.Agency/Organization (s): Carmel River Steelhead Association

2.2.Coordinates (approximate): Hwy 1 Causeway (3a): 121.9156 W 36.5336 N

2.3.General Goal: Habitat Restoration

2.4.Action Plan 2014: Action 39

2.5.Status as of December 2016: CRSA is planning on restarting the well in summer of 2017, including monitoring for impacts in the south arm.

This is an interim action, as the CRFEE project will result in eventual relocation of the well.

2.6.Contact: Brian LeNeve - [email protected]
A former agricultural supply well, located on State Parks property has been operated in the dry season to augment water in the Lagoon. The well was operated by the Steelhead Association in the past as a means of augmenting freshwater to the Carmel Lagoon in the summer months in order to benefit steelhead and other aquatic species. Funding may be needed to repair the well, as well as to maintain and pay for electricity.

However, the well is also within the footprint of the pending Carmel River Floodplain Restoration Project (CR-FREE) and is planned to be relocated as part of the project. CRSA plans to operate the well in the summer and fall of 2017 and monitor its impact to the south arm of the lagoon. Because the well will be relocated as part of CRFEE, this project is an interim measure to add freshwater during the critical dry period of late summer/ early fall.
[15] 1. The MCWRA has conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the placement of a barrier floodwall, called and ecosystem protective barrier or EPB, along the northern portion of the Carmel River Lagoon (MPWMD, 2011b).

The Carmel Lagoon, located at the mouth of the Carmel River, is a productive estuary that serves as habitat for federally listed South-Central California Coast steelhead (S-CCC steelhead; Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), California red-legged frog (CRLF, Rana aurora draytonii), western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), and Smith’s blue butterfly (SBB; Euphilotes enoptes smithi). Each winter, when the water levels increase in the lagoon, homes and buildings situated within the floodplain are at risk to flooding. Every year, Monterey County takes preemptive action to lower the water level at the Carmel Lagoon by digging a channel through the sand barrier that contains the lagoon. If allowed to breach naturally, thtll ithCl Lld itlltht ld thtthdiifttThEPB iiblltit
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1425, Packet Page 1525 [15] 1. The MCWRA has conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the placement of a barrier floodwall, called and ecosystem protective barrier or EPB, along the northern portion of the Carmel River Lagoon (MPWMD, 2011b).

The Carmel Lagoon, located at the mouth of the Carmel River, is a productive estuary that serves as habitat for federally listed South-Central California Coast steelhead (S-CCC steelhead; Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), California red-legged frog (CRLF, Rana aurora draytonii), western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), and Smith’s blue butterfly (SBB; Euphilotes enoptes smithi). Each winter, when the water levels increase in the lagoon, homes and buildings situated within the floodplain are at risk to flooding. Every year, Monterey County takes preemptive action to lower the water level at the Carmel Lagoon by digging a channel through the sand barrier that contains the lagoon. If allowed to breach naturally, the water level in the Carmel Lagoon could rise to levels that would threaten the surrounding infrastructure. The EPB is one possible solution to mitigate the impacts of flooding in the Carmel Lagoon.

An EPB will allow the levels in the lagoon to rise and breach the sandbar naturally without threatening adjacent low-lying structures. The resulting increase in water quantity and quality in the lagoon is expected to improve rearing habitat for the threatened steelhead and the California redlegged frog. The feasibility study is funded by a $145,000.00 grant from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Fund of 2006 (Proposition 84), allocated by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB, 2011). Breaching dynamics directly affect lagoon stage (water surface elevation), which in turn determines aquatic habitat volume and area, as well as water quality. As a result, mechanical breaching of the lagoon (i.e., for flood protection) has the potential to adversely affect federally listed fish and wildlife in conflict with federal law. Natural breaching, with the assistance of the EPB, is therefore preferred by environmental groups and many key governmental agencies with an interest in the lagoon. Breaching at the north end of the lagoon facilitates a longer and more natural outflow channel, improving conditions for fish and wildlife within the lagoon, but has threatened to undermine Scenic Road and adjacent properties in the past.

The proposed project is a comprehensive plan meant to promote improvement in the ecological function of the lagoon, including natural floodplain function and improvement of habitat for federally listed species associated with the lagoon, by allowing the lagoon to breach naturally, without increasing flood and erosion risk to private structures and public facilities. The project area includes the lagoon and adjacent wetland, riparian and coastal habitats. The proposed project involves implementing three project components: 1) Ecosystem Protective Barrier (EPB), 2) Scenic Road Protection Structure (SRPS), and 3) Interim Sandbar Management Plan (ISMP). The project is currently in the environmental review stage, and distinct components are detailed below.

Ecosystem Protective Barrier details:
●The proposed EPB alignment includes a minimum setback of up to 40 feet from the State Parks property line with a top of wall elevation of 17.5 feet based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. This option was recommended as a component of the preferred alternative because it:
●Maintains the current level of protection of facilities and homes accounting for sea level rise over the next 50 years; ●Minimizes ecological impacts by eliminating drainage infrastructure and fill; ●Minimizes visual impacts with a lower height and greater area of vegetative cover; ●Reduces noise because of smaller pumps with less frequent pumping; and, ●Increases area that serves as a bio-swale to collect urban runoff.

While the County is seeking permits for a long-term solution, there is an Interim Sandbar Management Plan in place. The process to complete the design, environmental review, permitting, and construction of the EPB is estimated to take up to eight years, depending on resource availability; however, the County is making every effort to reduce this timeframe to five years or less. In the interim, the County has developed the 5-Year ISMP in coordination with the regulatory agencies for managing the lagoon, including winter openings and summer closure in the best possible manner that reduces potential impacts to both wildlife and property. The County presently lowers the southern end of the barrier beach to the extent that when the rains begin and the lagoon fills, the lagoon will overtop the beach and open the barrier to the ocean prior to the homes flooding on the north side of the lagoon. The activities, conditions, and implementation of the ISMP will be carried out in accordance with the approved MOU between the County, USACE, and NMFS.

The Draft EIR was released in December 2016 with a 60-day public review period ending on January 31, 2017.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1426, Packet Page 1526 the design, environmental review, permitting, and construction of the EPB is estimated to take up to eight years, depending on resource availability; however, the County is making every effort to reduce this timeframe to five years or less. In the interim, the County has developed the 5-Year ISMP in coordination with the regulatory agencies for managing the lagoon, including winter openings and summer closure in the best possible manner that reduces potential impacts to both wildlife and property. The County presently lowers the southern end of the barrier beach to the extent that when the rains begin and the lagoon fills, the lagoon will overtop the beach and open the barrier to the ocean prior to the homes flooding on the north side of the lagoon. The activities, conditions, and implementation of the ISMP will be carried out in accordance with the approved MOU between the County, USACE, and NMFS.

The Draft EIR was released in December 2016 with a 60-day public review period ending on January 31, 2017. [16] 1. At present, up to about 80% of the water consumed by people on the Monterey Peninsula comes from the Carmel River. In order to protect steelhead trout and other threatened species that live within the watershed, the State Water Board ordered Cal Am to reduce water withdrawals from the river. In order to comply with this mandate, more than 100 options were considered and now Cal Am has decided upon a three-part solution that consists of the construction of a 6.4 million gallon per day desalination plant capable of delivering 6,300 acre-feet of water per year, a groundwater replenishment project to deliver 3,500 acre-feet of advanced treated recycled water per year, and expansion of the aquifer storage and recovery project to deliver Carmel River water and desalinated water in winter to the Seaside Basin for storage and later use in the dry season. In addition, pipeline and other Cal Am system improvements are needed to deliver the new water supplies to Cal Am customers.

Completion of all components of the project will result in a dramatic reduction in Carmel River diversions, especially during the critical dry season months.

Cal Am submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project in April 2012. The expected timeline for the project is detailed below:
•Summer 2017: Construction of Pure Water Monterey (PWM) recycled water project begins •End of 2017: Monterey Pipeline construction completed
•March 2018: Final EIR for desalination component to be released •2018: CPUC decision to approve the desalination project •After CPUC decision: Coastal Commission decision on a Coastal Development Permit •Fall 2018: Construction of desalination project begins •Fall 2018: PWM project begins operation
•2021: Desalination plant begins operation
[17] 1. The boundaries of CSA-50 were expanded in 1995 and 1996 to include all of the Mission Fields neighborhood and to encompass the entire north overbank floodplain as far east as Rancho Cañada. Along with the physical expansion of CSA-50 came the expansion of its mission beyond that of drainage services to encompass flood control services as well. This is particularly important given the flood hazard in the area.

A variety of strategies have been used in the past to manage flood risks, including clearing drains and ditches, repairing levees, and maintaining pumps. As part of the 2014 Lower Carmel River Stormwater Management and Flood Control Report, CSA 50 flood prevention analyses and strategies were updated. Monterey County Public Works created new floodplain and flood flow path maps and modeled floodplain scenarios, amongst other things. They found that the riverine flood risk to Mission Fields is relatively low as long as perimeter protection is provided east of Highway 1. In addition, they recommended that a variety of projects be undertaken to further mitigate flooding impacts.

2. While the County is seeking permits for long-term solutions, there is an Interim Sandbar Management Plan in place. This is a coordination between the regulatory agencies for managing the lagoon, including winter openings and summer closure in the best possible manner that reduces potential impacts on community members and wildlife. The first step is installation of sandbags, followed by a lowering of the southern end of the barrier beach using bulldozers, such that the lagoon will fill to a level that will overtop the beach and open up the lagoon to the ocean before the homes on the north side of the lagoon are flooded Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1427, Packet Page 1527 pumps. As part of the 2014 Lower Carmel River Stormwater Management and Flood Control Report, CSA 50 flood prevention analyses and strategies were updated. Monterey County Public Works created new floodplain and flood flow path maps and modeled floodplain scenarios, amongst other things. They found that the riverine flood risk to Mission Fields is relatively low as long as perimeter protection is provided east of Highway 1. In addition, they recommended that a variety of projects be undertaken to further mitigate flooding impacts.

Carmel River State Beach, Point Lobos State Natural Reserve, Point Lobos Ranch and Hatton Canyon. A second public workshop was held on July 22, 2015 to introduce general plan alternatives as well as conservation projects, visitor uses, and facilities that could be included. A third public meeting will be held in the upcoming months. California State Parks intends to prepare the Preliminary General Plan and Draft EIR in late 2015 to early 2016 and a Final EIR in 2016 or 2017. They hope to have the General Plan completed by summer of 2017. [19] 1. Steelhead rescue as well as track and truck operations take place throughout the watershed at specific times during the year in order to help with steelhead migration. MPWMD’s extensive 25-year rescue has rescued over 400,000 steelhead from the main stem of the Carmel River since 1989. These fish are moved upstream to permanent habitat or reared in the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (SHSRF). For example, in 2013, MPWMD staff began fish rescues on April 19 as flow at the HW 1 gage declined to 10 cfs. Through the end of September, 42,805 steelhead had been captured and released upstream in permanent habitat or taken to the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (SHSRF) including: 41,893 young-of-the-year (YOY), 650 age 1+ juveniles, 13 adults (released in ocean), and 249 mortalities (0.58%). MPWMD continues to monitor steelhead, but water levels have been so low recently that rescue operations have been minimal. To date, CRSA has rescued over 100,000 fish from tributaries and over 72,000 fish from the mainstream Carmel River Channel.

2. As part of the San Clemente Dam removal project, the Sleepy Hollow Ford was removed and a new bridge was constructed in spring/summer of 2016.

3. The SHSRF started operations in 1997 with the purpose of rescuing and rearing steelhead that were stranded in the Lower Carmel River as a result of water diversions. The facility includes a laboratory, a diversion and pump station, several rearing tanks, an 800-foot long rearing channel, and electrical, water, pressurized air and drainage systems (MPWMD 2011c). In 2003, the MPWMD completed significant improvements to ensure that the facility could continue to operate under increasing sediment loads. The District has continued to upgrade the facility in subsequent years, but additional improvements are still needed in order to renew the necessary operating permits and to prepare the intakes for the increase in sediment loads after the removal of the San Clemente Dam (MPWMD 2011c). The Project is being funded by a $450,000 grant from Cal-Am Settlement Agrement funds administered by the Coastal Conservancy to MPWMD to prepare permitting, engineering, and environmental review documents to improve the intake structure of the Sleepy Hollow Rearing Facility. At present, MPWMD has hired Tetra Tech to lead the planning phase of the settlement. Planning and permit acquisition is currently underway and should be complete in 2017. [20] 1. MPWMD will combine a watershed availability analysis, a steelhead data and habitat analysis, a geomorphological analysis, feasibility of upstream passage, and feasibility of long-term alternatives to manage the dam. The effort is supposed to be complete by the end of 2017, but given the scope of the project, project completion will extend into 2018.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1428, Packet Page 1528 [21] 1. Cachagua Creek Ford Design project is underway. Topographic and geotechnical analysis has been completed, but may need follow up to address for liquefaction. Alternatives proposed and forwarded to CDFW are currently being reviewed. Still on target for design documents for the March 2017 application for FRGP construction.

Potrero Creek– Trout Unlimited hired consultants to develop plans for removal of passage barriers and improvement of riparian habitat along Potrero Creek as it passes through the Quail Meadows Golf Course and Carmel Valley Athletic Club. The initial barrier and habitat assessment is complete and conceptual alternatives were identified. Trout Unlimited is now working on the preliminary designs. This project should be complete by the end of 2017. Trout Unlimited intends to apply for implementation funding for the project from other sources. The Conservancy is currently budgeting $300,000 from Settlement Funds for implementation. There is not yet an estimate as to when project construction will begin.

2. The largest and arguably most important project that has occurred in the Carmel River Watershed in recent years is the San Clemente Dam removal, which took place in August of 2015. This was the largest dam removal project to take place in California to date. The San Clemente Dam was built in 1920 by the Del Monte Properties Company exclusively to serve as a water storage reservoir (Olmsted, 1921). Originally, the reservoir could store up to 1,425 acre-feet of water, but its capacity greatly diminished over time. By the time the removal project began, the reservoir was filled with over 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment, leaving it at less than 5% capacity (SCC, 2011).

In 1992, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) determined that the San Clemente Dam could potentially fail in a strong earthquake or a severe flood, and issued an order mandating Cal Am, the owner of the dam, to address this public safety issue (Cal Am, 2012). After exploring several alternatives to address the seismic concerns, Cal Am, in partnership with the State Coastal Conservancy, NOAA Fisheries, and the Planning & Conservation League Foundation, chose an alternative that included rerouting the Carmel River, removal of the dam, and restoration of that section of the Carmel River watershed. Not only did this project address the public safety issues, but it will also improve the general health of the river. Sediment from the upper watershed is being transported downstream as it did before the construction of the dam, steelhead step pools were constructed to assist steelhead in their journey upstream, and new rearing and spawning habit will open up. Additionally, the smaller Old Carmel River Dam was removed in 2016 and final planting was complete by the end of October 2016 (Coastal Conservancy, 2016). Among other benefits, the San Clemente Dam Removal and Carmel River Reroute project frees over 25 miles of natural spawning and rearing habitat to steelhead, improves sediment transport to the lower river, and provides connectivity of aquatic and riparian habitats (Cal Am, 2015). The project will not affect flood control management or the regional water supply. The San Clemente Dam removal and reroute project is a prime example of the benefits of cooperative, creative, multi-stakeholder approaches to solving watershed management issues.

3. Field surveys have been completed at all barriers located on properties whose owners permitted access. No estimated date has been established as to when project construction will begin (Coastal Conservancy, 2016). In 2016, Trout Unlimited secured a grant to begin work to remove passage barriers in Cachagua Creek and has applied for a grant to do the same in Potrero Creek.

3. Field surveys have been completed at all barriers located on properties whose owners permitted access. No estimated date has been established as to when project construction will begin (Coastal Conservancy, 2016). [22] Built in 1920, the San Clemente Dam was deemed unsafe by the Division of Safety of Dams in 1992 (Cal Am, 2010). To address the public safety concerns, Cal Am, the owners of the dam, determined that strengthening the dam was the most cost-effective alternative. Strengthening the dam in place, however, would not have addressed many of the environmental impairments associated with it. With the support from regional stakeholders, including the CRWC (2005 Assessment), an alternative project that addressed both the public safety and environmental concerns was favored. In 2007, the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Planning & Conservation League Foundation (PCLF) formed a partnership with Cal Am to aid in the project’s planning, funding, and public outreach activities (SCC 2011).

The San Clemente Dam Removal and Carmel River Reroute project was recently completed. The Carmel River was rerouted and the dam was successfully removed in August of 2014. At present, Cal Am and Granite Construction have also completed steelhead step pools to aid steelhead ithiititRttid ttif iihbitt tiThjt ltd t thd f 2016Th
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1429, Packet Page 1529 [22] Built in 1920, the San Clemente Dam was deemed unsafe by the Division of Safety of Dams in 1992 (Cal Am, 2010). To address the public safety concerns, Cal Am, the owners of the dam, determined that strengthening the dam was the most cost-effective alternative. Strengthening the dam in place, however, would not have addressed many of the environmental impairments associated with it. With the support from regional stakeholders, including the CRWC (2005 Assessment), an alternative project that addressed both the public safety and environmental concerns was favored. In 2007, the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Planning & Conservation League Foundation (PCLF) formed a partnership with Cal Am to aid in the project’s planning, funding, and public outreach activities (SCC 2011).

Among other benefits, the San Clemente Dam Removal and Carmel River Reroute project opens up over 25 miles of natural spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead trout, improves sediment transport to the lower river, and provides connectivity of aquatic and riparian habitats (Cal Am 2012). The project will not affect flood control management or the regional water supply.

The total cost of the San Clemente Dam Removal and River Reroute Project has been estimated at $83 million. Cal Am contributed $49 million, which is the estimated cost of strengthening the dam and the SCC and NOAA Fisheries contributed the additional $34 million. Other funders include the Nature Conservancy and the Resources Legacy Fund. The San Clemente Dam removal and reroute project is a prime example of the benefits of cooperative, creative, multi-stakeholder approaches to solving watershed management issues. [23] 1. In the Central Coast, steelhead trout are listed as a threatened species and the Carmel River has been identified as one of the most important watersheds for recovery of the species. The lagoon is particularly important for rearing juvenile steelhead prior to them entering the ocean. The recovery plan developed by the National Marine Fisheries Services for Central Coast steelhead trout specifically identifies the placement of additional large woody debris in the lagoon to enhance rearing habitat as a priority. Large woody debris creates areas for steelhead to hide and avoid predation by birds and other species.

The proposed project involved construction of seven structures made up of large wood pieces anchored to large rock. These structures were constructed on shore and then placed by helicopter into the channel. The California Conservation Corps was a partner on the project and constructed the structures. In addition, restoration of the staging areas was done in partnership with MEarth, an environmental education center located along the river. In the Central Coast, steelhead trout are listed as a threatened species and the Carmel River has been identified as one of the most important watersheds for recovery of the species. The lagoon is particularly important for rearing juvenile steelhead prior to them entering the ocean. The recovery plan developed by the National Marine Fisheries Services for Central Coast steelhead trout specifically identified the placement of additional large woody debris in the lagoon to enhance rearing habitat as a priority. Large woody debris creates areas for steelhead to hide and avoid predation by birds and other species.

The project involved constructing seven structures made up of large wood pieces anchored to large rock. These structures were assembled on shore and then placed by helicopter into the channel. The California Conservation Corps was a partner on the project and was responsible for constructing the structures. In addition, restoration of the staging areas was done in partnership with a MEarth, an environmental education center located along the river.

The Carmel River Steelhead Association is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to restore and conserve the steelhead fishery in the Carmel River watershed. They have tackled many challenges in the watershed including completion of a similar project in the south arm of the lagoon several years ago. The Conservancy approved a grant to the Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) to install multiple LWD structures in the Carmel River Lagoon to increase habitat complexity in the lagoon.

Despite being delayed by permitting issues in 2016, phase two of the project was completed in October 2017, and is one of the largest contributors to watershed health to date. Plans to design a third phase, are currently under way. This phase would include implementation of small woody debris upstream where the river flows year-round. Use of small woody debris in lieu of large woody debris would allow any wood that breaks free to pass under any bridge without causing flooding or a need for bridge removal. An exact location, and timeline for this project have t tbdtid
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1430, Packet Page 1530 The Carmel River Steelhead Association is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to restore and conserve the steelhead fishery in the Carmel River watershed. They have tackled many challenges in the watershed including completion of a similar project in the south arm of the lagoon several years ago. The Conservancy approved a grant to the Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) to install multiple LWD structures in the Carmel River Lagoon to increase habitat complexity in the lagoon.

Despite being delayed by permitting issues in 2016, phase two of the project was completed in October 2017, and is one of the largest contributors to watershed health to date. Plans to design a third phase, are currently under way. This phase would include implementation of small woody debris upstream where the river flows year-round. Use of small woody debris in lieu of large woody debris would allow any wood that breaks free to pass under any bridge without causing flooding or a need for bridge removal. An exact location, and timeline for this project have yet to be determined.
[24] 1. Field surveys have been completed at all barriers located on properties whose owners whom permitted access. No estimated date has been established as to when project construction will begin (Coastal Conservancy, 2016). In 2016, Trout Unlimited secured a grant to begin work to remove passage barriers in Cachagua Creek and has applied for a grant to do the same in Potrero Creek.

2. Acoustic tags will be deployed on smolts in late fall or early winter of 2017 to determine the success rates of downstream migration to the lagoon. In late winter and spring, any smolts migrating back to sea that become trapped in the lagoon behind a sand berm will be rescued, tagged, and released into the Carmel Bay. An array of acoustic receivers deployed between Alaska and California are available to detect locations of tagged fish, should they pass nearby. Currently, the offshore migrations of the Carmel River’s steelhead trout are unknown. The second part of the project uses genetics to "tag" steelhead family groups (kin) in the watershed in order to track the return migration of siblings and their offspring through kinship analysis. By saving the few mortalities that occur during juvenile fish rescues, they will "fingerprint" their DNA and determine patterns of genetic kinship throughout the watershed. The data collected will become invaluable as a baseline for future genetic analysis. For example, by tracking the redistribution of genetic diversity in the Carmel River watershed before and after the San Clemente Dam was removed, the success of fish restoration after dam removal can be assessed. [25] 1. Status as of December 2017: On hold

2. Schulte Bridge provides the only access to the areas south of the Carmel River along Schulte Road. The old, one-lane bridge was replaced with a two-lane bridge in late 2013, at a cost of $3.1 million. The new bridge has improved access to properties along the south side of the river, and is less susceptible to failure from high river flows. Additionally, fewer piers in the creek allows for more open river channel underneath the bridge, as well as a pathway for pedestrians and bikes. As part of the project, the area was re-vegetated with plants. Restoration of the riparian corridor has progressed nicely on the upstream end of the bridge that once allowed construction access, and will continue to be monitored for years.
[26] Schulte Bridge provides the only access to the areas south of the Carmel River along Schulte Road. The old, one-lane bridge was replaced with a two-lane bridge. Construction costs were roughly $3.1 million. The new bridge has fewer piers in the creek, which allows for more open river channel underneath the bridge, as well as a pathway for pedestrians and bikes. As part of the project, the area was re-vegetated with plants.

The restoration progress will be monitored for the next several years. [27] The San Clemente Dam removal poses a large-scale experiment in watershed engineering. Not only is it the largest dam removal in California history, it also includes a world-class example of river construction engineering. Removal of the San Clemente Dam was supposed to reintroduce spawning gravel and large wood to the lower Carmel River, without any significant increase in flood risk or channel stability. Our goal is to measure three key variables in many places along the river to characterize the dam removal impact on river morphology and habitat. We are studying the following four parameters to assess those stated goals. 1) We are measuring sediment size distribution to evaluate changes in spawning gravel character through time Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1431, Packet Page 1531 [27] The San Clemente Dam removal poses a large-scale experiment in watershed engineering. Not only is it the largest dam removal in California history, it also includes a world-class example of river construction engineering. Removal of the San Clemente Dam was supposed to reintroduce spawning gravel and large wood to the lower Carmel River, without any significant increase in flood risk or channel stability. Our goal is to measure three key variables in many places along the river to characterize the dam removal impact on river morphology and habitat. We are studying the following four parameters to assess those stated goals. 1) We are measuring sediment size distribution to evaluate changes in spawning gravel character through time. 2) We are surveying channel cross sections to assess channel stability and bank erosion through time. 3) We are also using the surveys to assess channel filling that might lead to increased flood risk through time. 4) Lastly, we are inventorying all large wood greater than 15 cm in diameter and 1 m long from the lagoon to Camp Stefani to assess changes related to dam removal.

Our monitoring efforts were initiated several years before dam removal so that we could see how the river changes in the post-dam era. [28] 1. The CSUMB Watershed Institute participates in a variety of water quality monitoring research activities, including studies to assess postfire watershed impacts. More specifically, they study how increases in sediment runoff and debris affects lagoons, reservoirs, and streams, particularly now that the San Clemente Dam has been removed. [29] 1. Status as of December 2017: Ongoing

2. Status as of December 2017: Ongoing

3. Status as of December 2017: On hold

4. A collaborative group entitled Trust for Public Lands is acquiring the Rancho Cañada Golf Course with plans to convert it into a regional park.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1432, Packet Page 1532 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-7 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Table 3-2: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives Water Supply (WS)
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.*
WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse, including gray water systems, and stormwater capture and use.
2 *
WS-3. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.* WS-4. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.* WS-5. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region in compliance with the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.*
Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.*
WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable water supplies.*
WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins.* WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. * Flood Protection and Erosion Prevention (FP)
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage, erosion, and sea level rise, in particular, along the South Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel Valley.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).*
FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.* FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV)
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds; promote the steelhead run.*
EV-2. Identify opportunities to assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.* EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.* EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.

EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.* Climate Change (CC)
CC-1. Evaluate adaptation measures and mitigative solutions to climate change effects.* CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.*
CC-3. Support efforts to increase education, research and use of energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.*

2 The underlined text was added based on comments from the city of Pacific Grove (Sarah Hardgrave, January 2013)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1433, Packet Page 1533 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-8 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts. *
RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation.* RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues.*
RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTES: These objectives have been revised and renumbered compared to the draft objectives presented and evaluated at the 7/25/2012 Stakeholder Meeting.

High Priority Objectives based upon those objectives receiving the most points during the objectives prioritization exercise in July and August 2012 are presented in gray shading and bold type. * = Objective is closely aligned with Statewide Priorities (see Table 3-4).

3.1.5 Measuring Attainment of Objectives
The IRWM Guidelines require that objectives must be measurable by some practical means to enable monitoring of the achievement of the objectives and thus the success of IRWM Plan implementation.

Because the IRWM Plan is implemented primarily through projects, these measures, or “metrics” apply to projects that seek to achieve the objectives. Table 3-4 suggests potential qualitative and quantitative measurement metrics that will be further developed when projects under the plan have been implemented. Although this Draft Plan attempts to identify the most appropriate measures for a given objective, the suggested measures do not encompass the full breadth of possible ways to measure success in meeting the Plan goals and objectives. See Chapter 8, Plan Performance and Monitoring for additional detail about the future process for measuring achievement of goals and objectives.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1434, Packet Page 1534 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-11 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Table 3-4:

Measuring Attainment of IRWM Plan Objectives
Darker shading represents high priority objectives
Objective Qualitative Measurement Quantitative Measurement Water Supply
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of
the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.* Identification of, and proposals for, implementation of projects and initiatives/programs that will result in
achieving water supply replacements for the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Measurable increase in water supply replacement
amounts (i.e., in acre-feet per year, AFY) for the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse
opportunities, such as graywater and stormwater capture and use.*
Identification and implementation of projects and
initiatives/programs designed to increase use of recycled water on individual properties as well as by regional
wastewater treatment entities.

Measurable increase of use of recycled water in lieu of potable water (AFY); number of individual properties
benefitted.

WS-3. Seek long-term, sustainable supplies for adopted
future demand estimates.*
Identification and implementation of projects designed to protect, enhance, and increase long-term sustainable
supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

Measurable improvements in long-term sustainable
supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

WS-4. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and
groundwater.*
Identification of projects and initiatives/programs meant to optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.

Acre-feet (AF) of water storage; number of conjunctive
management projects developed; reduction in diversions
in Carmel Valley Basin to achieve SWRCB limits; reduction in use of Seaside Groundwater Basin native water to legal adjudicated limit.

WS-5. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation
throughout the Region in compliance with the State’s
20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.*
Identification of projects and initiatives/programs meant to evaluate, advance, or create water conservation.

Quantitative increase in water conservation; or number of new or enhanced conservation programs/projects.

Water Quality
WQ-1. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of
Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing
pollutants in stormwater discharges.*
Identification of sources of existing pollutants potential increases in runoff that may impact ocean water quality, including ASBS, and implementation of innovative and
effective projects or programs to improve existing runoff conditions.

An increased percentage of projects that include BMP, LID standards, or other alternatives to minimize runoff that may impact ocean water quality. Number of projects or
programs implemented to improve existing runoff
conditions.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1435, Packet Page 1535 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-12 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Table 3-4:

Measuring Attainment of IRWM Plan Objectives
Darker shading represents high priority objectives
Objective Qualitative Measurement Quantitative Measurement WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for
environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable
water supplies.*
Identification of needs and opportunities to improve
surface water quality for environmental resources. Design and implementation of projects or programs to improve
conditions.

Number of projects or programs implemented to improve
conditions. Measurable improvement in water quality
(i.e., reduced pollutant concentrations) attributed (at least in part) to the implementation of new
projects/programs. Pounds of pollutants eliminated from discharges.

WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater
basins.*
Identification of projects and initiatives/programs designed to protect and improve groundwater quality.

Measurable improvements to groundwater quality (i.e.,
lowering of salinity, pollutant concentrations) through implementation of projects/programs. Pounds of
pollutants eliminated from discharges.

WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards
established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. *
Progress toward meeting established water quality
objectives, including TMDLs, and NPDES limits.

Number of projects that benefit water quality of 303(d) listed streams or improve water quality of permitted
discharges. Pollutant load reductions in discharges.

Flood Protection and Erosion Prevention
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to
protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage, erosion, and sea level rise, in particular, along the South Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel
Valley.*
Demonstrated progress in eliminating potential for
properties to flood damage.

Acreage of property (or square feet of habitable
buildings) removed from flood zones identified in flood insurance study updates; reduction in annual
losses/damages from flooding in dollars; number of
properties removed from mapped flood hazards.

FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that
minimize maintenance and repair requirements
(sustainable flood management systems).*
Identification of policies and programs that will require all new development to implement adaptive management
methods (i.e., LID).

Estimated reduction in annual maintenance/repair costs; presence/absence of LID program; number of projects
implementing LID.

FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while
preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.*
Identification of natural stream/river ecological and
hydrological functions and eliminating/minimizing threats to function.

Acres of enhanced or reconnected floodplains; acres of
newly created treatment wetland areas; acres of upland
enhanced through BMPs, revegetation, number of
projects implementing LID.

FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood
protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.

Identification of opportunities to provide community
benefits and design of projects or programs to provide
them.

Number of projects or programs implemented resulting in community benefits (miles of new trails, acres of: 1) new publicly accessible open space; 2) preserved agricultural land; or 3) increased number or appeal of recreational
and tourism industry opportunities/benefits).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1436, Packet Page 1536 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-13 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Table 3-4:

Measuring Attainment of IRWM Plan Objectives
Darker shading represents high priority objectives
Objective Qualitative Measurement Quantitative Measurement Environmental Protection and Enhancement
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their
habitats in the regional watersheds; promote the
steelhead run.*
Identification, design, and implementation of projects or programs intended to protect and enhance sensitive
species and habitats.

Acreage (or lineal feet of stream or river) of conserved, protected and enhanced sensitive species habitats,
including length of stream opened during key
seasons/months to fish and other aquatic species for
migration and watershed areas opened to upland habitat
for other species. Measured increases in numbers of
species populations.

EV-2. Identify opportunities to assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management
strategies and projects.*
Identification, design, and implementation of projects or programs intended to protect and enhance natural areas.

Increase in area of assessed, protected, enhanced, and/or restored natural areas.

EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.*
To consider and mitigate potential adverse effects on
biological and cultural resources when implementing
strategies and projects, or developing alternatives to avoid impacts.

Quantifiable measurement is specific to the project and type of resource affected. At a minimum, a no net loss
policy should be implemented for potential adverse
effects on sensitive biological and cultural resources (i.e., significant impacts should be mitigated).

EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.

Identification of opportunities to provide community
recreational benefits along streams or in watersheds.

Area, miles of trails, and/or number of projects or
programs implemented providing community recreational
benefits along streams or in watersheds.

EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate
Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.* Requirement to integrate Federal and State species
protection and recovery plans into design of all projects, programs, or initiatives.

Number of projects implemented integrating Federal and
State species protection and recovery plans.

Climate Change
CC-1. Evaluate adaptation measures and mitigative
solutions to climate change effects.*
Requirement to plan for potential future climate change impacts into design of all projects, programs, or initiatives.

Number of projects implemented incorporating
consideration of future climate change impacts.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1437, Packet Page 1537 Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay 3-14 June 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
Table 3-4:

Measuring Attainment of IRWM Plan Objectives
Darker shading represents high priority objectives
Objective Qualitative Measurement Quantitative Measurement CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and
research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.*
Improve access to data, reports on current science,
documenting trends in climate change (rain fall,
temperature, sea level rise, river flows). Development of clearinghouse of proposed and current monitoring
programs related to climate change impacts.

Number of research/monitoring programs implemented
to obtain greater understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the Region, and/or monetary
investment in research and monitoring programs.

CC-3. Support efforts to increase education, research and use of energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and
wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.*
Compile data reports on current science, documenting
trends in resource conservation and alternative energy
sources. List of proposed additions for current monitoring programs to decrease resource demands of potential
projects.

Number of research/monitoring programs implemented
to decrease resource demands of potential projects in the Region, and/or monetary investment in research and
monitoring programs.

Regional Communication
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for
protecting both infrastructure and environmental
resources, including from climate change impacts. *
Meetings between local, regional, state, and federal
entities to identify and resolve infrastructure and
environmental resources problem areas.

Number and success ratio increase in proposed projects
that have incorporated integrated strategies for
protecting both infrastructure and environmental
resources.

RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation.*
Meetings convened between regional entities and
stakeholders to discuss and plan regional water initiatives and/or resolve water-related conflicts. Positive indication of public support for implementation of water-related
projects and/or programs that demonstrate collaborative efforts.

Number of projects, programs, or initiatives successfully designed, permitted, or implemented that promote
integrated planning, improved communication between
agencies & interest groups, and development of projects meeting the IRWM Plan goals.

RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for
public education, outreach, and communication on water
resource management and climate change, including to
disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with
interests in water management issues.*
Implementation of programs to educate the public about
water resources, with an emphasis on high priority
geographic areas or demographic groups.

Number of presentations and outreach events which
increase public education about water resources issues
and needs; number of diverse, typically underrepresented groups attending stakeholder meetings.

RC-4. Build relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

Meetings convened and agreements reached between
State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water
agencies to facilitate the permitting, planning, and
implementation of water-related projects.

Number of projects, programs, or initiatives successfully designed, permitted, or implemented as a result of
improved relationships and communication with state
and federal regulatory agencies.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1438, Packet Page 1538 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 1 of 10 ends

AMENDED
Memorandum of Understanding for
Integrated Regional Water Management in the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region

1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to recognize a mutual understanding among entities in the southern Monterey Bay area regarding their joint efforts toward Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning. That understanding will continue to increase coordination, collaboration and communication for comprehensive management of water resources in the cities and unincorporated portions of the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region (Region).

A. Background and Description of Amendments. The initial MOU to form a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) was fully executed on July 22, 2008 by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MOU formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM.

In 2014, voters passed Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act (Public Resources Code, sections 79700 - 79798), which authorizes the Legislature to appropriate funding for competitive grants for Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) projects. Funding is administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

In 2015, representatives from the RWMGs representing the Central Coast region entered into discussions about a funding area allocation agreement for Proposition 1 funds allocated to the Central Coast funding area. Negotiations have resulted in a draft agreement that is acceptable to all RWMGs. In 2016, the Central Coast RWMGs entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for Integrated Regional Water Management Planning and Funding in the Central Coast Funding Area to share Proposition 1 funding for the IRWM grant program among the six Parties in a fair and equitable manner, and to reduce the need for the Parties to compete against each other for grant funds, which creates unnecessary economic inefficiencies in implementing each Planning Region’s IRWM Plan.

Commented [SH1]: Update and add any other organizations that desire to join
Commented [SH2]: This is the term used in the definitions Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1439, Packet Page 1539 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 2 of 10 ends

This amended MOU reflects the addition of the City of Seaside, ADD OTHERS as a member of the RWMG and amends the MOU to authorize MPWMD to execute a funding area agreement on behalf of the RWMG.

2. RECITALS
A. The State of California desires to foster Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning and encourages local public, non-profit, and private (for profit) entities to define planning regions appropriate for managing water resources and to integrate strategies within these planning regions.

B. Water resources management authority in the Region is currently distributed among various public agencies with a range of legal powers and regulatory responsibilities.

These public agencies have definite jurisdictional boundaries, whereas sensible water resources planning and management frequently requires actions in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-public entities within the Region have considerable interests in cooperating with public entities to protect, manage, and enhance water resources within the Region.

C. Seven public entities and one non-profit entity in the Region with responsibility and interests in the management of water resources have agreed to form a Regional Water Management Group for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM. These entities are:
• Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization;
• City of Monterey;
• City of Seaside
• Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA); • Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA);
• Marina Coast Water District (MCWD);
• Resource Conservation District of Monterey County; and • Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD).

D. The Regional Water Management Group has defined an appropriate planning Region that takes into consideration jurisdictional limits, powers and responsibilities, and watershed and groundwater basin boundaries. The Regional Water Management Group is taking the lead in overseeing and implementing a detailed IRWM Plan within the planning Region. The Region is generally described as encompassing approximately 347 square miles and consists of groundwater basins and coastal watershed areas contributing to the Carmel Bay and south Monterey Bay. The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The inland area is bounded by the Seaside Groundwater Basin to the north and by the Carmel River watershed to the south and east. The western limit of the planning Region generally coincides with the land and Pacific Ocean interface, but includes the Pt. Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) adjacent to the coastal portion of the Region.

Commented [SH3]: Update list if additional entities decide to join
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1440, Packet Page 1540 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 3 of 10 ends

The principal groundwater basins in the planning Region are the Seaside Groundwater Basin and the Carmel Valley Aquifer. The Region includes about 38 miles of the coast within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, three ASBS, the Cities of Carmelby-the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and unincorporated portions of Monterey County including the Carmel Valley watershed (255 square miles), Pebble Beach, the Carmel Highlands and portions of the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjacent to Highway 68 (also known as Canyon Del Rey). This description of the planning Region is not intended to be a limitation on projects and resource planning that may be shared between adjacent IRWM planning Regions (e.g., the Greater Monterey County IRWM planning Region to the north and east).

E. The entities signatory to this MOU desire to link and integrate efforts to jointly oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region and to allocate Proposition 1 IRWM funding within the planning Region.

3. GOALS
The goals of the collaborative effort undertaken pursuant to this MOU are:

3.1 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that will consider the strategies that are required by the State under CWC 79562.5 and 79564 and subsequent modifications required under Proposition 84 and Proposition 1. Eligible projects must yield multiple benefits and include one or more of the following elements (PRC § 75026.(a)):
 Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency  Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management  Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands
 Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring  Groundwater recharge and management projects
 Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users
 Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality  Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs  Watershed protection and management
 Drinking water treatment and distribution
 Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1441, Packet Page 1541 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 4 of 10 ends

3.2 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that incorporates water supply, water quality, flood and erosion protection, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.3 To improve and maximize coordination of individual public, private, and non-profit agency plans, programs and projects for mutual benefit and optimal gain within the Region.

3.4 To help identify, develop, and implement collaborative plans, programs, and projects that may be beyond the scope or capability of individual entities, but which would be of mutual benefit if implemented in a cooperative manner.

3.5 To facilitate regional water management efforts that include multiple water supply, water quality, flood control, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.6 To foster coordination, collaboration and communication between stakeholders and other interested parties, to achieve greater efficiencies, enhance public services, and build public support for vital projects.

3.7. To realize regional water management objectives at the least cost possible through mutual cooperation, elimination of redundancy, and enhanced regional competitiveness for State and Federal grant funding.

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Funding Area Agreement. The agreement entered into between the six regions within the Central Coast funding area to allocate a portion of Proposition 1 IRWM funds to each planning region.

4.2 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or IRWM Plan). The plan envisioned by state legislators and state resource agencies that integrates the strategies, objectives, and priorities for projects to manage water resources proposed by public entities, non-profit entities, and stakeholders within a defined Planning Region. The minimum plan standards are as shown in Appendix A of “Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program Guidelines, November 2004, Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 50, Chapter 8,” as revised. Minimum IRWM Plan standards may be revised from time to time by the State of California.

4.3 Integration. The combining of water management strategies and projects to be included in an IRWMP.

4.4.a Lead Agency for IRWM Plan Development. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District is designated by the Regional Water Management Group to lead the development or implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region.

4.4.b Lead Agency for IRWM Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group may designate any entity in the Regional Water Management Group to be the Lead Agency in making application to the State for grant funds.

4.4.c Lead Agency for Executing a Central Coast funding area agreement. The entity the Regional Water Management Group designates to represent the Monterey Peninsula Region to execute a Funding Area Agreement.

4.5 Non-profit Agency. A 501 (c) (3) corporation, conservancy, group or other organization involved in water resources management in the Region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1442, Packet Page 1542 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 5 of 10 ends

4.6 Private Agency. A private or publicly held for-profit corporation or property owner involved in water resources management in the Region

4.7 Project. A specific project that addresses a service function.

4.8 Public Agency. A state-authorized water district, water agency, water management agency or other public entity, be it a special district, city or other governmental entity, responsible for providing one or more services in the areas of water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration.

4.9 Region. The area defined by the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) consisting of watersheds, sub-watersheds and groundwater basins under the jurisdiction of one or more entities within the RWMG.

4.10 Service Function. A water-related individual service function provided by a private, public, or non-profit entity, i.e. water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood protection, watershed planning, recreational facilities, and habitat protection and restoration.

4.11 Signatory Entity. A public, private, or non-profit entity within the Region that is signatory to this MOU.

4.12 Stakeholder. A non-signatory public, private, or non-profit agency identified in the IRWM Plan with an interest in water resources management within the Region.

4.13 Technical Advisory Committee. The committee organized to advise the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders concerning the IRWM Plan.

Normally, the group will be comprised of individuals with technical backgrounds in the fields of marine and freshwater biology, ecology, geology, engineering, hydrogeology, planning, resource conservation, riparian systems, water conservation, and water quality. However, stakeholders with interests in a particular aspect of resource or project management, but not necessarily a technical background, may also be considered for inclusion in the TAC.

4.14 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in overseeing the development and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region. The RWMG consists of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the City of Monterey, the City of Seaside, the Marina Coast Water District, the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, and the Big Sur Land Trust.

4.15 Water Management Strategies. Plans for and activities to be considered in an IRWMP include, but are not limited to, ecosystem restoration, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, water-supply reliability, flood management, groundwater management, recreation and public access, storm water capture and management, water conservation, water quality improvement, water recycling, and wetlands enhancement and creation.

5. IRWMP PARTICIPANTS

5.1 Adopting Entities. The entities in the Region that participate in the development, adoption, and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region. Each entity intending to carry out a project proposed in the IRWMP must formally adopt the IRWMP or provide written substantiation of acceptance by the governing authority of the entity. For a public agency, adoption of the IRWMP Commented [SH4]: Update with any added entities
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1443, Packet Page 1543 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 6 of 10 ends

is by formal resolution of the governing body. For a non-profit or for-profit entity, proof of acceptance of the IRWMP by the equivalent of a public agency governing body is required (e.g., by a board of directors or other management entity).

5.2. Stakeholders. Entities, such as other public, private, and non-profit entities, business and environmental groups, that are considered valuable contributors to the understanding and management of the Region’s water resources.

5.3. Regulatory Agencies. These agencies, including, but not limited to, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, California Public Utilities Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game, will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the IRWMP.

5.4 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in developing and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region.

6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

6.1. Subject matter scope of the IRWMP. The IRWMP for the Region will include, but is not limited to, water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning, erosion prevention, and habitat protection and restoration. It is acknowledged that the proposals contained in the IRWMP may be based, in part, on the land-use plans of the member entities local governments such as Cities, Monterey County, and special districts located within the Region. Therefore, the resultant IRWMP will by design have incorporated the land-use plans and assumptions intrinsic to the respective water-related service function.

6.2. Geographical scope of the IRWMP. The area for this Memorandum is generally defined as the watersheds and associated groundwater basins contributing to the south Monterey Bay and Carmel Bay as shown in Figure 3-1: Map of Monterey Peninsula Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region in the IRWM Plan.

The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

The inland area is bounded by the Seaside Groundwater Basin to the north and by the Carmel River watershed to the south and east. The western limit of the planning Region generally coincides with the land and Pacific Ocean interface, but includes the Pt. Lobos, Carmel Bay, and Pacific Grove Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) adjacent to the coastal portion of the Region.

However, it is recognized that the geographic scope represented in the IRWM Plan may be amended to include projects that are implemented cooperatively between IRWM planning regions (e.g., with the Greater Monterey County IRWM planning region) and is not intended to be a rigid boundary.

6.3. Approach to developing the IRWMP. It will be the responsibility of each entity signatory to this Memorandum to provide the Lead Agency with information for the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1444, Packet Page 1544 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 7 of 10 ends

IRWMP concerning project proposals or to identify the need for a water management strategy for each service function provided by a signatory entity.

In order to be included in the IRWMP, all proposals for development of water management plans and water development project proposals related to the IRWMP must meet the standards identified in the IRWM Plan for the Region.

A technical advisory committee consisting of staff representatives from the Regional Water Management Group, other Stakeholders and such other organizations as may become contributing entities, will review proposed management plans and project proposals for consistency with the IRWMP and recommend a prioritized list of projects to be carried out within the Region. The Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders will meet to review the recommendation made by the TAC.

6.4. Approval of prioritized project list. Approval of the prioritized project list should occur by consensus of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders and should be based on the prioritization process described in the IRWMP and the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee. However, if a consensus cannot be reached among the Stakeholders and Regional Water Management Group, the Regional Water Management Group may make a final determination of the prioritized project list.

6.5. Adoption of the IRWMP. Plan adoption will occur by approval of the governing board of each entity. Each member of the RWMG shall adopt the IRWM Plan or an amended IRWM Plan, when the Plan becomes available. Project proponents named in an IRWM grant application shall adopt the IRWM Plan or amended IRWM Plan prior to submittal of the grant application. It should be noted that the adopted Plan and project list may be amended from time to time as described below.

6.6 Amendment of IRWMP or Prioritized Project list. The IRWM Plan and prioritized project list may be amended from time to time. Any member of the Regional Water Management Group or Stakeholders may request that the Lead Agency convene a meeting of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders for the purposes of amending the IRWM Plan or the prioritized project list. However, it is anticipated that the IRWMP or prioritized project list will be amended no more frequently than annually, unless more frequent amendments are required to meet State IRWM standards or grant application cycles. An amended IRWM Plan must be consistent with State IRWM standards as described in Definition 4.1 “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan” and any subsequent revisions by the State to IRWM guidelines.

6.7. Project Implementation. Project proponents will be responsible for completing proposed projects and providing project reports to the Lead Agency.

6.8 Project Monitoring. The Regional Water Management Group will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the IRWMP. The technical advisory committee will regularly report to the General Managers and Governing Boards of the Regional Water Management Group regarding progress on the development and implementation of the IRWMP. The Lead Agency will be responsible for coordinating data collection and dissemination.

Commented [SH5]: Is there a desire/willingness to have a TAC for this plan update and prioritization process?
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1445, Packet Page 1545 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 8 of 10 ends

6.9 Grant Applications. The Regional Water Management Group will designate a Lead Agency to apply for grant funds. The Lead Agency for each grant application should have a mission and expertise that is consistent with the purpose of the grant being applied for.

6.10 Central Coast funding area agreement. The RWMG designates MPWMD to execute an funding area agreement on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Planning Region.

6.11 Grant Awards and Agreement. The Lead Agency will be the grantee and administer the grant on behalf of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders.

6.12 Participation in Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Any qualified stakeholder may petition to become a member of the RWMG. A qualified stakeholder must demonstrate the following: a) an interest, responsibility or authority over multiple resources within the region; or b) a unique interest, responsibility, authority, or asset not shared by any other entity within the RWMG.

The RWMG shall consider such a request for a change to the RWMG and shall vote by majority to accept or reject the request.

6.13 Length of Term in Regional Water Management Group. Members of the RWMG may change from time to time, depending on the level of resources available to each entity. However, there is no required minimum or maximum length of time required as a member of the RWMG. If an entity withdraws from the RWMG, the remaining entities should attempt to replace the interest, responsibility or authority lost by the withdrawal.

6.14 Rights of the Parties and Constituencies: This MOU does not provide any added legal rights or regulatory powers to any of the signatory parties, or to the RWMG as a whole. This MOU does not of itself give any party the power to adjudicate water rights, or to regulate or otherwise control the private property of other parties. This MOU does not contemplate the parties taking any action that would adversely affect the rights of any of the parties, or that would adversely affect the customers or constituencies of any of the parties.

6.15 Termination. An entity signatory to this MOU may withdraw from participation upon 30 days advance notice to the other signatory entities, provided it agrees to be financially responsible for any previously committed, but unmet resource commitment.

6.16. Personnel resources. It is expected that the General Managers and/or other officials of each entity signatory to this MOU will periodically meet to insure that adequate staff resources are available to implement the IRWM Plan.

6.17. Other on-going regional efforts. Development of the IRWMP is separate from efforts of other organizations to develop water-related plans on a regional basis around Monterey Bay and the Central Coast. As the IRWMP is developed and implemented, work products may be shared to provide other entities and groups with current information.

7. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS

7.1 June 2010 – add Marina Coast Water District to RWMG. Revise Goals, Definitions and MOU terms to reflect Proposition 84 requirements.

Commented [SH6]: Recommend further discussion of this
provision.

Commented [SH7]: Suggestion to add a provision related to the Stormwater Resource Plan and its relationship to the IRWMP Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1446, Packet Page 1546 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 9 of 10 ends

7.2 March 2012 – add process to change RWMG, define when plan is to be adopted, revise to Proposition 84 standards

7.3 August 2012 – add Resource Conservation District of Monterey County to RWMG

7.4 March 2016 – add City of Seaside to RWMG; designate MWPMD to execute and implement a funding area allocation for Proposition 1 funds; remove indemnification clause. Commented [SH8]: Not fully executed by all RWMG members, Seaside still to join
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1447, Packet Page 1547 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 10 of 10 ends

8. SIGNATORIES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
We, the duly authorized undersigned representatives of our respective entities, acknowledge the above as our understanding of the intent and expected outcome in overseeing the development and implementation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region.

Big Sur Land Trust
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Monterey
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
By:

Date: , 20____
Marina Coast Water District
By:

Date: , 20____
Resource Conservation District of
Monterey County
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Seaside
By:

Date: , 20____
U:\mpwmd\IRWM\Regional Water Management Group\2016 Amended MOU\RWMG-MOU-May2016-clean.docx Commented [SH9]: Update table of signatories as needed
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1448, Packet Page 1548 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1449, Packet Page 1549 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-D
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1450, Packet Page 1550 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1451, Packet Page 1551 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: September 25, 2018, 10am – 12pm
Meeting Location: MPWMD Conference Room
or WebEx (info below)
Agenda

1. Introductions

2. RWMG Memorandum of Understanding
2018 update, composition of the RWMG and process for new members to join

3. IRWMP Goals and Objectives
Review of comments from August 14th meeting

4. Project Priorities & Proposed Project Review
Discussion on process & brief update on 2018 project solicitation schedule

5. RWMG Technical Advisory Committee
Creation of TAC to review IRWM Plan updates and project proposals

6. Disadvantaged Communities Needs Assessment
Status Update and Discussion

7. Outreach to Native American Representatives and Tribes

8. Other updates from meeting participants
WebEx Info:

Meeting number (access code): 297 927 565
Meeting password: 2Qbsydhr
When it's time, join the meeting.

Join by phone
1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Toll-free calling restrictions
Can't join the meeting?
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1452, Packet Page 1552 Table 3-2: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives Water Supply (WS)
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.*
WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse, including gray water systems, and stormwater capture and use.*
WS-3. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.* WS-4. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.* WS-5. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region in compliance with the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.*
Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.*
WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable water supplies.*
WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins as well as headwaters of streams.* WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. * Flood Protection and Erosion Prevention (FP)
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage, erosion, and sea level rise, in particular, along the South Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel Valley.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).*
FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.* FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV)
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds; promote the steelhead run.*
EV-2. Identify opportunitiesto assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.* EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.* EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.

EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.* Commented [SH1]: Comment that with desalination this
also includes ocean resources.

Commented [SH2]: Comment – Water supply needs
should include environmental benefits (i.e. adequate
instream flows). Noted this is also in EV-1. Add a bullet to this goal?
Commented [SH3]: Subject of discussion in Cal-Am CPUC
proceeding. Plan update will need to include further
discussion on coordination of land use planning and water supplies.

Commented [SH4]: Need to determine if this is most
current reference for this objective.

Commented [SH5]: To be noted in plan update - no
Groundwater Sustainability Plan needed for Carmel River Basin because it is considered groundwater under the
influence of surface water and not needed for Seaside Basin because adjudicated.

Commented [SH6]: Suggestion to specifically call out sea water intrusion as a concern (Seaside Groundwater Basin), with objective to maintain groundwater levels to prevent seawater intrusion.

Commented [SH7]: Comment that this is somewhat
redundant with WQ-1, could possibly be removed.

Commented [SH8]: Add objective on floodplain
restoration
Commented [SH9]: Discussion to separate flood
protection and erosion into separate goals. Add erosion objectives regarding coastal erosion and adaptation in
urban areas, beach nourishment, upper watershed erosion control management (e.g. fire/fuel management activities, road designs)
Commented [SH10]: Move up to Water Supply?
Commented [SH11]: Compare these objectives with
Carmel River Watershed Assessment
Commented [SH12]: Strengthen, could do more than just
identify opportunities
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1453, Packet Page 1553 Climate Change (CC)
CC-1. Evaluate adaptation measures and mitigative mitigation solutions to climate change effects.* CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.*
CC-3. Support efforts to increase education, research and use of energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.*
Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts. *
RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation.* RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues.*
RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTES: These objectives have been revised and renumbered compared to the draft objectives presented and evaluated at the 7/25/2012 Stakeholder Meeting.

Commented [SH13]: Could have clearer objectives on sea
level rise, drought and wildfire as specific climate change related issues
Commented [SH14]: Suggestions – quarterly meetings,
subgroup that stays in contact with Greater Monterey
County RWMG, add an objective about regional access to
data
Commented [SH15]: Question on what is meant by this
phrase, could it be made clearer
Commented [SH16]: Will need to do an objectives
prioritization update at future meeting.

Commented [SH17]: To be updated pending Prop 1 PSP
and other more recent State documents (e.g. 2018
California Water Plan)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1454, Packet Page 1554 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 1 of 10 ends

AMENDED
Memorandum of Understanding for
Integrated Regional Water Management in the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region

A. Background and Description of Amendments. The initial MOU to form a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) was fully executed on July 22, 2008 by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCAnow known as Monterey One Water or M1W), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MOU formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM.

Commented [SO1]: Now know as Monterey One Water or
M1W)
Commented [SH2]: Update and add any other organizations that desire to join
Commented [SH3]: This is the term used in the definitions Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1455, Packet Page 1555 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 2 of 10 ends

This amended MOU reflects the addition of the City of Seaside, ADD OTHERS as a member of the RWMG and amends the MOU to authorize MPWMD to execute a funding area agreement on behalf of the RWMG.

B. Water resources management authority in the Region is currently distributed among various public agencies with a range of legal powers and regulatory responsibilities.

These public agencies have definite jurisdictional boundaries, whereas sensible water resources planning and management frequently requires actions in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-public entities within the Region have considerable interests in cooperating with public entities to protect, manage, and enhance water resources within the Region.

Commented [SH4]: Update list if additional entities decide to join
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1456, Packet Page 1556 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 3 of 10 ends

3. GOALS
The goals of the collaborative effort undertaken pursuant to this MOU are:

3.1 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that will consider the strategies that are required by the State under CWC 79562.5 and 79564 and subsequent modifications required under Proposition 84 and Proposition 1. Eligible projects must yield multiple benefits and include one or more of the following elements (PRC § 75026.(a)):
 Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency  Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management  Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands
 Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring  Groundwater recharge and management projects
 Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users
 Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality  Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs  Watershed protection and management
 Drinking water treatment and distribution
 Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1457, Packet Page 1557 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 4 of 10 ends

3.2 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that incorporates water supply, water quality, flood and erosion protection, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.3 To improve and maximize coordination of individual public, private, and non-profit agency plans, programs and projects for mutual benefit and optimal gain within the Region.

3.5 To facilitate regional water management efforts that include multiple water supply, water quality, flood control, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.8 Satisfy State requirements for incorporation of Storm Water Resource plan.

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Funding Area Agreement. The agreement entered into between the six regions within the Central Coast funding area to allocate a portion of Proposition 1 IRWM funds to each planning region.

4.3 Integration. The combining of water management strategies and projects to be included in an IRWMP.

Commented [SH5]: (check & reference government code
requirements)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1458, Packet Page 1558 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 5 of 10 ends

4.5 Non-profit Agency. A 501 (c) (3) corporation, conservancy, group or other organization involved in water resources management in the Region.

4.6 Private Agency. A private or publicly held for-profit corporation or property owner involved in water resources management in the Region

4.7 Project. A specific project that addresses a service function.

4.11 Signatory Entity. A public, private, or non-profit entity within the Region that is signatory to this MOU.

4.12 Stakeholder. A non-signatory public, private, or non-profit agency identified in the IRWM Plan with an interest in water resources management within the Region.

4.13 Technical Advisory Committee. The committee organized to advise the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders concerning the IRWM Plan.

5. IRWMP PARTICIPANTS

5.1 Adopting Entities. The entities in the Region that participate in the development, adoption, and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region. Each entity intending to carry out a project proposed in the IRWMP Commented [SH6]: Update with any added entities
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1459, Packet Page 1559 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 6 of 10 ends

must formally adopt the IRWMP or provide written substantiation of acceptance by the governing authority of the entity. For a public agency, adoption of the IRWMP is by formal resolution of the governing body. For a non-profit or for-profit entity, proof of acceptance of the IRWMP by the equivalent of a public agency governing body is required (e.g., by a board of directors or other management entity).

5.3. Regulatory Agencies. These agencies, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Public Utilities Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game, will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the IRWMP.

5.4 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in developing and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region.

6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Commented [SO7]: State Water Resouces
Control Board??
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1460, Packet Page 1560 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 7 of 10 ends

6.3. Approach to developing the IRWMP. It will be the responsibility of each entity signatory to this Memorandum to provide the Lead Agency with information for the IRWMP concerning project proposals or to identify the need for a water management strategy for each service function provided by a signatory entity.

6.7. Project Implementation. Project proponents will be responsible for completing proposed projects and providing project reports to the Lead Agency.

6.8 Project Monitoring. The Regional Water Management Group will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the IRWMP. The technical advisory committee will regularly report to the General Managers and Governing Boards of the Regional Water Management Group regarding progress on the development and Commented [SH8]: Is there a desire/willingness to have a TAC for this plan update and prioritization process?
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1461, Packet Page 1561 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 8 of 10 ends

implementation of the IRWMP. The Lead Agency will be responsible for coordinating data collection and dissemination.

6.10 Central Coast funding area agreement. The RWMG designates MPWMD to execute an funding area agreement on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Planning Region.

6.11 Grant Awards and Agreement. The Lead Agency will be the grantee and administer the grant on behalf of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders.

The RWMG shall consider such a request for a change to the RWMG and shall vote by majority to accept or reject the request.

7. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS
Commented [SH9]: Recommend further discussion of this
provision.

Commented [SH10]: Suggestion to add a provision related to the Stormwater Resource Plan and its relationship to the IRWMP Commented [SH11R10]: Is added statement above sufficient? Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1462, Packet Page 1562 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 9 of 10 ends

7.1 June 2010 – add Marina Coast Water District to RWMG. Revise Goals, Definitions and MOU terms to reflect Proposition 84 requirements.

7.2 March 2012 – add process to change RWMG, define when plan is to be adopted, revise to Proposition 84 standards

7.3 August 2012 – add Resource Conservation District of Monterey County to RWMG

7.4 March 2016 – add City of Seaside to RWMG; designate MWPMD to execute and implement a funding area allocation for Proposition 1 funds; remove indemnification clause.

7.5 DATE – add City of Seaside, others, to RWMG
Commented [SH12]: Not fully executed by all RWMG
members, Seaside still to join
Commented [SO13]: As noted, this needs to be updated.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1463, Packet Page 1563 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 10 of 10 ends

Big Sur Land Trust
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Monterey
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
By:

Date: , 20____
Marina Coast Water District
By:

Date: , 20____
Resource Conservation District of
Monterey County
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Seaside
By:

Date: , 20____
U:\mpwmd\IRWM\Regional Water Management Group\2016 Amended MOU\RWMG-MOU-May2016-clean.docx Commented [SH14]: Update table of signatories as needed Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1464, Packet Page 1564 Table 3-2: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives Water Supply (WS)
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.*
WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse and expand sewer services to areas with onsite systems to increase sources of water for recycling., including gray water systems, and stormwater capture and use.* WS-3. Develop opportunities for stormwater capture and reuse pursuant to the Stormwater Resource Plan.

WS-34. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.* WS-45. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.* WS-56. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region in compliance with the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.*
WS-7. Improve water supply needs to achieve multiple benefits, beneficial uses and environmental flows.

Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.*
WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable water supplies.*
WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins as well as headwaters of streams.* WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. * Flood Protection and Erosion Prevention (FP)
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage, erosion, and sea level rise, in particular, along the South Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel Valley.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).*
FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.* FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV)
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds; promote the steelhead runrecovery by meeting accepted or approved environmental flows within the regional watersheds.* EV-2. Identify opportunitiesto assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.* EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.* EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.

EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.* EV-6. Promote watershed activities for fire fuel management and adaptive management strategies to protect water quality and water supplies from catastrophic wildfires.

Commented [SH1]: Comment that with desalination this
also includes ocean resources.

Commented [SH4]: Subject of discussion in Cal-Am CPUC
proceeding. Plan update will need to include further
discussion on coordination of land use planning and water supplies.

Commented [SH5]: Confirm that gray water systems are
included in most current water conservation plan
Commented [SH6]: Need to determine if this is most
current reference for this objective.

Commented [SH7]: To be noted in plan update - no
Groundwater Sustainability Plan needed for Carmel River Basin because it is considered groundwater under the
influence of surface water and not needed for Seaside Basin because adjudicated.

Commented [SH8]: Suggestion to specifically call out sea water intrusion as a concern (Seaside Groundwater Basin), with objective to maintain groundwater levels to prevent seawater intrusion.

Commented [SH9]: Comment that this is somewhat
redundant with WQ-1, could possibly be removed.

Commented [SH10]: Add objective on floodplain
restoration
Commented [SH11]: Discussion to separate flood
protection and erosion into separate goals. Add erosion objectives regarding coastal erosion and adaptation in
urban areas, beach nourishment, upper watershed erosion control management (e.g. fire/fuel management activities, road designs)
Commented [SH12]: Move up to Water Supply?
Commented [SH13]: Compare these objectives with
Carmel River Watershed Assessment
Commented [SH14]: Strengthen, could do more than just
identify opportunities
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1465, Packet Page 1565 Climate Change (CC)
CC-1. Evaluate adaptation measures and mitigative mitigation solutions to climate change effects.* CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.*
CC-3. Support efforts to increase education, research and use of energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.*
Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts. *
RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation.* RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues.*
RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTES: These objectives have been revised and renumbered compared to the draft objectives presented and evaluated at the 7/25/2012 Stakeholder Meeting.

Commented [SH15]: Could have clearer objectives on sea
level rise, drought and wildfire as specific climate change related issues
Commented [SH16]: Suggestions – quarterly meetings,
subgroup that stays in contact with Greater Monterey
County RWMG, add an objective about regional access to
data
Commented [SH17]: Question on what is meant by this
phrase, could it be made clearer
Commented [SH18]: Will need to do an objectives
prioritization update at future meeting.

Commented [SH19]: To be updated pending Prop 1 PSP
and other more recent State documents (e.g. 2018
California Water Plan)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1466, Packet Page 1566 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1467, Packet Page 1567 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-E
NOVEMBER 1, 2018 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1468, Packet Page 1568 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1469, Packet Page 1569 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: November 1, 2018, 10am – 12pm
Meeting Location: MPWMD Conference Room, 5 Harris Court, Monterey, CA or WebEx (call information below)
Agenda

1. Introductions

2. RWMG Action Item:
a) Receive a presentation from Jeff Condit, MRSWMP Program Manager; and b) Accept the Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Region The plan can be found at the following link:
https://mrwpca1-
my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jeff_mrwpca_com/EXQlW93_qJxGstlWjnxS3AIBz_gMbhxO XygkxTUVMCf_PQ?e=hOuh3A
The project database can be found here:
https://mrwpca1-
my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/jeff_mrwpca_com/EUPJno4F5yBMmYAwCC4XD84BbCKT Ojcnsi8Ykzw681C3mw?e=cfl3lD

3. Status Update on the 2018 Revisions to the RWMG Memorandum of Understanding

4. Approve the 2018 IRWMP Goals and Objectives

5. Provide input on IRWMP Objectives priorities

6. Discuss the 2018 IRWMP Update Project Solicitation Process and Schedule

7. Other updates from meeting participants
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1470, Packet Page 1570 2 Webex meeting information:

IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Thursday, November 1, 2018
10:00 am | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco) | 2 hrs Meeting number (access code): 621 943 294
Meeting password: 6BKevidP
When it's time, join the meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1471, Packet Page 1571 School of Natural Sciences
100 Campus Center
Seaside, CA 93955-8001
831-582-3873
9 October, 2018
Sara Hardgrave
Chair, South Monterey Bay Regional Water Management Group Big Sur Land Trust
509 Hartnell Street
Monterey, Ca 93940
Dear Ms. Hardgrave:

As a member of the faculty authorized by Vice President for Administration to speak on behalf of California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB), I request membership in the South Monterey Bay Regional Water Management Group.

Part of CSUMB’s mission is to “… contribute productively, responsibly, and ethically to California”. This mission is supported by the university’s vision is for it be “a collaborative, intellectual community distinguished by partnerships with existing institutions both public and private … for coordinated community service”. As an academic institution dedicated to analytically meeting critical state and regional needs, CSUMB has an interest in the wise, equitable, and sustainable use of water resources in the region.

CSUMB faculty and students have been involved with the monitoring and advising the management of central coast waterbodies through its Watershed Institute for over 20 years. This record of service to the local community clearly demonstrates CSUMB’s continuing interest in multiple resources within the region.

Sincerely,
John R. Olson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Freshwater Ecology
California State University Monterey Bay
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1472, Packet Page 1572 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1473, Packet Page 1573 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1474, Packet Page 1574 Sarah Hardgrave
P.O. Box 4071
Monterey, CA 93942
mailto:[email protected]
Dear Sarah:

The Carmel Valley Association (CVA) board of directors recently voted to apply to join the Regional Management Group. CVA is the association for residents of Carmel Valley. We have labored strenuously, and often successfully, to craft wise decisions in the areas of land use and formation of the County general plans. As the local IRWM program Regional Management Group surely is aware, land use is an important determinant of the health of the Carmel Valley watershed and of the adjacent Carmel Bay and Point Lobos Areas of Special Biological Significance.

CVA’s members are among those most affected by, and thus most concerned with, planning and implementation decisions in the watershed. CVA is, in short, a principal stakeholder. It has a history of concern with issues ranging from recreational assets to groundwater supply.

CVA’s intent is to participate fully in the IRWM program. We view this participation as important and consistent with the role CVA has historically performed.

Sincerely,
Pris Walton, President, Carmel Valley Association
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1475, Packet Page 1575 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1476, Packet Page 1576 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1477, Packet Page 1577

OFFICE OF THE CITI MANAGER
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
www.ci.seaside.ca.us
Telephone 831-899-6701
Fax 831-624-5839
October 9, 2018
Sarah Hardgrave
South Monterey Bay IRWM Program
5 Harris Court, Building G
Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Ms. Hardgrave
am writing on behalf oj the City of Seaside to express our intent to join the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Program (South Monterey Bay IRWMP). Below is a brief summary of the City's qualifications for consideration in joining as a voting stakeholder of the South Monterey Bay IRWMP.

The City of Seaside actively participates in multiple groups focused on solving the regions water supply and water quality challenges. Such efforts include membership in the Seaside Groundwater Basin Water Master, Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program, and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. Furthermore, the City of Seaside is a voting member of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water and the Seaside County Sanitation District, all agencies dedicated to enhancing how water and waste water is managed in the Monterey Bay.

A city council item to consider joining the South Monterey Bay IRWMP is tentatively scheduled for November 15, 2018. The Public Works Engineering department will represent the City during working group meetings. Please coordinate with Rick Riedl, public works director/city engineer, or Scott Ottmar, senior engineer.

Thank you for your time.

City Manager
Cc:

Rick Riedl, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Scott Ottmar, Senior Engineer
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1478, Packet Page 1578 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM)
Regional Water Management Group (RWMG)
October 26, 2018
Dear current and potential new members of the RWMG:

In anticipation of forthcoming IRWM grant funding, the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay RWMG re-initiated regular meetings earlier this year after a hiatus of activity since the 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update. With support from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Management District, I am currently working to facilitate meetings of the RWMG, coordinate the program, and prepare required plan updates.

In 2019, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) will begin making new Proposition 1 IRWM implementation funding available. In 2016, the six Central Coast IRWM funding regions entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to share $43M in Proposition 1 funding in a fair and equitable manner based on a base amount, and a proportional amount by population and total acreage of the planning area. This agreement was reached in part because some regions have received a disproportionate amount of past IRWM funding. As a result, the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM funding area is slated to receive approximately $4.2M in Prop 1 IRWM funding, including 10% for Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Involvement and 10% for DAC Projects.

As part of the plan update and project solicitation process, it was timely to open up an opportunity for new members to join the RWMG and sign onto the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that forms the group. Members of the RWMG are not required to make any financial contribution to the IRWM program. Participation as a member of the RWMG does entitle a member with the ability to vote on the prioritization process for projects that would be put forward for the available IRWM grant funding.

At the last RWMG/Stakeholders meeting on September 25, 2018, potential new members were asked to provide a letter request to the RWMG to join, pursuant to the MOU’s Mutual Understanding, which currently states:

Seven organizations have since provided letters requesting to join the RWMG: California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Seaside, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Sand City.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1479, Packet Page 1579 2 In addition to adding new members, other revisions are proposed to the MOU based on discussions at the last two meetings and updated information about the IRWM program in the 2016 and 2018 DWR Program Guidelines.

At this time, current RWMG members are requested to initiate your respective process to accept or reject the requests for membership by the aforementioned entities, as well as to approve the attached 2018 revision to the MOU. Potential new members are asked to initiate their respective processes for approval of the MOU. A resolution of approval by your governing body is required as evidence of the action taken.

The project solicitation process will begin in the next month for submittal of proposals by the end of the year. Once projects have been submitted they will be ranked and prioritized by the RWMG. To be able to participate in the final voting on project priorities, the process to add new members and approve the updated MOU should be completed by each member organization no later than early February 2019.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this process, or comments or changes on the draft 2018 MOU.

Sincerely,
Sarah Hardgrave, Big Sur Land Trust
Program Coordinator on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1480, Packet Page 1580 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 1 of 12 ends

AMENDED
Memorandum of Understanding for
Integrated Regional Water Management in the
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Region

A. Background and Description of Amendments. The initial MOU to form a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) was fully executed on July 22, 2008 by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRPWCA, now known as Monterey One Water or M1W), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MOU formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM.

Subsequently, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) requested approval to become part of the RWMG and signed an amended MOU in June 2011 that includes MCWD as a member of the RWMG. In 2012, the MOU was amended to include the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County (RCD) as a member of the RWMG. In 2018, a number of additional organizations requested approval to become part of the MOU, including California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Seaside, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Sand City.

In 2015, representatives from the RWMGs representing the Central Coast region entered into discussions about a funding area allocation agreement for Proposition 1 funds allocated to the Central Coast funding area. Negotiations have resulted in a draft agreement that is acceptable to all RWMGs. In 2016, the Central Coast RWMGs entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for Integrated Regional Water Management Planning and Funding in the Central Coast Funding Area to share Proposition 1 funding Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1481, Packet Page 1581 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 2 of 12 ends

for the IRWM grant program among the six Parties in a fair and equitable manner, and to reduce the need for the Parties to compete against each other for grant funds, which creates unnecessary economic inefficiencies in implementing each Planning Region’s IRWM Plan.
(Pending approval by all current RWMG members) This amended MOU reflects the addition of California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Seaside, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Sand City, as members of the RWMG.

B. Water resources management authority in the Region is currently distributed among various public agencies with a range of legal powers and regulatory responsibilities.

These public agencies have definite jurisdictional boundaries, whereas sensible water resources planning and management frequently requires actions in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-public entities within the Region have considerable interests in cooperating with public entities to protect, manage, and enhance water resources within the Region.

C. (Pending approval by current RWMG members) Eleven public entities and three nonprofit entitiesy in the Region with responsibility and interests in the management of water resources have agreed to form a Regional Water Management Group for the purposes of developing and implementing projects consistent with the guidelines set by the State of California for IRWM. These entities are:
• Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT), a 501 (c) 3 organization;
• California State University Monterey Bay
• Carmel Area Wastewater District;
• Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, a 501 (c) 3 organization; • Carmel Valley Association;
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea;
• City of Monterey;
• City of Seaside;
• City of Sand City;
• Monterey One Water (M1W)Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA);
• Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA);
• Marina Coast Water District (MCWD);
• Resource Conservation District of Monterey County; and • Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1482, Packet Page 1582 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 3 of 12 ends

3. GOALS
The goals of the collaborative effort undertaken pursuant to this MOU are:

Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1483, Packet Page 1583 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 4 of 12 ends

Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring Groundwater recharge and management projects
Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs Watershed protection and management
Drinking water treatment and distribution
Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection
(Water Code §79743 (a - j)):
 Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse
 Water-use efficiency and water conservation
 Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
 Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems
 Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability  Stormwater resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
 Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or stormwater  Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space
 Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multibenefit stormwater projects  Projects to implement a stormwater resource plan developed in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7)
 Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities  Water desalination projects
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1484, Packet Page 1584 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 5 of 12 ends

 Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections
 Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff
 Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act (Water Code §10537)

3.2 To implement a comprehensive IRWMP for the Region that incorporates water supply, water quality, flood and erosion protection, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.3 To improve and maximize coordination of individual public, private, and non-profit agency plans, programs and projects for mutual benefit and optimal gain within the Region.

3.5 To facilitate regional water management efforts that include multiple water supply, water quality, flood control, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives.

3.8 To satisfy State requirements for incorporation of a Storm Water Resource plan developed for the Region in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7)

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Funding Area Agreement. The agreement entered into between the six regions within the Central Coast funding area to allocate a portion of Proposition 1 IRWM funds to each planning region.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1485, Packet Page 1585 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 6 of 12 ends

4.3 Integration. The combining of water management strategies and projects to be included in an IRWMP.

4.5 Non-profit Agency. A 501 (c) (3) corporation, conservancy, group or other organization involved in water resources management in the Region.

4.6 Private Agency. A private or publicly held for-profit corporation or property owner involved in water resources management in the Region

4.7 Project. A specific project that addresses a service function.

4.11 Signatory Entity. A public, private, or non-profit entity within the Region that is signatory to this MOU.

4.12 Stakeholder. A non-signatory public, private, or non-profit agency identified in the IRWM Plan with an interest in water resources management within the Region.

4.13 Stormwater Resource Plan. The plan developed for the Region that identifies stormwater capture project opportunities.

4.143 Technical Advisory Committee. The committee organized to advise the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders concerning the IRWM Plan.

4.154 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in overseeing the development and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region. The RWMG consists of the Formatted: Font: Bold
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1486, Packet Page 1586 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 7 of 12 ends

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the City of Monterey, the City of Seaside, the Marina Coast Water District, the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, and the Big Sur Land Trust. (a list of members of the Regional Water Management Group is provided in Recital C)

4.165 Water Management Strategies. Plans for and activities to be considered in an IRWMP include, but are not limited to, ecosystem restoration, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, water-supply reliability, flood management, groundwater management, recreation and public access, storm water capture and management, water conservation, water quality improvement, water recycling, and wetlands enhancement and creation.

5. IRWMP PARTICIPANTS

5.1 Adopting Entities. The entities in the Region that participate in the development, adoption, and implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Region. Each entity intending to carry out a project proposed in the IRWMP must formally adopt the IRWMP or provide written substantiation of acceptance by the governing authority of the entity. For a public agency, adoption of the IRWMP is by formal resolution of the governing body. For a non-profit or for-profit entity, proof of acceptance of the IRWMP by the equivalent of a public agency governing body is required (e.g., by a board of directors or other management entity).

5.3. Regulatory Agencies. These agencies, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Public Utilities Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and WildlifeGame, will be invited to participate in the development and implementation of the IRWMP.

5.4 Regional Water Management Group. The group of entities that takes the lead in developing and implementing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan within the Planning Region.

6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1487, Packet Page 1587 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 8 of 12 ends

The Region includes coastal watersheds from the southernmost portion of the San Jose Creek watershed north to the northern limit of the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

6.5. Adoption of the IRWMP. Plan adoption will occur by approval of the governing board of each entity. Each member of the RWMG shall adopt the IRWM Plan or an amended IRWM Plan, when the Plan becomes available. Project proponents named in an IRWM grant application shall adopt the IRWM Plan or amended IRWM Plan Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1488, Packet Page 1588 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 9 of 12 ends

prior to submittal of the grant application. It should be noted that the adopted Plan and project list may be amended from time to time as described below.

6.7. Project Implementation. Project proponents will be responsible for completing proposed projects and providing project reports to the Lead Agency.

6.10 Central Coast funding area agreement. The RWMG designates MPWMD to execute an funding area agreement on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula Planning Region.

6.11 Grant Awards and Agreement. The Lead Agency will be the grantee and administer the grant on behalf of the Regional Water Management Group and Stakeholders.

The RWMG shall consider such a request for a change to the RWMG and shall vote by majority to accept or reject the request.

6.14 Rights of the Parties and Constituencies: This MOU does not provide any added legal rights or regulatory powers to any of the signatory parties, or to the RWMG as Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1489, Packet Page 1589 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 10 of 12 ends

a whole. This MOU does not of itself give any party the power to adjudicate water rights, or to regulate or otherwise control the private property of other parties. This MOU does not contemplate the parties taking any action that would adversely affect the rights of any of the parties, or that would adversely affect the customers or constituencies of any of the parties.

7. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS

7.1 June 2010 – add Marina Coast Water District to RWMG. Revise Goals, Definitions and MOU terms to reflect Proposition 84 requirements.

7.2 March 2012 – add process to change RWMG, define when plan is to be adopted, revise to Proposition 84 standards

7.3 August 2012 – add Resource Conservation District of Monterey County to RWMG

7.4 DATE (by February 2019) – add California State University Monterey Bay, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Carmel Valley Association, City of Seaside, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Sand City to RWMG
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1490, Packet Page 1590 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 11 of 12 ends

Big Sur Land Trust
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Monterey
By:

Date: , 20____
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
By:

Date: , 20____
Marina Coast Water District
By:

Date: , 20____
Resource Conservation District of
Monterey County
By:

Date: , 20____
California State University Monterey Bay
By:

Date: , 20____
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1491, Packet Page 1591 Amended Regional Water Management Group MOU

Page 12 of 12 ends

Carmel Area Wastewater District
By:

Date: , 20____
Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
By:

Date: , 20____
Carmel Valley Association
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Sand City
By:

Date: , 20____
City of Seaside
By:

Date: , 20____
U:\mpwmd\IRWM\Regional Water Management Group\2016 Amended MOU\RWMG-MOU-May2016-clean.docx Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1492, Packet Page 1592 Table 3-2: IRWM Plan Update Prioritized Regional Objectives Water Supply (WS)
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.*
WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse, including gray water systems, and stormwater capture and use.1 *
WS-3. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.* WS-4. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.* WS-5. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region in compliance with the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.*
Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.*
WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable water supplies.*
WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins.* WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. * Flood Protection and Erosion Prevention (FP)
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage, erosion, and sea level rise, in particular, along the South Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel Valley.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).*
FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.* FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.

1 The underlined text was added based on comments from the city of Pacific Grove (Sarah Hardgrave, January 2013)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1493, Packet Page 1593 Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts. *
RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation.* RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues.*
RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTES: These objectives have been revised and renumbered compared to the draft objectives presented and evaluated at the 7/25/2012 Stakeholder Meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1494, Packet Page 1594 Table 2: IRWM Plan Update Regional Goals and Objectives Water Supply (WS)
Goal: Improve regional water supply reliability through environmentally responsible solutions that promote water and energy conservation. Protect the community from drought and climate change effects with a focus on interagency cooperation and conjunctive use of regional water resources.

WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse and where feasible, expand sewer services to areas with onsite systems to increase sources of water for recycling.* WS-3. Develop opportunities for stormwater capture and reuse pursuant to the Stormwater Resource Plan.

WS-4. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region.* WS-5. Improve water supply needs to achieve multiple benefits, beneficial uses and environmental flows.

WS-6. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

Water Quality (WQ)
Goal: Protect and improve water quality for beneficial uses consistent with regional community interests and the RWQCB Basin Plan through planning and implementation in cooperation with local and state agencies and regional stakeholders.

WQ-1. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead), including headwaters and tributaries of streams, and to protect potable water supplies.* WQ-2. Improve ocean water quality, including, but not limited to, Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.

WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins, especially where at risk from seawater intrusion.

Flood Protection (FP)
Goal: Ensure that flood protection strategies are developed and implemented through a collaborative and watershed-wide approach and are designed to consider climate change effects and maximize opportunities for comprehensive management of water resources.

FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage and sea level rise, in particular, along the Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay shoreline.* FP-2. Develop approaches for floodplain restoration or adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems).

FP-3. Promote floodplain restoration that protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.

FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development.*
Coastal and Streamside Erosion (CSE)
Goal: Ensure that erosion management strategies are developed and implemented through a collaborative and watershed-wide approach and are designed to consider climate change effects.

CSE-1. Manage areas along the shoreline susceptible to erosion, including long-term strategic retreat where appropriate.

CSE-2. Identify opportunities to restore natural stream function, including meandering, in the lower 15 miles of the Carmel River and selected tributaries.

CSE-3. Reduce or prevent adverse downcutting in the main stem Carmel River and its tributaries.

Watershed Management (WM)
Goal: Develop watershed scale management strategies, considering climate change effects and maximizing opportunities for comprehensive management of water resources.

WM-1. Reduce human-induced sources of non-point fine sediment runoff.

WM-2. Restore natural fire frequency in headwater forests.

WM-3. Re-establish the natural hydrologic flow regime in disturbed watersheds.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1495, Packet Page 1595 WM-4. Re-establish a natural level of sediment supply within the Carmel River and its tributaries.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV)
Goal: Preserve the environmental health and well-being of the Region’s streams, watersheds, and the ocean by taking advantage of opportunities to assess, restore and enhance these natural resources when developing water supply, water quality, and flood protection strategies. Seek opportunities to conserve water and energy, and adapt to the effects of climate change.

EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds*; including, but not limited to, promoting the steelhead recovery by meeting accepted or approved environmental flows within the regional watersheds. .

EV-2. Assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when developing water management strategies and projects.*
EV-3. Minimize adverse effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects.

EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks along streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects.*
EV-5. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans.

EV-6. Promote watershed activities for fire fuel management and adaptive management strategies to protect water quality and water supplies from catastrophic wildfires.* Climate Change (CC)
Goal: Adapt the region’s water management approach to deal with impacts of climate change using science-based approaches, and minimize the regional causal effects related to water resources.

CC-1. Implement adaptation measures and mitigation solutions to climate change effects, including increased large storm intensity and/or frequency, sea level rise, drought and wildfire.

CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.

CC-3. Increase energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects.

Regional Communication and Cooperation (RC)
Goal: Identify an appropriate forum for regional communication, cooperation, and education. Develop protocols for encouraging integration and reducing inconsistencies in water management strategies between local, regional, State, and Federal entities. Provide balanced access and opportunity for the public, stakeholders, and DACs to participate in IRWM efforts.

RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts.

RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation through ongoing meetings of the RWMG and regional data sharing.

RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

NOTE:
* = Objective is closely aligned with Statewide Priorities (see Table 3-4).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1496, Packet Page 1596 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1497, Packet Page 1597 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-F
DECEMBER 6, 2018 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1498, Packet Page 1598 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1499, Packet Page 1599 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: December 6, 2018, 10am – 12pm
Meeting Location: Big Sur Land Trust Conference Room, 509 Hartnell St, Monterey, CA or conference call: 1-515-603-3124; Participant Access Code: 639141# Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Review of the project solicitation process and application form

3. Discussion on project prioritization process and scoring criteria

4. Round robin discussion on potential projects to be proposed

5. Status update on 2018 MOU approval process

6. Other updates from meeting participants
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1500, Packet Page 1600 Draft: November 28, 2018 1
Project Solicitation and Review
for the 2019 Update to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
The Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay (Monterey Peninsula) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) region is soliciting projects for inclusion in the 2019 Update to the IRWM Plan. All projects must undergo a thorough review process before they can be formally included in the IRWM Plan. The goal of this solicitation is to create a comprehensive Project List that includes both concept proposals and projects that can be implemented within one to two years after IRWM Plan adoption, which is planned for June 2019. An overview of the process is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project Solicitation Process for 2019 IRWM Plan Update Step 1: Concept and Implementation Proposal Solicitation For inclusion in the plan, project proponents must complete Section 1 of the application form for implementation projects and concept proposal. Proposals that meet eligibility criteria will be included in the IRWM Plan Update. Implementation Projects can move to Step 2 where projects will be ranked (or prioritized).

The application form can be completed electronically, and emailed or mailed to the IRWM coordinator. Projects and proposals previously included in the 2013 Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan will not be included in the 2019 IRWM Plan unless an application form is completed. It is the project proponent’s responsibility to:
• Complete an application for each project
• Ensure the project information is up to date
• Respond to request for information within the established deadline • Request that a project be removed if it is no longer being pursued Concept Proposals must meet the following minimum eligibility criteria to be included in the IRWM plan:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1501, Packet Page 1601 Project Solicitation and Review
2019 Update to the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan
2 • Assist the Monterey Peninsula region in achieving at least one of its IRWM Plan objectives. • Implement at least one of the region’s Resource Management Strategies. • Provide water resource benefits to the region.
• Be consistent with Proposition 1 IRWM Guidelines and Department of Water Resources standards and requirements.

Step 2: Implementation Project Application and Scoring/Ranking This step includes submittal of detailed project information that will allow scoring and comparison to an overall ranked list of projects. Project proponents are not required to complete Step 2 in order to be included in the IRWM Plan. However, Step 2 must be completed in order to be eligible for inclusion in an implementation grant application to the IRWM Grant Program. For projects to be ranked and prioritized, project proponents must complete and submit in Sections II – IV of the application form by January 14, 2019, and the DWR Project Information Form (Section V) by February 8, 2019. A Technical Advisory Committee made up of RWMG members will review project submittals and scoring for consistency with the IRWM Plan and present the initial project ranking to the RWMG and other stakeholders group in late February. Further prioritization of the projects for Proposition 1 Implementation Grant Round 1 will be done by the RWMG in March and April, with a final list of projects to put forward to DWR in May 2019.

Prior to the final date for submission, projects may be added to or removed from the Project List at any time; however, this must be done by the project proponent(s). To remove a project, the project proponent should submit a written request to the IRWM coordinator. The request for removal must include: the project title, consent to remove the project from all project lists, and should include the reason for removal of the project. In the event of multi-entity projects, all entities must agree in writing to a project’s removal. In the case of multientity projects, a lead entity or “project proponent” must be designated.

Each project will be ranked initially based on a score developed from answers on the application form, which includes a methodology for scoring that is summarized as follows. Two categories of factors are included in the scoring: (1) factors related to how well the project complies with the IRWM Plan, such as policy consistency and ability to assist the region in meeting its goals, and (2) factors related to the individual merits of the project, such as feasibility, readiness to proceed, and costs. Scores from each of these categories comprise one-half of the overall project score as shown in Figure 2. A detailed description of project scoring criteria, factors, relative weighting, and raw scoring is provided below.

IRWM Plan Compliance Factors (50% of total score)
Within the Plan Compliance category, projects will be scored based upon the following specific factors and the relative weighting is shown in Figure 3. Following each factor and shown in italic text within parentheses is the current proposed methodology to assign raw scores to projects based upon the project information submitted in the Project Solicitation Form. The appropriate weighting factor will be applied to the raw score to give a weighted score to be used in the overall ranking.

Commented [SH1]: The TAC is in the process of updating the project scoring spreadsheet. The following section is the criteria used in the 2013 plan update.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1502, Packet Page 1602 Project Solicitation and Review
2019 Update to the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan
3 Figure 2: Relative Weighting: Plan Compliance vs. Project Merit Factors Figure 3: Relative Weighting of Plan Compliance Factors  How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan Objectives (40% of Plan Compliance Factors)  Number of objectives and high priority objectives that the project addresses Up to 53 pts. Each project gets 1 pt for meeting each of 26 objectives (26 max pts). Plus, additional 3 pts maximum for the level it meets specific metrics of each of the 9 high priority objectives.  How the project is related to Resource Management Strategies (20% of Plan Compliance Factors)  Number of different CA Water Plan Management Outcome Categories and number of strategies that the project includes.

Total of up to 35 pts, including 1 pt per RMS, plus one pt for every CWP management outcome category after the first.
 Strategic considerations for IRWM Plan implementation (20% of Plan Compliance Factors)  Inter-Regionalism: Does the project involve active inter-regional collaboration or partnerships? 5 pts: project addresses inter-regional issues
 Partnerships: How many entities are actively partnering to implement the project? Plan
Compliance
Factors
50%
Project
Merit
Factors
50%
Plan Objectives
40%
Resource
Management
Strategies
20%
Strategic
Considerations
20%
Climate
Change
adaptation
5%
Reducing
GHG
Emissions
/Energy
Efficiency
5%
Benefits to DAC &
Native Americans
5%
Environmental
Justice
5%
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1503, Packet Page 1603 Project Solicitation and Review
2019 Update to the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan
4 5 pts: project involves three or more partners that include both government agencies and NGOs; or 2 pts: project involves two or more partners:
0 pts: project involves only one entity (no partnerships).  Monitoring and reporting of project performance: Will the project establish and document achievement of performance criteria?
5 pts: project presents a plan for monitoring/reporting performance  Integration with land use planning: Is the project consistent with local plans, ordinances, and standards? Does the project integrate with local land use and water planning? Does the project increase coordination between water resources agencies and land use planners? 5 pts: if "yes" to all three questions; 3 pts if "Yes" to 2 questions; 1 pt for "yes" to one question  Specific benefits to critical disadvantaged community (DAC) and/or Native American tribal communities’ water issues (5% of Plan Factors)
 Does the proposed project provide specific benefits to solve critical DAC water issue(s)? Yes: 5 pts
 Environmental Justice considerations (5% of Plan Factors)  Does the project redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and/or improve access to environmental goods?
Yes: 5 pts
 Contribution of the project in adapting to the effects of Climate Change (5% of Plan Factors)  Will the project contribute to regional adaptation to projected climate change impacts? Does the project implement one or more of the recommendations from the document: “Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay” (Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and the Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Working Group, May 2012)? 5 pts: one pt for every adaptation strategy implemented  Contribution of the project in reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions as compared to project alternatives (5% of Plan Factors)
 Compared to project alternatives, does the project reduce regional GHG emissions and/or improve energy efficiency?
5 pts: one pt for every GHG mitigation strategy implemented Project Merit Factors (50% of total score)
Within the Project Merit category, projects will be scored based upon the following specific factors with the relative weighting is shown in Figure 4. As with the Plan Compliance Factors, italic text following each factor describes the proposed methodology to assign raw scores for these factors based upon the project information submitted in the Project Solicitation Form (and prior to applying the weighting agreed upon at the stakeholder meeting).
 Technical Feasibility (30% of Project Merit Factors)
 Is a common and widely accepted technology with well documented results being used?  Are geologic conditions, hydrology, ecology and other system aspects adequately described? Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1504, Packet Page 1604 Project Solicitation and Review
2019 Update to the Monterey Peninsula IRWM Plan
5 Figure 4: Relative Weighting of Project Merit Factors  Are there significant data gaps?
 Are there sufficient technical data to indicate the project is likely to result in success?  Is there enough information to support the project’s estimated benefits? 30 pts: Technical feasibility has been documented in a project-specific pilot study or previous phase or has a documented track record of success
-- OR score for each of the following –
10 pts: technology proposed has been established as effective in similar situations; 10 pts: project site conditions are documented (geology/soil, ecology, hydrology, land use, public utilities;
10 pts: project partners have experience with similar projects (e.g., similar site, similar technology).  Project Costs and Financing (20% of Project Merit Factors)  10 pts: A project cost estimate has been prepared and documented in the Project Form.  10 pts: There is an identified revenue source of at least 25% match funding.  Economic Feasibility (25% of Project Merit Factors)
 15 pts: Project benefits and costs have been defined at a level of detail that will allow costeffectiveness analysis or benefit-cost analysis -- OR – project is a DAC project.  10 pts: Project has a cost-effectiveness or benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.  Project Status (25% of Project Merit Factors)
 What steps in project planning have been completed?
 Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Plans
 CEQA/NEPA Completed
 Local Cost Share Confirmed
 Right-of-way / Land Acquisition
 Permits Acquired
 Construction Drawings Complete & Bids Acquired
(4 pts for each of the above criterion met for a possible total of 24 pts) For additional information, contact Larry Hampson [email protected] or Sarah Hardgrave [email protected]
Technical
Feasibility
30%
Project
Costs and
Financing
20%
Economic
Feasibility
25%
Project
Status
25%
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1505, Packet Page 1605 1 MONTEREY PENINSULA, CARMEL BAY AND SOUTH MONTEREY BAY

INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

APPLICATION FORM FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS AND CONCEPT PROPOSALS 2018/2019

SECTION I. PROJECT SUMMARY AND IRWM OBJECTIVES

1. Project Proponent (Name of Organization Applying):

2. Type of Entity:

Local Public agency Nonprofit organization Public Utility Mutual Water Company Federally Recognized or State Indian Tribe

3. Name and Title of Contact Person:

4. Phone:

5. Email:

6. Project Title:

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Both implementation project proposals and concept proposals are being accepted at this time. Only implementation projects, however, will be eligible for IRWM Implementation Grant funds.

For concept proposals: If you would like to submit a concept proposal, you need only complete Sections I and II of this application.

For implementation projects: There will be two rounds of Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Grant solicitations (Round 1 in early 2019, Round 2 in 2020). If you are interested in having your project considered for Round 1, you must complete all sections of this application. If you are not interested in having your project considered for Round 1, you need only complete Sections I and II.

For those interested in applying for Round 1: In addition to this application form, stakeholders who are interested in having their projects considered for Round 1 must also complete DWR’s Project Information Form. The Project Information Form will be due on February 8, 2019.

Both this form (“Project Application Form”) and DWR’s form (“Project Information Form”) should be submitted to:

Sarah Hardgrave – [email protected]
THIS APPLICATION FORM IS DUE January 14, 2018
THE PROJECT INFORMATION FORM IS DUE FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1506, Packet Page 1606 2 7. Type of Proposal: Is your project an implementation project (developed, with budget) or a concept proposal? Implementation project
Concept proposal

8. Project Summary: Briefly describe your project (one paragraph):

9. Project Location: Projects must be located within the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM region,1 or otherwise be of direct benefit to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM region. Where is your project located?

10. IRWM Criteria
To be eligible for inclusion in the IRWM Plan, projects must include one or more of the following elements.

Please check all that apply:

Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse Water-use efficiency and water conservation
Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability
Storm water resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or storm water • Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space • Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multi-benefit storm water projects • Projects to implement a storm water resource plan
Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities Water desalination projects
Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act

1 The Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM region includes: land areas within the San Jose Creek and Carmel River watersheds, portions of the Seaside Groundwater Basin and former Fort Ord, and most of the Monterey Peninsula (the Greater Monterey County region includes and runs north from Marina, as well as all most remaining areas of Monterey County, with the exception of Pajaro Valley).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1507, Packet Page 1607 3 11. IRWM Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been identified for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay IRWM Plan. Please select all of the objectives that the project will address, and very briefly explain (unless it is entirely obvious) how your project will address each objective. (For concept proposals, you need not provide the justification.)
Objective Justification
Water Supply Goal
WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water and other reuse and where feasible, expand sewer services to areas with onsite systems to increase sources of water for recycling.*
WS-3. Develop opportunities for stormwater capture and reuse pursuant to the Stormwater Resource Plan.

WS-4. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation
throughout the Region.*
WS-5. Improve water supplies to achieve multiple benefits, beneficial uses and environmental flows.

WS-6. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates.

WS-1. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Water Quality Goal
WQ-1. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead), including headwaters and tributaries of streams, and to protect potable water supplies.*
WQ-2. Improve ocean water quality, including, but not limited to, Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.

WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins, especially where at risk from seawater intrusion.

Flood Protection Goal
FP-1. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive habitats from flood damage and sea level rise, in particular, along the Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay shoreline.*
FP-2. Develop approaches for floodplain restoration or adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair
requirements (sustainable flood management systems).

FP-3. Promote floodplain restoration that protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function.

FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural
preservation, and economic development.*
Coastal and Streamside Erosion Goal
CSE-1. Manage areas along the shoreline susceptible to erosion, including long-term strategic retreat where appropriate.

CSE-2. Identify opportunities to restore natural stream function, including meandering, in the lower 15 miles of the Carmel River and selected tributaries.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1508, Packet Page 1608 4 CSE-3. Reduce or prevent adverse downcutting in the main stem Carmel River and its tributaries.

Watershed Management Goal
WM-1. Reduce human-induced sources of non-point fine
sediment runoff.

WM-2. Restore natural fire frequency in headwater forests.

WM-3. Restore the natural hydrologic flow regime in disturbed watersheds where appropriate, including low impact
development strategies in urbanized areas.

WM-4. Re-establish a natural level of sediment supply within the Carmel River and its tributaries.

Environmental Protection and Enhancement
EV-1. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds*; including, but not limited to, promoting the steelhead recovery by meeting accepted or approved environmental flows within the regional watersheds. .

EV-6. Promote watershed activities for fire fuel management and adaptive management strategies to protect water quality and water supplies from catastrophic wildfires.*
Climate Change Goal
CC-1. Implement adaptation measures and mitigation solutions to climate change effects, including increased large storm intensity and/or frequency, sea level rise, drought and wildfire.

CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region.

Regional Communication and Cooperation Goal
RC-1. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts.

RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation through ongoing meetings of the RWMG and regional data sharing.

RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and other water forums and agencies.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1509, Packet Page 1609 5 SECTION II. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE This section is required for all implementation projects. If your project is a concept proposal, there is no need to complete this section.

12. Do you want your implementation project to be considered for Round 1? Yes
No

13. Resource Management Strategies
One of the goals of integrated regional water management planning is to encourage diversification of water management approaches. Please select the strategies that your project will use (check all that apply):

Reduce Water Demand
Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
Urban Water Use Efficiency
Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers
Conveyance
System Reoperation
Water Transfers
Infrastructure Reliability
Increase Water Supply
Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage
Desalination
Precipitation Enhancement
Recycled Municipal Water
Surface Storage
Storm Water Capture and Management
Improve Water Quality
Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution
Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation
Matching Water Quality to Use
Pollution Prevention
Salt and Salinity Management
Urban Runoff Management
Water and Wastewater Treatment
Practice Resources Stewardship
Agricultural Lands Stewardship
Economic Incentives
Ecosystem Restoration
Forest Management
Land Use Planning and Management
Recharge Area Protection
Water-Dependent Recreation
Sediment Management
Watershed Management
Environmental and Habitat Protection and
Improvement
Wetlands Enhancement and Creation
Improve Flood Management
Flood Risk Management
People and Water
Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water
Pricing)
Outreach, Engagement, and Education
Water and Culture
Water-Dependent Recreation
Regional Cooperation
Recreation and Public Access
Other Resource Management Strategies
Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure
Desalination
Fog Collection
Rainfed Agriculture
Monitoring and Research
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1510, Packet Page 1610 6 14. Climate Change Adaptation
a) Does your project contribute to climate change adaptation? If so, what climate change vulnerabilities in the region does your project respond to, specifically? Please describe how, and to what extent.

Vulnerabilities for the region are described in Chapter 15 of the 2014 IRWM Plan. This chapter can be downloaded at: http://www.mpirwm.org/IRWM%20Library/IRWMPlan%20Final_whole.pdf

b) Does your project consider the effects of sea level rise on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures?
c) Does the project take into consideration changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff and recharge?

15. Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)
a) Please describe the extent to which your project will help reduce GHGs, compared to project alternatives. To assist you in estimating GHG emissions, please use the California Emissions Estimator Tool (CalEEMod) on the Greater Monterey County IRWM website: http://www.greatermontereyirwmp.org/performance/.

b) If appropriate, describe the extent to which the project will help the region reduce GHGs over the next 20 years.
c) To what extent will the project help reduce energy consumption, especially the energy embedded in water use, and ultimately reduce GHG emissions?
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1511, Packet Page 1611 7 SECTION III. PROJECT AND BUDGET NARRATIVE
Complete this and the following sections only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1 Implementation Grant funds.

16. Project Description (1 page or so): Please describe the proposed project. Provide a general discussion of the problem the project addresses, and describe major tasks/activities. Include any other information that supports the justification for this project, including how the project can achieve any claimed benefits.

17. Project Need/Urgent Need: Is there a special, urgent, or critical need for your project? If so, explain.

18. Budget: Please complete the following budget table.

Non-State
Cost Share2
Requested
Grant Amount
Other State
Cost Share
Total Cost
(a) Project Admin
(b) Land Purchase/Easement
(c) Planning/Design/
Engineering/Environmental
(d) Construction/
Implementation
(e) Total

19. Budget Justification: Please provide a budget justification. What is the basis for your costs? (For the final application to DWR, you will need to provide documentation, such as quotes, to justify your budget.)

20. Cost Share: DWR requires that proposals provide at minimum 50% non-State cost share. DWR awards additional points for proposals that provide more than the required 50% non-State cost share. Describe your cost share, and sources of cost share funds.

Please also state whether your agency can contribute to any costs that may be associated with the cost of preparing the final Prop 1 grant application, if any.

21. Disadvantaged Communities: Does the project provide direct water‐related benefits to a project area entirely comprised of Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs)? If so, explain. (If you need help with this question, contact Maureen at [email protected]) Will you be requesting a full or partial cost-share waiver based on DAC/EDA status?

22. Operations and Maintenance: Please describe how operations and maintenance of the project will be supported.

2 Proposition 1 requires a minimum cost share of 50% of the total project cost. An applicant may request the local cost share requirement be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit one or more DACs and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs). See DWR Proposal Solicitation Package for additional details.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1512, Packet Page 1612 8 23. Storm Water Resource Plan Requirements: Is the project a storm water or dry weather runoff capture project? If so, is it included in a Storm Water Resource Plan?

24. Groundwater: Will the project affect groundwater levels? If so, how? If your project is located in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, has it been considered by the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee and does it conform to the adjudication requirements?

25. AB 1249 Requirements: Does the project address nitrate, arsenic, or hexavalent chromium contamination in the region? If so, how?

26. Stakeholder Coordination: Please briefly describe the nature of stakeholder coordination for planning, developing, and implementing the project.

SECTION IV. COMPLIANCE
Complete this section only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1 Implementation Grant funds.

To be eligible for IRWM Implementation Grant funds, project proponents must comply with the following.

27. Adoption of IRWM Plan
Proposition 1 IRWM Program Guidelines require that each project proponent named in an IRWM Grant application adopt the IRWM Plan. Please check if your agency/organization:

Has already adopted the IRWM Plan
Hereby commits to adopting the IRWM Plan, if the project is selected for submission in an IRWM Grant application

28. Urban Water Management Compliance
If your agency meets the definition of an urban water supplier (“supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides water for municipal purposes, either directly or indirectly, to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre‐feet of water annually”), you must demonstrate compliance with certain requirements.

These include:
• DWR-approved 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
• Verification from DWR that your agency submitted a validated water loss audit report (SB 555). • Compliance with the water metering requirements (CWC section 525) Is your agency an urban water supplier, and if so, can it meet these requirements? Yes, my agency is an urban water supplier and I can demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

No, my agency is an urban water supplier but I cannot demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

N/A: My agency is not an urban water supplier.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1513, Packet Page 1613 9 29. Surface Water Diverter Compliance
If your agency/organization is a surface water diverter, you must state whether your agency/organization has submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board your annual surface water diversion reports. Is your agency/organization a surface water diverter, and if so, can it meet this requirement? Yes, my agency is a surface water diverter and I can verify that we meet this requirement.

No, my agency is a surface water diverter but we have not met this requirement.

N/A: My agency is not a surface water diverter.

SECTION V. ROUND 1 PROJECT INFORMATION FORM
Please complete and submit the Project Information Form to Sarah Hardgrave at [email protected] by February 8, 2019.

Complete the Project Information Form only if you would like your project to be considered for Round 1.

The Project Information Form was developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). It contains the actual questions that each project proponent must address for the Region’s Round 1 application for Implementation Grant funds. This Project Information Form is still in draft form; some questions may change between now and the final application process. If your project is selected for Round 1, you will have another opportunity to revise your responses on this form, if necessary, before the Regional Water Management Group submits its Round 1 Implementation Grant application to the State.

Note that if your project is selected for the Round 1 application, you will need to be physically present for a Preapplication Workshop (time and location TBD) during which time DWR staff will review your project information and ask questions.

The information below in blue font is provided, for your information, to help you respond to certain questions on the Project Information Form.

A. PROJECT INFORMATION
Question 5. DAC question: No need to provide a map at this time.

Question 8. Funding Category: Your project is a “DAC Implementation Project” only if your project directly and entirely benefits a disadvantaged community.

Question 9. Project Type: Click on “Other” to see the categories.

B. SELECTED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Question 2. How the Project Addresses the Critical Need(s) of the Region: Based on the objectives you selected in Section I Question 11 above, please explain how your project addresses the critical needs of the region.

Question 4. Climate Change: You need to explain how your project addresses climate change vulnerabilities specifically for the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay region, if applicable. Vulnerabilities for the region are described in Chapter 15 of the 2014 IRWM Plan. This chapter can be downloaded at:
http://www.mpirwm.org/IRWM%20Library/IRWMPlan%20Final_whole.pdf) Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1514, Packet Page 1614 10 Question 5. Regional Water Self-Reliance: This question is actually intended for regions that depend on water from the Delta watershed. However, if your project includes one of the following, it contributes to regional water self-reliance: water use efficiency, water recycling, advanced water technologies, local and regional water supply project, or improved regional coordination of local and regional water supply efforts.

Question 6. Statewide Priorities. Statewide priorities include the following (see pp. 9-10 of the Prop 1 2016 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines Volume 1 for a full description of these priorities):

Make conservation a California way of life
• Building on current water conservation efforts and promoting the innovation of new systems for increased water conservation.
• Expand agricultural and urban water conservation and efficiency to exceed SB-X7-7 targets • Provide funding for conservation and efficiency
• Increase water sector energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction capacity • Promote local urban conservation ordinances and programs Increase regional self-reliance and integrated water management across all levels of government • Ensure water security at the local level, where individual government efforts integrate into one combined regional commitment where the sum becomes greater than any single piece. • Support and expand funding for Integrated Water Management planning and projects • Improve land use and water alignment
• Provide assistance to disadvantaged communities
• Encourage State focus on projects with multiple benefits • Increase the use of recycled water
Protect and restore important ecosystems
• Continue protecting and restoring the resiliency of our ecosystems to support fish and wildlife populations, improve water quality, and restore natural system functions. • Restore key mountain meadow habitat
• Manage headwaters for multiple benefits
• Protect key habitat of the Salton Sea through local partnership • Restore coastal watersheds
• Continue restoration efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin
• Continue restoration efforts in the Klamath Basin
• Water for wetlands and waterfowl
• Eliminate barriers to fish migration
• Assess fish passage at large dams
• Enhance water flows in stream systems statewide
Manage and prepare for dry periods
• Effectively manage water resources through all hydrologic conditions to reduce impacts of shortages and lessen costs of state response actions. Secure more reliable water supplies and consequently improve drought preparedness and make California’s water system more resilient. • Revise operations to respond to extreme conditions
• Encourage healthy soils
Expand water storage capacity and improve groundwater management • Increase water storage for widespread public and environmental benefits, especially in increasingly dry years and better manage our groundwater to reduce overdraft.
• Provide essential data to enable Sustainable Groundwater Management • Support funding partnerships for storage projects
• Improve Sustainable Groundwater Management
• Support distributed groundwater storage
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1515, Packet Page 1615 11 • Increase statewide groundwater recharge
• Accelerate clean-up of contaminated groundwater and prevent future contamination Provide safe water for all communities
• Provide all Californians the right to safe, clean, affordable and accessible water • adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. • Consolidate water quality programs
• Provide funding assistance for vulnerable communities • Manage the supply status of community water systems
• Additionally, as required by Water Code §10545, in areas that have nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium contamination, consideration will be given to grant proposals that included projects that help address the impacts caused by nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium contamination, including projects that provide safe drinking water to small disadvantaged communities.

Increase flood protection
• Collaboratively plan for integrated flood and water management systems, and implement flood projects that protect public safety, increase water supply reliability, conserve farmlands, and restore ecosystems. • Improve access to emergency funds
• Better coordinate flood response operations
• Prioritize funding to reduce flood risk and improve flood response • Encourage flood projects that plan for climate change and achieve multiple benefits Increase operational and regulatory efficiency
This action is directed towards State and federal agencies; however, consideration will be afforded to eligible local or regional projects that also support increased operational of the State Water Project or Central Valley Project C. WORK PLAN, BUDGET, AND SCHEDULE
Please summarize the work plan and budget information that you provided (in detail) in Section III above.

D. OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION
Question 5. Does the project address a contaminant listed in AB 1249? These contaminants are, specifically:
nitrate, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and perchlorate.

A “disadvantaged community” (or DAC) is defined as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income, or according to the latest census data, less than $51,026. A “small disadvantaged community” is defined as a DAC that has a yearlong population of no more than 10,000 people.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1516, Packet Page 1616 12 HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION:

This Project Application Form is due January 14, 2019.

The Project Information Form is due February 8, 2019.

Please email your completed applications to Sarah Hardgrave, at [email protected] If you do not have email access, please hand-deliver or mail one copy of your application to:

Sarah Hardgrave
Big Sur Land Trust
509 Hartnell St.

Monterey, CA 93940

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1517, Packet Page 1617 1 WM Guidelines Page 9
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2018/2019R Department of Water Resources (DWR) Timeline for Round 1 Implementation Grants o Oct 5, 2018: DWR released Draft Project Solicitation Package (PSP) and Guidelines; comments due December 14, 2018
o November – early December: Central Coast Funding Area (CCFA) preparing joint comments on Draft PSP
o Early 2019: DWR releases Final PSP released
o DWR will schedule Pre-Application Workshops with each Funding Area following release of PSP. The Central Coast IRWM regions are requesting a workshop in June 2019.
o RWMG must provide DWR with information on proposed projects at least two weeks prior to the workshop: A Proposal Summary, plus a “Project Information Form” for each project.
o DWR will get back to regions with comments within 4 weeks after the workshop. o Application to DWR will be due 12 weeks after the workshop date.

Prop 1 IRWM Grant Funds Available to Central Coast Funding Area Prop 1 Allocation to CCFA: $43,000,000
Minus State costs (10%): - $4,300,000
Remaining for CCFA: $38,700,000
Of that amount:

DAC Funds (20% total allocation): $8,600,000
General Implementation Grant Funding: $30,100,000
Prop 1 IRWM Grant Funds Available to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay Region
Total Prop 1 funds available:

DAC Funds: $931,966
General Implementation: $3,261,882
TOTAL: $4,193,848
Prop 1 funds spent to date:

Round 1: 50% of General Implementation allocation, 35% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $163,094
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,794,035
Round 2 (2020): 50% of Implementation allocation, 65% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $302,889
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,933,830
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1518, Packet Page 1618 2 Proposed Project Solicitation Schedule for IRWMP:
• October 5, 2018: Draft Project Solicitation Package (PSP) was released by DWR. • December 6, 2018: Solicitation begins. The process will be reviewed at the December 6 RWMG meeting.

Those who are interested in having their projects put forward in Round 1 will also need to submit DWR’s Project Information Form. The Project Information Form will be due Monday February 8, 2019. This deadline assumes DWR will release the final PSP with the form in early January, but the timeline may be delayed. • January 14, 2019: Project Application Forms due. Subcommittee ranks projects. • January 21, 2019: Prioritized project list prepared by TAC (prior to January 24 RWMG meeting).
• January 24 RWMG Meeting: Discuss project ranking with RWMG, and consider ranked Project List for Round 1. RWMG takes a first look at projects on the table for Round 1. • February 8, 2019: Project Information Forms due.
• February, March and April RWMG Meetings: Project proponents present their projects to the RWMG. RWMG selects projects to put forward.
• April or May RWMG Meeting: Must decide which projects to put forward, in time for June Funding Area Pre-Application Workshop.
• June 2019 (tbd): Pre-Application Workshop with DWR. Proposal Summary and Project Information Forms are due to DWR two weeks prior to the workshop.

Local Cost Share
Proposition 1 requires a minimum cost share of 50% of the total project cost. Applicants must demonstrate that a minimum of 50 percent of the total proposal costs will be paid for with nonState funds (Water Code §79742(C)). Costs incurred after January 1, 2015 (the effective date of Proposition 1) can be used as local cost share; in-kind services may also be used for local cost share.

An applicant may request the local cost share requirement be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit one or more DACs and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs). The 2018 Guidelines, Appendices E and F provide details regarding what documentation must be submitted to support claimed benefits to DACs and/or EDAs. Project benefits may be claimed based on either by population or geographic area. If documentation submitted is reasonable, cost share waivers will be will be determined as follows:

DAC/EDA Benefit Cost Share Waiver
• 76% - 100%: 100 percent cost share waiver
• 51% - 75%: 75 percent cost share reduction waiver
• 25% - 50%: 50 percent cost share reduction waiver
• Less than 25%: No cost share reduction waiver
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1519, Packet Page 1619 3 Eligible Project Types
Subject to regional priorities, projects may include, but are not limited to, the following elements (Water Code §79743 (a - j)):
• Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and indirect potable reuse • Water-use efficiency and water conservation
• Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects
• Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration of separate water systems • Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects, including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve water supply reliability • Stormwater resource management, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Projects to reduce, manage, treat, or capture rainwater or stormwater • Projects that provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water supply, flood control, or open space
• Decision support tools that evaluate the benefits and costs of multi-benefit stormwater projects
• Projects to implement a stormwater resource plan developed in accordance with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6 including Water Code § 10562 (b)(7)
• Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities • Water desalination projects
• Decision support tools to model regional water management strategies to account for climate change and other changes in regional demand and supply projections • Improvement of water quality, including drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff • Regional projects or programs as defined by the IRWM Planning Act (Water Code §10537).

Eligible proposals must do the following. The following requirements may be applied at the project level depending on the individual PSP:
• Advance the purpose of Proposition 1 Chapter 7, Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness (Water Code §79707(c) and §79740) which are, as follows:
• Assist water infrastructure systems adapt to climate change • Provide incentives for water agencies throughout each watershed to collaborate in managing the region’s water resources and setting regional priorities for water infrastructure
Eligible also projects must:
• Promote State planning priorities and sustainable community strategies, consistent with Government Code §65041.1 and §65080 (Water Code §79707 (i) • Be included in a Stormwater Resource Plan that has been incorporated into and IRWM plan, unless exempt per Water Code §10563(c)(2)(B). (Applies only to stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects.)
• Be supported by the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency. (Applies only to projects that affect Groundwater levels.) If a groundwater project is located in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, it must be considered by the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee and conform to the adjudication requirements.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1520, Packet Page 1620 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1521, Packet Page 1621 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-G
MARCH 6, 2019 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1522, Packet Page 1622 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1523, Packet Page 1623 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: March 6, 2019, 2pm-4pm
Meeting Location: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Conference Room 5 Harris Ct., Monterey
or conference call: 872-240-3212; access code: 538-742-293# Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Status Update from RWMG Members on 2018 MOU Approval Process

3. Update on IRWM Project Solicitation Schedule

4. Discuss Preliminary Results of Project Prioritization Process

5. Any Other Updates from Meeting Participants

6. Schedule Next Meeting
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1524, Packet Page 1624 Project Solicitation Schedule
March 6, 2019 RWMG Meeting
RWMG March 6, 2019 Meeting
Project Solicitation Schedule Summary
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management
Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2019 March 6 RWMG Meeting: Discuss project ranking with RWMG and consider ranked Project List for Round 1. RWMG takes a first look at projects on the table for Round 1.

April RWMG Meeting: Project proponents present their projects to the RWMG. RWMG selects projects to put forward.

Mid-April (tbd) Deliverable: Projects that are selected by the RWMG to submit Project Information Forms.

End of April (tbd) Deliverable: RWMG must provide DWR with information on proposed projects at least two weeks prior to the workshop: A Proposal Summary, plus a “Project Information Form” for each project.

June or July (tbd) DWR Pre-Application Workshop
12 weeks after
workshop Deliverable: Final application to DWR will be due 12 weeks after the workshop date.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1525, Packet Page 1625 Project Prioritization Summary
March 6, 2019 RWMG Meeting
RWMG March 6, 2019 Meeting
Project Prioritization Summary
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management
Project Prioritization Scoring Summary
Implementation Project Title Preliminary Score*
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project 76.3
Del Monte Manor Park LID Improvements Project 61.2
West End Stormwater Management Improvements 53.5
Ramona Avenue Stormwater Runoff Infiltration Project 32.4 Coe Avenue Recycled Water Distribution Pipeline 12.5
*These scores are preliminary and subject to change based on group discussions and additional information provided by project proponents.

Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management
Summary of Project Applications Received for Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Proponent Project Title Type of Proposal Considered for Round 1 Funding?
CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project
Implementation Project Yes
City of Carmel-bythe-SeaCarmel-by-the-Sea Pilot Wet-Dry Weather Diversion Project
Concept Proposal No
City of Carmel-bythe-SeaCarmel by-the-Sea Forest Hill Park Creek Restoration
Concept Proposal No
City of Carmel-bythe-SeaCity of Carmel by-the-Sea Park Branch Library- Devendorf Rainwater Capture
Concept Proposal No
City of Monterey Hartnell Gulch Restoration and Runoff
Diversion Project
Concept Proposal No
City of Monterey Ramona Avenue Stormwater Runoff
Infiltration Project
Implementation Project Yes
City of Seaside Del Monte Manor Park LID
Improvements Project
Implementation Project Yes
Marina Coast Water
District
Coe Avenue Recycled Water
Distribution Pipeline
Implementation Project Yes
Monterey County Carmel River Floodplain Restoration
and Environmental Enhancement
Project (FREE)
Concept Proposal No
Monterey County County Service Area 50 (Rio Way Tract
#2) Stormwater and Flood Control
Project
Concept Proposal No
Monterey One
Water
Coral Street Pump Station Climate
Resiliency Project
Concept Proposal No
Monterey One
Water
Seaside Pump Station Climate Change
and Erosion Adaptation Study
Concept Proposal No
Sand City/Seaside Trash Capture and Urban Diversion
Project for the Cities of Seaside and
Sand City
Concept Proposal No
Sand City West End Stormwater Management
Improvements
Implementation Project Yes
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1526, Packet Page 1626 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1527, Packet Page 1627 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-H
APRIL 10, 2019 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1528, Packet Page 1628 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1529, Packet Page 1629 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: April 10, 2019, 2pm-4pm
Meeting Location: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Conference Room 5 Harris Ct., Monterey
or conference call: 872-240-3212 access code: 943-674-509 # Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Status Update from RWMG Members on 2018 MOU Approval Process

3. Update on IRWM Project Solicitation Schedule

4. Discuss Final Results of Project Prioritization Process

5. Select Project(s) to be included in our Region’s Proposal to DWR

6. Any Other Updates from Meeting Participants

7. Schedule Next Meeting
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1530, Packet Page 1630 Project Solicitation Schedule
April 10, 2019 RWMG Meeting
RWMG April 10, 2019 Meeting
Project Solicitation Schedule Summary
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management
Round 1 Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Schedule 2019 April 10th
RWMG Meeting: Project proponents present their projects to the RWMG. RWMG selects projects to put forward.

End of April (tbd) Deliverable: Projects that are selected by the RWMG to submit Project Information Forms.

May (tbd) RWMG Meeting
Mid-May (tbd) Deliverable: RWMG must provide DWR with information on proposed projects at least two weeks prior to the workshop: A Proposal Summary, plus a “Project Information Form” for each project.

June (tbd) RWMG Meeting
June or July (tbd) DWR Pre-Application Workshop
12 weeks after
workshop
Deliverable: Final application to DWR will be due 12 weeks after the workshop date.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1531, Packet Page 1631 Implementation Funding Available
April 10, 2019 RWMG Meeting
1 WM Guidelines Page 9
Proposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management
Implementation Grant Funding Available
Prop 1 IRWM Grant Funds Available to the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay and South Monterey Bay Region
Total Prop 1 funds available:

DAC Funds: $931,966
General Implementation: $3,261,882
TOTAL: $4,193,848
Prop 1 funds spent to date:

DAC Involvement (50% of total DAC): $465,983
For Round 1, DWR is proposing that 35% of DAC Implementation funds and 50% of General Implementation funds be provided, leaving the rest for Round 2 in 2020. Our region has requested the 50% of the DAC allocation funds be available for Round 1 and the remaining 50% available for Round 2.

This request has not yet been approved.

Round 1: 50% of General Implementation allocation, 35% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $163,094
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,794,035
Round 2 (2020): 50% of Implementation allocation, 65% of remaining DAC allocation DAC Implementation: $302,889
General Implementation: $1,630,941
TOTAL: $1,933,830
Local Cost Share
Proposition 1 requires a minimum cost share of 50% of the total project cost. Applicants must demonstrate that a minimum of 50 percent of the total proposal costs will be paid for with non-State funds (Water Code §79742(C)). Costs incurred after January 1, 2015 (the effective date of Proposition 1) can be used as local cost share; in-kind services may also be used for local cost share.

DAC/EDA Benefit Cost Share Waiver
• 76% - 100%: 100 percent cost share waiver
• 51% - 75%: 75 percent cost share reduction waiver
• 25% - 50%: 50 percent cost share reduction waiver
• Less than 25%: No cost share reduction waiver
Final Results of Project Ranking
Ranking
Number Project Name Score
1 Del Monte Manor Park LID Improvements Project 83.2
2 West End Stormwater Management Improvements 74.8
3 Ramona Avenue Stormwater Runoff Infiltration Project 38.2 4 Coe Avenue Recycled Water Distribution Pipeline 14.6
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1532, Packet Page 1632 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1533, Packet Page 1633 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 14-I
MAY 9, 2019 RWMG MEETING

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1534, Packet Page 1634 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1535, Packet Page 1635 1 Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) Meeting
Meeting Date and Time: May 9, 2019, 2pm-4pm
Meeting Location: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Conference Room 5 Harris Ct., Monterey
or conference call: (786) 535-3211 Access Code: 971-452-613# Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Status Update from RWMG Members on 2018 MOU Approval Process

3. Update on IRWM Project Solicitation Schedule

4. IRWM Plan Update Progress and Review Process

5. Final Project Solicitation Package

6. Update on Selected Projects

7. Update from Dudek on Application Process

8. Schedule Next Meeting
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1536, Packet Page 1636 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay August 2019 DRAFT Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1537, Packet Page 1637 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
APPENDIX 15

SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR WATER ON THE

MONTEREY PENINSULA

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1538, Packet Page 1638 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1539, Packet Page 1639 Supply and Demand for Water on the Monterey Peninsula
Prepared by David J. Stoldt, General Manager
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
September 2019
With the approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and the continued environmental work on Pure Water Monterey (PWM) expansion as a back-up option, it is an opportune time to examine available supplies and their ability to meet current and long-term demand. This memorandum will also look at the changing nature of demand on the Monterey Peninsula, the underlying assumptions in the sizing of the water supply portfolio, and indicators of the market’s ability to absorb new demand.

Supply
Available sources of supply are shown in Table 1 below and are described in the discussion that follows. Despite the California Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the two petitions for writ of review, there remains the risk of additional legal challenges and not all permits have been issued for California American Water’s (Cal-Am) MPWSP desalination plant. For these reasons, supply has been shown with both desalination and with PWM expansion.

Table 1
Monterey Peninsula Available Supply
(Acre-Feet Annually)
Supply Source w/ Desalination w/ PWM Expansion
MPWSP Desalination Plant 6,252 0
Pure Water Monterey 3,500 3,500
PWM Expansion 0 2,250
Carmel River 3,376 3,376
Seaside Basin 774 774
Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) 1,300 1,300
Sand City Desalination Plant 94 94
Total Available Supply 15,296 11,294
Other Available Supplies 406 406
Total Available Supply w/Other 15,702 11,700
Desalination: The 6.4 million gallon per day (MGD) MPWSP desalination plant is expected to deliver 6,252 acre-feet annually (AFA).1It is likely to begin deliveries in early 2022, considering 1 CPUC Decision 18-09-017, September 13, 2018, page 70; Amended Application of California-American Water Company (U210W), Attachment H, March 14, 2016
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1540, Packet Page 1640 final permits in November 2019, a 21-month construction period, and 6-month commissioning and start-up window.2
Pure Water Monterey: Monterey One Water’s (M1W) project is expected to come online in late 2019 and begin deliveries of 3,500 AFA to Cal-Am in early 2020. It is over 90% complete.

Pure Water Monterey Expansion: The expansion of Pure Water Monterey is expected to yield 2,250 AFA.3 The Notice of Preparation indicates source waters for the expansion are secure:
“No new source water diversion and storage sites are necessary to achieve the Expanded PWM/GWR Project’s recycled water yield objective of an additional 2,250 AFY of replacement supplies. The Expanded PWM/GWR Project is designed to utilize existing M1W contractual rights to source waters and wastewaters.” There are several different configurations of source waters that could be utilized for the expansion, but one proposed alternative is 81% contractual rights to wastewater and excess secondary effluent and 19% of Blanco Drain and Reclamation Ditch waters. This project could come online by January 2022.

Carmel River: Cal-Am has legal rights to 3,376 AFA from the Carmel River comprised of 2,179 AFA from License 11866, 1,137 AFA of pre-1914 appropriative rights, and 60 AFA of riparian rights. This does not include what is referred to as Table 13 rights, discussed under “Other Available Supplies” below.

Seaside Basin: The 2006 Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication imposed triennial reductions in operating yield for Standard Producers such as Cal-Am until the basin’s Natural Safe Yield is achieved. The last reduction will occur in 2021 and Cal-Am will have rights to 1,474 AFA.

However, with the delivery of a long-term permanent water supply, the company would like to begin replacing its accumulated deficit of over-pumping by in-lieu recharge by leaving 700 AFA of its production right in the basin for 25 years. Hence, only 774 AFA is reflected as long-term supply available, although the additional 700 AF becomes available again in the future.

Aquifer Storage & Recovery: There are two water rights that support ASR. Permit 20808A allows maximum diversion of 2,426 AFA and Permit 20808C allows up to 2,900 AFA for a total of 5,326 AFA. However, these are maximums that may only be close to being achieved in the wettest of years. Based on long-term historical precipitation and streamflow data, ASR is designed to produce 1,920 AFA on average. The MPWSP assumes a lesser amount of 1,300 AFA to be conservative.
2 www.watersupplyproject.org/schedule
3 Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting Notice, page 4, May 15, 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1541, Packet Page 1641 Sand City Desalination Plant: The Sand City plant was designed to produce a nominal 300 AFA, but has failed to achieve more than the 276 AF in 2011. Due to source water quality issues and discharge permit requirements the plant has averaged 199 AFA the past three years and appears on course for approximately 140 AF in Water Year 2019. The intakes will likely be augmented and production increased (see “Other Available Supplies”, below.) Here only the 94 AFA of long-term production legally committed to offset Carmel River pumping is included.

Other Available Supplies: In 2013, Cal-Am received Permit 21330 from the State Water Board for 1,488 AFA from the Carmel River. However, the permit is seasonally limited to December 1 through May 31 each year and subject to instream flow requirements. As a result, actual production will vary by water year. Here, we have assumed 300 AFA on average. For the Sand City desalination plant the amount produced in excess of 94 AFA is available for general Cal-Am use and eventually to serve growth in Sand City. With new intakes, we have assumed average production of 200 AFA or 106 AFA of other available supply. There is also available unused capacity in the Seaside Basin which annually is reallocated to the Standard Producers such as Cal-Am as “Carryover Credit” under the adjudication decision. While not insignificant, Carryover Credit has not been included in the “Other Available Supplies”. Total “Other” is 406 AFA.

Historical Water Demand for which MPWSP Desalination Plant is Sized The MPWSP was initially sized solely as a replacement supply4for current customer demand, but this has changed slightly over time as described below. Consideration was also given to peak month and peak day. Additional demand was recognized to accommodate legal lots of record, a request by the hospitality industry to anticipate a return to occupancy rates similar to that which existed prior to the World Trade Center tragedy, and to shift the buildout of Pebble Beach off the river.
5 Table 2 below shows the demand assumptions used in sizing the MPWSP.

Each component is discussed below.

Table 2
Water Demand Assumed in Sizing the MPWSP
(Acre-Feet Annually)
Demand Component Acre-Feet Annually
Average Current Customer Demand 13,290
Legal Lots of Record 1,181
Tourism Bounce-Back 500
Pebble Beach Buildout 325
Total Water Demand 15,296
4 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, pages 4,5,7 5 Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, January 11, 2013, pages 4-5 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1542, Packet Page 1642 Average Current Customer Demand: The Application of Cal-Am to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in April 2012 utilized 13,290 AFA which was the 5-year average demand for 2007-2011.6 As stated earlier, this was to be replacement supply and the Application stated “At this point future demands of the Monterey System have not been included in the sizing of the plant.”7 At that time, the 5-year average maximum month was 1,388 AF and the highest month was 1,532 AF.8
In a January 2013 CPUC filing, average demand was reiterated by Cal-Am to be 13,290 AFA but Cal-Am added that the plant would need to be increased larger by approximately 700 acre-feet per year for the in-lieu recharge of the Seaside Basin.5 However, as can be seen in comparing Tables 1 and 2 above, supply equals demand at 15,296 AFA without changing the size of the plant from the initial Application.

In a 2016 update to the CPUC, Cal-Am recognized that average demand had declined in the intervening three years.9 The 5-year average had declined to 10,966 AFA and the maximum month declined to 1,250 AF. At the time of the 2016 update, Cal-Am suggested that it should size the plant based on the backward-looking 10-year average demand and maximum month, instead of the 5-year average in the original Application, as well as several alternate assumptions about return of water to the Salinas Valley. They concluded “we do not believe the size of the plants should be changed.”10
In a September 2017 filing to the CPUC, Cal-Am acknowledged continuing declines in demand, but indicated that the plant sizing remained appropriate saying “We anticipate demand to rebound over time after these new water supplies are available, the drought conditions continue to subside, the moratorium on new service connections is lifted, and strict conservation and water use restrictions are eased.”11 The company also for the first time introduced the use of future population and demand as a way to “normalize” the average demand used in sizing, a departure from the “replacement supply” basis under the initial Application in 2012.12 This resulted in average “current” system demand of 12,350 AFA. This amount, combined with the same lots of record, tourism bounce-back, and Pebble Beach buildout results in demand of 14,355 AFA – a reduction from the initial Application – but the company asserted that the plant need not be resized because this would allow it to run at 86% capacity, a more reasonable operating rate compared to the 95% posed in the original Application. 6 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, page 21 7 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, page 36 8 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, page 22 9 Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 14, 2016 (Errata), pages 7-11 10 Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 14, 2016 (Errata), page 9 11 Direct Testimony of Ian Crooks Errata Version, September 27, 2017, page 10 12 Direct Testimony of Ian Crooks Errata Version, September 27, 2017, pages 11-13 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1543, Packet Page 1643 The CPUC, in its September 2018 Decision, determined that Cal-Am’s overall future water demand will be approximately 14,000 AFA13 and therefore the 6.4 MGD desalination plant is warranted.

Legal Lots of Record: The 2012 Application to the CPUC also included 1,181 AFA for Legal Lots of Record.14, 5 Legal lots of record are defined as lots resulting from a subdivision of property in which the final map has been recorded in cities and towns, or in which the parcel map has been recorded in Parcels and Maps or Record of Surveys. Lots of record may include vacant lots on vacant parcels, vacant lots on improved parcels, and also included remodels on existing improved, non-vacant parcels. Ultimately, not all legal lots are buildable. While the District is the source of the 1,181 AFA estimated demands for the lots of record, the number was lifted from the 2009 Coastal Water Project environmental impact report.

Tourism Bounce-Back: The 500 AFA for economic recovery was originally proffered by the hospitality industry to handle a recovery of occupancy rates in the tourist industry in a postWorld Trade Center tragedy setting. 15, 5 The industry felt that their most successful occupancy rates were in the three years prior to September 11, 2001 and felt 500 AFA would provide a buffer for a return to that level.

Pebble Beach Buildout: Ever since the State Water Board issued Order 95-10 and the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) it has recognized the Pebble Beach Company’s investment in the Reclamation Project and the Company’s right to serve its entitlements from the Carmel River.

However, the State Water Board has stated a desire to have the Pebble Beach entitlements shifted away from the river and be satisfied by a new supply. At the time of the 2012 Application, the Pebble Beach company had approximately 325 AF of entitlements still available.

Current Water Demand Assumptions
The original MPWSP desalination project plant sizing was done over seven years ago in 2012.

With the passage of time and the opportunity to perform deeper research, it is possible to revisit the assumptions about consumer demand for water in the current context.

Average Current Customer Demand: Figure 1 on the next page shows water production for customer service, a proxy for customer demand, for the past twenty-year period. As can be seen, demand has been in decline. For water year 2019 to date, demand remains 110 AF below 2018 levels, so this trend has not reversed.
13 CPUC Decision 18-09-017, September 13, 2018, page 68 14 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, pages 22, 37. 15 Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland, April 23, 2012, page 37 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1544, Packet Page 1644 Figure 1
Annual Water Production for Customer Service (Demand)
Last 20 Years
(Acre-Feet)
Table 3 shows how the 10-, 5-, and 3-year average demand compares to Cal-Am’s most recent 12,350 AFA assumption.

Table 3
Alternate Average Customer Demand Assumptions
(Acre-Feet)
Period Amount Difference to
Cal-Am #
Cal-Am Assumption 12,350
10-Year Average - Actual 11,232 1,118
5-Year Average - Actual 10,109 2,241
3-Year Average - Actual 9,788 2,562
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
19992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1545, Packet Page 1645 The trend is similar for peak month demand: 10-year maximum month through 2018 was 1,111 AF, the 5-year max was 966 AF, and the 3-year max was 950 AF, requiring approximately 15 MGD of firm capacity. By comparison, the maximum month at the time the plant was first sized was 1,532 AF. The proposed desalination plant, in conjunction with the other production facilities can meet peak month/peak day requirements. Pure Water Monterey expansion adds 4 new extraction wells, two for production and two for redundancy. Preliminary analysis shows that peak month/peak day can be met with both supply alternatives.

Hence, the case could be made that the average customer demand assumption in the sizing of the MPWSP should be 9,788 to 11,232 AFA.

Legal Lots of Record: The 1,181 number is derived from the October 2009 Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report and references a 2001 District analysis as the source.

It was actually sourced from a Land Systems Group Phase II February 2002 interim draft report that used the number 1,181.438 AF. A calculation error was corrected and the report was subsequently updated in June 2002 and the number was revised to 1,210.964. However, the earlier number seems to have been used going forward. Both versions did not include vacant lots on improved parcels in the unincorporated County. Table 4 shows how the corrected number was calculated.

Table 4
Legal Lots of Record Estimates (2002)
Unincorporated County Not Included
(Acre-Feet)
Type of Parcel Amount
Vacant Lots on Vacant Parcels 729.9
Vacant Lots on Improved Parcels 288.2
Anticipated Remodels (10 years) 192.8
Total 1,210.9
Table 5
Assumptions Driving the Legal Lots of Record Conclusions Category
Units on
Vacant
Parcels
Units on
Improved
Parcels
Estimated
Number of
Remodels
Water
Use
Factor
Total
Water
Usage
Single Family Dwellings 688 152 0.286 AF 240.2
Multi-Family Dwellings 846 204 0.134 AF 140.7
Commercial/Industrial 556 288 0.755 AF 637.2
Residential Remodels 3765 0.029 AF 109.2
Commercial Remodels 513 0.163 AF 83.6
2,091 789 4,278 1,210.9
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1546, Packet Page 1646 Since the study, the District’s conservation programs have resulted in reductions in the average water use factors. For example, with single-family water use at 0.2 AFA, multifamily use at 0.12 AFA, and commercial customer connections averaging 0.66 AFA (2016 data), these changes alone would reduce the total above by 167.1 AF. Further, some of these lots may have been built upon, others determined unbuildable. Many of the remodels have likely occurred.

General plans have been rewritten and housing elements recalculated. These factors taken together could result in another 150 AF reduction in the assumption.

Compared to the 1,890 units from the 2002 Land Systems Group study shown above, going forward, AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecast showed 2,231 additional housing units expected in the 6 cities between 2020 and 2035. Assuming another 120 in the unincorporated county, and 2/3rds single-family and 1/3rd multifamily, with single-family water use at 0.2 AFA and multifamily use at 1.2 AFA, this equates to 407 AFA over a 15-year period. Most of AMBAG’s projected growth occurs in Seaside and Del Rey Oaks, which if slated for the former Fort Ord would not be served by Cal-Am. Unfortunately, it is not possible to accurately distinguish the Cal-Am served housing growth from the non-Cal-Am housing growth, but the 407 AFA likely overstates the Cal-Am growth. The AMBAG assumptions appear consistent with the Land Systems Group estimates.

Hence, the case could be made that the legal lots of record demand assumption in the sizing of the MPWSP should be 864 to 1,014 AFA.

Tourism Bounce-Back: As stated earlier, the 500 AFA for economic recovery was originally suggested by the hospitality industry to account for a recovery of occupancy rates in the tourist industry in a post-World Trade Center tragedy setting.
5, 15
Representatives of the Coalition of
Peninsula Businesses indicated in testimony that the hospitality industry was hurt by the recent recession and that occupancy rates needs to increase by 12 to 15 percent to re-attain the levels of decades ago.16 It is true that the Salinas-Monterey market was one of five California markets, out of 22, to experience double digit declines after the events of 2001, from 71.8% in 2000 to 63.0% in 2001.17 It is also true that the decline persisted and was still down when the MPWSP desalination plant was sized, with occupancy rates of 62.8% in 2011-12 and 64.1% in 2012-13.18 However, occupancy rates have since recovered with no notable increase in water demand. Hotel occupancy locally is back at approximately 72% and is estimated by Smith Travel Research to be higher for better quality properties on the Monterey Peninsula.19, 20 The commercial sector water demand is shown below in Table 6 for the year prior to the World 16 Testimony of John Narigi (to CPUC), September 29, 2017, page 5 17 HVS San Francisco, August 19, 2003
18 Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau Annual Report 2012-13, page ii 19 Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed Hotel Bella Project, Applied Development Economics, April 6, 2016 20 Cannery Row Company, January 9, 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1547, Packet Page 1647 Trade Center tragedy, the year of the MPWSP plant sizing, and the most recent year. As can be seen, commercial demand, which is heavily influenced by the hospitality industry remains in decline, despite the already absorbed “bounce-back” in occupancy rates.

Table 6
Commercial Sector Water Demand
Selected Years
(Acre-Feet)
Year Demand
2001 3,387
2012 2,770
2018 2,442
There is a secular change in commercial demand that is due to permanent demand reductions resulting from targeted rebate programs, conservation standards for the visitor-serving sector since 2002, mandatory conservation standards for other commercial businesses instituted in 2013, and commercial inspection/enforcement by the District. A “bounce-back” of 500 AFY would represent an increase in water use demand of 20% in the entire commercial sector, not just the hospitality industry. The District does not view this as likely in the near-term, nor due to a return to higher occupancy rates.

Hence, the case could be made that the tourism bounce-back demand assumption in the sizing of the MPWSP should be 100 to 250 AFA.

Pebble Beach Buildout: As cited earlier, at the time of the 2012 Application, the Pebble Beach company had approximately 325 AF of entitlements still available and that number was added to the MPWSP sizing needs. However, the final environmental impact report certified in 2012 envisioned 145 AFA for the buildout projects and 154 AFA in other entitlement demand. 21 The other entitlement demand goes away when a new water supply comes online because homeowners will have no reason to pay $250,000 per AF for an entitlement when connecting directly to Cal-Am is possible when the moratorium on new service connections is lifted. In the ten years since the CDO was imposed, Pebble Beach entitlement water demand has averaged

4.9 AF added each year. It is reasonable to assume only another 15 AFA during the next three years before a permanent water supply is online.

The project buildout is 145 AFA not 325 AFA used in project sizing. Further, the buildout number includes estimated water use that may never materialize in decades, if ever. Table 7 shows the elements that comprise the Pebble Beach buildout. 21 Pebble Beach Final Environmental Impact report (FEIR), April 2012, Appendix H “Water Supply and Demand Information for Analysis”
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1548, Packet Page 1648 Table 7
Components of Pebble Beach Buildout
(Acre-Feet)
Project Demand
Lodge 13.11
Inn at Spanish Bay 12.85
Spyglass Hotel 30.59
Area M Residential 10.00
Other Residential 77.00
Driving Range 0.33
Roundabout 0.70
Total 144.58
Two elements of the project warrant greater discussion: “Other Residential” includes 66 single family residences at 1.0 AF each and 24 residences at 0.50 AF each (and a decrement of 1 AF in the total calculation for other reasons.) District research in 2006 determined the average large lot Pebble Beach home utilized 0.42 AFA. Building conservation standards have increased since then. Many of the proposed homes are not utilized year-round. The estimate could be overstated by one-third or more. Spyglass Hotel is not currently being pursued and there are no plans to do so in the near-term. The project could be a decade or two away, if ever.

Hence, the case could be made that the Pebble Beach buildout demand assumption in the sizing of the MPWSP should be 103 to 160 AFA.

Summary of Demand v. Supply
Table 8 shows the range of demand estimates that have been established in the foregoing analysis. These long-term demand estimates can be compared to existing current demand to determine how much water supply is needed.

Table 8
Range of Potential Demand Scenarios in MPWSP Sizing
(Acre-Feet)
Demand Component Current
Project
Revised
High
Revised
Low
Average Current Customer Demand 13,290 11,232 9,788
Legal Lots of Record 1,181 1,014 864
Tourism Bounce-Back 500 250 100
Pebble Beach Buildout 325 160 103
Total Water Demand 15,296 12,656 10,855
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1549, Packet Page 1649 However, the ability of the Monterey Peninsula to generate or “absorb” the housing and commercial growth will help determine when such water supply is needed. Figure 2 shows the past 20 years of market absorption of water demand based on water permits issued. The average growth or absorption in water use was 12.7 AF per year. The first decade preceded the CDO and was a period of relative economic stability, available property, no moratorium on new service connections, and lower water rates resulting in 16.4 AF per year of absorption. The second decade was after the CDO and moratorium on service connections and understandably had a lower absorption rate of 9.1 AF per year.

Figure 2
Market Absorption of Water Demand
Last 20 Years
(Acre-Feet)
By adopting assumptions about current demand and market absorption rates, it can be determined the sufficiency of certain supply alternatives over time. In Figure 3, the current demand assumption of 10,109 AF (most recent 5-year average) is shown with three market absorption rates: (a) 16.4 AF per year (pre-CDO decade rate), (b) three times that rate, and (c) 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Absorption Rates
1999-2018 12.7 AFA
1999-2008 16.4 AFA
2009-2018 9.1 AFA
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1550, Packet Page 1650 250 AF over the first five years on top of the pre-CDO rate. These are also compared to the two supply alternatives in Table 1.

Figure 3
Market Absorption of Water Demand Compared to Water Supply Current Demand at 5-Year Average
(Acre-Feet)
This chart shows that, assuming a starting current demand at the 5-year average, both water supply alternatives meet 30-year market absorption at the historical rate and 250 AF in the first 5 years on top of the historical rate, and Pure Water Monterey expansion is sufficient until 2043 at 3-times the historical absorption rate.

Figure 4 below shows a current starting demand at the 3-year average and shows both supply alternatives meet all three absorption rates.

In both cases, one can assume higher market absorption or one or two large scale developments in the first 5 years, but the general conclusions are not significantly changed. 9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046204720482049 Water Supply with PWM Expansion
Water Supply with MPWSP Desalination
250 AF Step then 16.4 AF per year

16.4 AF per year
3 X
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1551, Packet Page 1651 Figure 4
Market Absorption of Water Demand Compared to Water Supply Current Demand at 3-Year Average
(Acre-Feet)
Additional Factors Affecting Future Demand
Cost: The future water supply will significantly impact rates. It is expected that the combined cost of new water supply and regular annual rate increases will almost double a residential ratepayer’s water bill by 2023. Rules of price elasticity suggest the cost of water might dampen demand. The cost of each major component of supply is shown below:

Desalination Plant $6,094 per acre-foot22
Carmel River: $271 per acre-foot23
Seaside Basin: $130 per acre-foot24
22 Attachment C-3 California American Water Company Advice Letter 1220 “Total Yr 1 Cost to Customer” $38.1 million, divided by 6,252 acre-feet per year
23 MPWSP Model- V 2.1 submitted to CPUC; February 2018 and October 2017 versions, 6.4 MGD scenario, “Avoided Costs” worksheet
24 MPWSP Model- V 2.1 submitted to CPUC; February 2018 and October 2017 versions, 6.4 MGD scenario, “Avoided Costs” worksheet
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046204720482049 Water Supply with PWM Expansion
Water Supply with MPWSP Desalination
3 X
250 AF Step then 16.4 AF per year

16.4 AF per Year
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1552, Packet Page 1652 Pure Water Monterey: $1,976 per acre-foot25
PWM with Expansion: $2,077 per acre-foot25
Further, if the desalination plant capacity is not fully utilized, the cost per acre-foot rises due to the fixed costs, as shown below.

Production by Desal Plant – AF

6,252

5,000

4,300
Variable Cost ($ Million) 7.8 6.2 5.4
Fixed Cost ($ Million) 30.3 30.3 30.3
Total Annual Cost to Customer 38.1 36.5 35.7
Cost per Acre-Foot $6,094 $7,308 $8,294
The rate impact can be seen in Figure 5, below, which is calculated based on full utilization of the desalination plant.

Figure 5
Ratepayer Impacts of New Water Supply26
Legislation: On May 31, 2018, Governor Brown signed two bills which build on the ongoing efforts to “make water conservation a California way of life.” SB 606 (Hertzberg) and AB 1668 (Friedman) reflect the work of many water suppliers, environmental organizations, and members of the Legislature. The mandates will fall on urban water suppliers – not customers. 25 Presentation by Monterey One Water at June 27, 2019 Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority meeting 26 “Your Rates Are Changing” California American Water mailer, April 2019 and “Notice of General Rate Case Application filed” July 2019
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1553, Packet Page 1653 Specifically, the bills call for creation of new urban efficiency standards for indoor use, outdoor use, and water lost to leaks, as well as any appropriate variances for unique local conditions.

Each urban retail water agency will annually, beginning November 2023, calculate its own objective, based on the water needed in its service area for efficient indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters, and reasonable amounts of system water loss, along with consideration of other unique local uses (i.e., variances) and “bonus incentive,” or credit, for potable water reuse, using the standards adopted by the State Water Board.

The indoor water use standard will be 55 gallons per person per day (gallons per capita daily, or GPCD) until January 2025; the standard will become stronger over time, decreasing to 50 GPCD in January 2030. For the water use objective, the indoor use is aggregated across population in an urban water supplier’s service area, not each household. Presently, the average June 2014- May 2019 gallons per capita per day for the Cal-Am Monterey system is 57 gpcd. Hence, existing users are unlikely to increase their water consumption with the availability of new water supply.

Principal Conclusions
• Either supply option can meet the long-term needs of the Monterey Peninsula • Either supply option is sufficient to lift the CDO
• The long-term needs of the Monterey Peninsula may be less than previously thought • Several factors will contribute to pressure on decreasing per capita water use Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1554, Packet Page 1654 Appendices
Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1555, Packet Page 1655 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: John Hansen, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Execute (1) an Intergovernmental Support Agreement with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey; (2) Authorize the Withdrawal from and Termination of the Presidio Public Works Agency also known as the Presidio Municipal Services Agency Joint Powers Authority; and (3) Authorize an Agreement with the City of Seaside for Seaside to Provide Installation Support Services to the Presidio of Monterey Annex (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ***IGSA***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute an Intergovernmental Support Agreement Amendment (IGSA) with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (Army), as well as an Agreement with the City of Seaside to provide installation support services to the Army within its own city limits, and authorize the withdrawal from and termination of the Presidio Public Works Agency, also known as the Presidio Municipal Services Agency, as a joint powers agency is no longer necessary.

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 action is consistent with Council policy to approve contractual agreements exceeding $75,000.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Army and the City desire to enter into a new Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA).

The initial term will be six months and will run from April 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023. The following are the estimated cost reimbursement amounts.

Date: 2/7/2023
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1656 Service Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Scheduled Facilities
Maintenance, Repairs, and
Base Operations Support
Services on a cost
reimbursable basis per
attached statement of work
(estimated)
6 per month $1,074,741
Estimated
Reimbursable
Cost
$6,448,446
Unscheduled Facilities
Maintenance, Repairs, and
Base Operations Support
Services on a costreimbursable basis per the
attached statement of work
(estimated)
TBD Project Work
Orders
(PWO)
Estimated
Reimbursable
Cost
$1,634,333
Estimated Total $8,082,779
The City of Monterey’s current adopted budget is sufficient to cover the estimated cost for scheduled maintenance services. The estimated monthly billing for scheduled maintenance and repairs for the City of Monterey is $1,074,741. The Army will then reimburse the City for the costs of the work.

The Army anticipates unscheduled maintenance and repairs of $1,634,333. The most common types of unscheduled maintenance and repairs are emergency events and special projects that exceed a cost of $25,000 per work order. Funding for each emergency or project will be handled through an administrative amendment to the IGSA to ensure proper cost tracking and billing.

Anytime a new Army project award exceeds $350,000, the project will be brought to the City Council for budget appropriation approval. This also keeps the Council apprised of high-profile Army projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

All Army projects on federal land require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to authorize the execution of an agreement does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

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 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1657 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 Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager to execute Agreements with the Army and the City of Seaside; however, this alternative is not recommended. The current IGSA is set to expire on March 31, 2023 and without a new agreement in place, the City would be unable to provide public works and maintenance services to the Army beginning April 1, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Model: A Public-Public Partnership
The City of Monterey and the City of Seaside have been providing base installation maintenance and repairs services to the Army since 1998 as members of the Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”) known as the Presidio Public Works Agency, and also known as the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA). This innovative public-public partnership became known nationwide as the “Monterey Model.” The 2012 federal legislation for Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSA) was adopted as a direct result of Monterey’s successful collaboration. Since then, the Armed Services has formed hundreds of similar partnerships based on the “Monterey Model.” The IGSA between the Presidio of Monterey and the City remains the single largest one in the nation.

Supporting Three Army Installation Sites
There are three principal Army installation sites: 1) Presidio of Monterey (POM) within the Monterey city limits, 2) Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA) within the Seaside city limits, and 3) U.S. Army Signal Activity (USASA) located at Camp Roberts, California.

The primary tenant of the POM is the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center.

This is the largest foreign language training facility in the western world. More than 65 languages are taught. The installation accommodates a large student population, instructors, and civilian employees. The student capacity is 3,500, and there are 1,700 highly educated instructors. The City maintains over 150 facilities or a total of approximately 2.2 million square feet, 25.5 miles of streets, and 44,125 linear feet of storm drains.

A secondary tenant of POM is the Presidio of Monterey Annex (POMA), located within the City of Seaside on the former Fort Ord. This is also known as the Ord Military Community, home to the Defense Human Resources Activity Enterprise Operations Center, Criminal Investigation Command, and other military units.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1658 U.S. Army Signal Activity (USASA) includes a 118-acre fenced area, an enclave within the 42,768-acre Camp Roberts (CROB), a California Army National Guard facility. The City supports over 35 facilities at USASA Camp Roberts, located in San Luis Obispo County.

The City provides support services for classrooms, barracks, mess halls, administration buildings, fitness centers, medical/dental facilities, streets, and forestry. In addition, the City supports the Post Exchange, private cafes, and gas stations.

City services at these Army installation sites include:
 Carpentry
 Electrical
 Elevator Inspection and Certification
 Engineering
 Fencing
 Fire Protection Systems
 Locksmith Services
 Maintenance of Photovoltaic Systems and Generators.
 Painting
 Pest Control
 Plumbing
 Project & Construction Management
 Streets and Surfaced Areas Maintenance
 Traffic Engineering Services
 Tree Maintenance
Updated Structure for the IGSA
On October 11, 2016, the first IGSA was signed for a term of five years, which was extended through March 31, 2023. Federal legislation in 2016 limited the term of an IGSA to five years.

The legislation now authorizes a term of no more than 10 years. The City of Monterey and the Army have been working on developing a new 10-year IGSA since June 2021. Due to federal government funding requirements, the IGSA is structured so that each federal fiscal year is a new option period with the overall term of the IGSA not to exceed 10 years.

Since 1998, the City of Monterey has been the lead agency in providing PMSA services. In order to increase efficiencies and ensure legal compliance, Staff recommends withdrawing from and terminating the joint powers agency. This change will be seamless as, in substance, the City of Monterey provides the services to the Army while the City of Seaside is a subcontractor.

Consequently, the new IGSA is structured to be between the Army and the City of Monterey, which accurately reflects how the installation support services have been and will continue to be provided. Therefore, signatory authority resides with the Monterey City Manager and must be authorized by the Monterey City Council since the IGSA exceeds $75,000. As indicated in the fiscal section above, the IGSA value will exceed $8.1M annually. The Agreement provides that the City will be reimbursed by the Army for the cost of all work performed.

The City of Seaside has provided installation support services to the Presidio of Monterey Annex (also referred to as the Ord Military Community). Although the IGSA will now be between Monterey and the Army, both cities desire for Seaside to continue to provide Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1659 installation support services. To sustain and foster Monterey’s long-term partnership with the City of Seaside, the cities drafted an agreement for Monterey to contract with the City of Seaside to continue providing installation support services at POMA. This agreement will also be executed by the City Manager and the agreement value is approximately $1.1M annually.

Under this agreement, Monterey will not be obligated to pay Seaside until payment is received from the Army and the agreement will terminate if the IGSA terminates. This Spring, Staff will ask Council to dissolve the PMSA. If Council concurs, the two cities will convene for a final PMSA Board meeting and officially dissolve the Joint Powers Agreement. The PMSA may be dissolved by the city providing 60 days written notice or by the parties mutually agreeing to terminate the agency. The required filing with the State will be submitted as well.

Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the new IGSA for Monterey to provide installation support services to the Presidio of Monterey for a term not to exceed ten years, as well as an agreement with the City of Seaside to provide installation support services to the Army within its own city limits, and terminating the PMSA joint powers authority.

JH/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Christopher Dwight, General Services Superintendent
Thom Levendowski, Public Works Administrative Services Manager Tamar Kaufman-Meusel, Administrative Analyst
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 1660 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE (1) AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. ARMY GARRISON PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY (2)

AUTHORIZE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM AND TERMINATION OF THE PRESIDIO PUBLIC

WORKS AGENCY ALSO KNOWN AS THE PRESIDIO MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGNECY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY; AND (3) AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF

SEASIDE FOR SEASIDE TO PROVIDE INSTALLATION SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE

PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the City of Seaside have been providing base installation maintenance and repairs services to the Army under the auspices of the Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”) known as the Presidio Public Works Agency, also known as the Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) since 1998;
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2016, PMSA entered into the first Intergovernmental Support Agreement with the Army and the agreement, as amended, expires on March 31, 2023; WHEREAS, to increase efficiency the City of Monterey and City of Seaside plan to dissolve the PMSA Joint Powers Agreement and the City of Monterey will become the principal partner with the Army;
WHEREAS, the Army and the City of Monterey have completed negotiation of a new IGSA, which shall be for a term not to exceed ten years. The Agreement provides that the City will be reimbursed by the Army for the cost of all work performed, which is estimated to exceed $8.1M annually;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the City of Seaside desire to enter into an agreement whereby the City of Seaside remains a vital partner in performing installation support services and assumes the role as subcontractor to the City of Monterey for work performed at the Presidio of Monterey Annex (formerly known as the Ord Military Community); WHEREAS, under the new Seaside agreement, Monterey will not be obligated to pay Seaside until payment is received from the Army and the agreement will terminate if the IGSA terminates. It is estimated that Seaside will perform $1.1M annually in installation support services under the proposed agreement; and,
WHEREAS, all Army projects on federal land require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 1661 2 NEPA, the action to authorize the execution of an agreement does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).

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 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.

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:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Intergovernmental Support Agreement with the United States for the City to provide installation support services to the Presidio of Monterey on a cost reimbursement basis for a term not to exceed ten years, as well as to execute any future amendments to the Agreement that are administrative in nature.

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to provide 60 days written notice of the City’s withdrawal from the Presidio Public Works Agency, also known as the Presidio Municipal Services Agency and/or consent to terminate the joint powers agency, and to execute all documents and take any steps necessary to fulfill this objective.

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an Agreement with the City of Seaside for Seaside to provide installation support services to the Army at the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 1662 3 Presidio of Monterey Annex within Seaside’s city limits for a term co-extensive with the IGSA.

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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 1663 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cody Hennings, Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for the Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1. This is a property based district in which liability for the assessment is premised upon a person’s property ownership.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

A meeting with representatives of the District will be held to discuss the special benefits conferred and an appropriate assessment rate for 2023-2024. This information will be used to generate the report. The assessment pays for all aspects of the work program for 2023-2024.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1664 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:

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

DISCUSSION:

The Alvarado Street Maintenance District (District) was established in 1985 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct and maintain landscaping, lighting and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal. The boundaries of the District include the entire length of Alvarado Street. Staff will meet with representatives of the District to determine an acceptable rate for the next fiscal year. The current assessment is $1.63/lineal foot/month.

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

At a future Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to receive the report and set a time for a public hearing regarding the contents of the report. After the public hearing, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution confirming the assessment and the district boundaries. The resolution will be filed with the County Auditor’s office prior to the August 1, 2023 deadline established by the County Auditor.

CH/fm
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Peter Confresi, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA) Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this agenda item, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are posted at https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments within 72 hours of the meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1665 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
ORDER ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 85-1
WHEREAS, the Alvarado Street Maintenance District (District) was established in 1985 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct and maintain landscaping, lighting and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal on Alvarado Street; WHEREAS, the District has been renewed annually and has remained in effect since the establishment of the District;
WHEREAS, the District funds maintenance which contributes to a clean and safe environment conducive to commerce;
WHEREAS, all parcels that receive a special benefit are included in the District and the cost of the benefits are reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels according to special benefits;
WHEREAS, general benefits available to the public at large are not paid from special assessments; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby orders the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023- Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1666 2 2024 for the Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 to analyze and separate the general benefits to the public at large from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive.

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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1667 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cody Hennings, Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for the Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1. This is a property-based district in which liability for the assessment is premised upon a person’s property ownership.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1668 activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

DISCUSSION:

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

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

At a future Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to receive the report and set a time for a public hearing regarding the contents of the report. After the public hearing, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution confirming the assessment and the district boundaries. The resolution would be filed with the County Auditor’s office prior to the August 1, 2023 deadline established by the County Auditor.

CH/fm
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Peter Cofresi, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA) Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this agenda item, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are posted at https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments within 72 hours of the meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1669 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
ORDER ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 00-1
WHEREAS, the Calle Principal Maintenance District (District) was established in 2000 under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) which authorizes the assessment to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal; WHEREAS, the District has been renewed annually and has remained in effect since the establishment of the District;
WHEREAS, all parcels that receive a special benefit are included in the District and the cost of the benefits are reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels according to special benefits;
WHEREAS, general benefits available to the public at large are not paid from special assessments;
WHEREAS, the District funds maintenance which contributes to a clean and safe environment conducive to commerce; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1670 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby orders the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for 2023-2024 for the Calle Principal Maintenance District No. 00-1.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1671 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Mayor’s Recommendations and Make Appointments to the Building and Housing Appeals Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee and Planning Commission (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council receive a recommendation from Mayor Williamson and appoint Peter Silva to the vacant member seat on the Building and Housing Appeals Board, Chinyere Ogbonna to the vacant New Monterey representative seat on the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and Robert Bluth to the vacant seat on the Planning Commission, as outlined in the “Discussion” section of this report.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation conforms to Monterey City Code and the California Maddy Act.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with this action.

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 Council could take no action or could make alternate appointments.

Date: 2/7/2023
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1672 DISCUSSION:

Background
Vacant seats on Monterey’s boards, commissions, and committees have been duly posted and published by the City Clerk’s Office pursuant to the California Maddy Act and the Council’s appointments policy, seeking qualified applications for the following vacancies:

Building and Housing Appeals Board – one vacant member seat (vacated in December 2022 when Councilmember Barber assumed her elected seat on the City Council) and one vacant alternate seat (vacant since Kathleen White resigned in December 2021) Disabled Access Appeals Board – two vacant seats (vacated by the resignations of Michael Castaneda in February, 2018, and Kathleen White in December 2021) Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee – one vacant New Monterey Representative seat (vacated by the resignation of William Whipple in December 2022), and vacant Alternate seats representing Aguajito Oaks, Alta Mesa, and Deer Flats neighborhoods (all three Alternate seats vacant for over six years) Planning Commission – one vacant seat (vacated by the resignation of Hansen Reed in August 2022)
Qualified applications for these positions were received from the following residents and are attached to this packet. Residency requirements were confirmed by the City Clerk using the GIS assessment database, and in the case of the Building and Housing Appeals Board applicant, the Building Official confirmed that the applicant’s qualifications meet the special eligibility requirements of the City Code.

Building and Housing Appeals Board
Peter Silva
NCIP Committee – New Monterey Representative
Chinyere Ogbonna
Natalia Tjandra
Planning Commission
Robert Bluth
Justin Cheng
Chris Cobb
Niko Garbacz
Laura O. Nagel
Luis Osorio
Eric Palmer
Gabriel Sanders
Peter Silva
Stephen Wells
(Two additional applicants applied but later voluntarily withdrew from consideration.) Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1673 Recommendation
Mayor Williamson reviewed the applications seen in this packet and conducted interviews with each applicant above in accordance with Council policy and gave appropriate attention and time to the process that resulted in the following recommendations. Mayor Williamson is grateful that residents applied, and recommends that the Council make appointments as follows:

Building and Housing Appeals Board
Peter Silva – for a term expiring June 30, 2027
NCIP Committee – New Monterey Representative
Chinyere Ogbonna – for a term expiring June 30, 2027
Planning Commission
Robert Bluth – for a term expiring June 30, 2027
Next Steps
Seats remain available on the Disabled Access Appeals Board and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee. Applications will continue to be received on an ongoing basis until vacancies are filled.

In addition, resignations were received on January 27, 2023 for positions on the Planning Commission and the NCIP Committee (Del Monte Beach alternate). Notice of these vacancies will be posted and advertised within the timeline required by the Maddy Act, and applications accepted.

Lastly, vacancy notice(s) will be posted and advertised and applications accepted if:
 Ms. Ogbonna is appointed as the New Monterey NCIP Representative as recommended, leaving her New Monterey NCIP Alternate seat vacant, and/or  Mr. Bluth is appointed to the Planning Commission as recommended, leaving his Architectural Review Committee seat vacant.

Monterey residents are encouraged to learn more and apply for these volunteer positions.

Monterey residents interested in receiving notice of board and commission vacancies are encouraged to subscribe to the City’s “Boards and Commissions Interest List.” CBK
Attachment: 1. Applications Received
e: Applicants
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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1674 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

APPEALS HEARING BOARD – meets as needed
The Appeals Hearing Board conducts hearings and appeals relating to administrative orders, denials, and suspensions; revocations of massage establishment permits; bidder responsibility determinations; fees, penalties, and other sums of money owed to the City; administrative abatement actions; and authorizes the imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Three plus one alternate.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE – meets 1st and 3
rd Wed. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviews projects to ensure orderly development and harmonious design; implements the General Plan and neighborhood plans; preserves and promotes the visual character of the City; and reviews and oversees architectural review submittal requirements. Members: Seven, at least one architect or person professionally competent in a field related to architecture.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

The Board of Library Trustees manages the library’s collections; makes and enforces bylaws, rules and regulations for the library’s administration; appoints and removes the Library Director and other library personnel; performs additional duties as prescribed; and requests expenditures from the library trust fund. Members: Five.

BUILDING AND HOUSING APPEALS BOARD – meets as needed
The Building and Housing Appeals Board hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to building, fire, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes, and authorizes imposition of liens, special assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Three plus one alternate, with experience and training relating to building construction, building trades, code enforcement, or building inspection.

DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD – meets as needed
The Disabled Access Appeals Board hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to disabled access, and authorizes imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Five, three with experience and training relating to building construction and/or disabled access regulations, and two of whom who are physically disabled.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION – meets 2nd Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) acts and makes recommendations on matters relating to promotion, restoration, preservation, and protection of Monterey’s historic buildings, sites, artifacts, and features; and adopts minimum submittal requirements for historic preservation review. Members: Seven.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 Bluth Robert
Retired
N/A
T
N/A
Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1675 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

The Museums and Cultural Arts Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts. Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.

NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE – meets seasonally The Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee directs tourist-generated dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending to Council which projects should be funded. Members: One representative and one alternate representing the following designated neighborhoods (check one; you must reside in the jurisdiction):
 Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove – Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION – meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.

The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.

PLANNING COMMISSION – meets 2nd and 4
th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips The Planning Commission implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members: Seven.

Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. Feel free to attach additional sheets, a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest in this position.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 I have been a Monterey resident since 1996. I sent 20 years working at the Naval Postgraduate School as the director of a research facility (CIRPAS). Research work at CIRPAS involved conducting atmospheric measurements from research aircraft, truck-based radars observations (storm chasing), and unmanned aircraft studies, with funding from NASA, NOAA, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Naval Research, among others. I retired from NPS at the end of 2017.

I have been a member of the Monterey Architectural Review Committee since 2018. I have served as the ARC Chair and vice-chair. I have enjoyed serving on ARR but would like to now work on the planning commission, in hope of supporting new endeavors to address low-cost housing.

Please See Attached for additional materials...

X
Robert T Bluth
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 1676 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 1677 I have been a Monterey resident since 1996. I sent 20 years working at the Naval Postgraduate School as the director of a research facility (CIRPAS). Research work at CIRPAS involved conducting atmospheric measurements from research aircraft, truck-based radars observations (storm chasing), and unmanned aircraft studies, with funding from NASA, NOAA, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Naval Research, among others. I retired from NPS at the end of 2017.

I have been a member of the Monterey Architectural Review Committee since 2018. I have served as the ARC Chair and vice-chair. I have enjoyed serving on ARC, but would like to now work on the planning commission, in hope of supporting new endeavors to address low cost housing.

As a result of limited housing supply, Monterey residents are paying record prices for housing and far too many are finding themselves priced out of the market. The implications of Monterey’s housing crisis are devastating. Long term residences are looking for housing they can afford are pushed farther away from their jobs, while others are thrust into crowded living conditions.

For decades, our area has struggled to accommodate all those who wish to live here. Our city makes many of the decisions regarding when, where, and to what extent housing will be built. In the past, local authorities have constrained housing development, reflecting residents’ concerns about the changes that new housing may bring. New housing—and the associated new residents—can exacerbate traffic congestion and parking shortages, stretch local facilities, slow home price appreciation, and alter the community’s character.

I would like to me a member of the planning commission to help address these issues… to help lead our community to develop a consensus to overcome objections to new housing, and at the same time work with city staff to develop new approaches for increasing housing, particularly low income housing.

The city needs to consider additional policy changes to encourage housing production policy changes aimed at ensuring local planning and zoning rules provide sufficient opportunities for home construction. Our community’s general plan must include a housing element, which outlines a longterm plan for meeting the community’s existing and projected housing needs.

One possible response to these affordability challenges could be to expand existing city housing programs, especially those that can convert light industrial or office buildings into low-income housing.

Just as the crisis has taken decades to develop, it will take many years or decades to correct. There are no quick and easy fixes. I would like to work on the planning commission to help find consensus and develop creative new ideas to help our city address our housing crisis.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 1678

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS
Black, Peter, Lee Harrison, Mark Beaubien, William Jeffries, Robert Bluth, Haflidi Jonsson, Andrew Penny, and Robert Smith, 2014: "High Definition Sounding System (HDSS) for atmospheric profiling," Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
H.B. Bluestein, J. B. Houser, M.M. French, J.C. Snyder, G.D. Emmitt , I. Popstefanija, C. Baldi and R.T.

Bluth, Mobile, Pulsed Doppler Lidar Observations of the Boundary Layer Near and In Supercells, Journal Oceanic Atmospheric Technology, Submitted Apr. 2013.

French, M. M., H. Bluestein, I. PopStefanija, C. Baldi, and R. T. Bluth, 2014: Mobile, phased-array, Doppler radar observations of tornadoes at X band. Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 142, No. 3., 1010- 1036
Bluestein, H. B., J. B. Houser, M. M. French, J. Snyder, G. D. Emmitt, I. PopStefanija, C. Baldi, and R. T.

Bluth, 2014: Observations of the boundary layer near tornadoes and in supercells using a mobile, colocated, pulsed Doppler lidar and radar. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 31, 302 – 325.

French, M. M., H. B. Bluestein, I. PopStefanija, C. A. Baldi, and R. T. Bluth, 2013:

Reexamining the vertical development of descending tornadic vortex signatures in supercells. Mon.

Wea. Rev., 136, 4576 – 4601.

H.B. Bluestein, M. M. French, I. Popstefanija, R.T. Bluth, and J. B. Knorr, A Mobile, Phased-Array Doppler Radar for the Study of Severe Convectice Storms – The MWR-05XP, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, May 2010, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp 579 – 600 A. Bucholtz, R.T. Bluth, B. Kelly, S. Taylor, K. Batson, A. W. Sarto, T.P. Tooman and R. F. McCoy, Jr., The Stabilized Radiometer Platform (STRAP) – An Actively Stabilized Horizontally Level Platform for Improved Aircraft Irradiance Measurements, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Dec 2008, Vol. 25, pp 2161 - 2175
Bane, J., R. Bluth, C. Flagg, C. Friehe, H. Jonsson, W. K. Melville, M. Prince and D. Riemer, Research Aircraft Facilities for U.S. Ocean Sciences, Oceanography, Dec 2004, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 176 – 185.

J. Bane and R. Bluth, UNOLS Now Oversees Research Aircraft Facilities for Ocean Science, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Oct 2004, Vol. 85, No. 41,PP. 402, 405.

Durkee, P., K. J. Noone, and R.T. Bluth, The Monterey Area Ship Track Experiment, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Aug. 2000, Vol. 57, No 16, pp 2523 – 2541, ISSN 0022-4928.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 1679 Bluth, R.T., P. Durkee, J. Seinfeld, and P. Finn, Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies, Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, Nov. 1996, Vol. 77, N0 11, pp 2691 – 2699.

Bluth, R.T., and B. Albrecht , Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition Experiment (ASTEX) and Marine Aerosol Gas Exchange (MAGE) Missions Summary, Two Volumes, Pennsylvania State Collage, June 1992.

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Kok, G., D. Khelif and R. Bluth, Measurement at the Air-Sea Interface with the Controlled Towed Vehicle. 18th Conference on Air-Sea Interaction, American Meteor. Soc., Boston, MA , 9-12 July 2012.

Khelif, D., C. Friehe, R. Bluth, J. Barge, T. Morse, D. Bierly, and Greg Kok, A New Aircraft-Towed Platform for Air-Sea Interaction Measurements. Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities Workshop, NSF/AGS, Boulder, CO, 18-19 June 2012.

P. Skinner, C.C. Weiss, M.M. French, H.H. Bluestein, I. PopStefanija, and R. Bluth, Ka and B-Band Radar Observations of Mutiple Rear-Flank Downdraft Surges and an Intense Near-Surface Vortex on 18 May 2010, 7B.1, 2011 IEEE Radar Conference, Kansas City, 24 May 2011.

Houser, J.B, H.H. Bluestein, G.D. Emmitt and R.T. Bluth, Doppler Lidar Observations of the Boundary Layer near Tornadic and non-Tornadic Supercells, 25th AMS 25th Conference on Sever Local Storms, 13A.4, 13 Oct 2010, Denver, CO.

Bluestein, H.H., G.D. Emmitt, I. PopStefanija, R.T. Bluth, M.M. French and J. Houser, Combinded Doppler Lidar and Phased Array, Doppler Radar Wind Measuements in Tornadic Suppercells Using TWOLF and MWR-05XP, 25th AMS 25th Conference on Sever Local Storms, 13A.4, 12 Oct 2010, Denver, CO.

Bluestein, H.H., M.M. French, J.B. Houser, J.C. Syder, R.L. Tanamachi, I. PopStefanija, C. Baldi, G.D.

Emmitt, V. Venkatesh, K. Orzel, S.J. Frasier, and R.T. Bluth, A Summary of Data Collected During VORTEX2 by MWR-05XP/TWOLF, UMASS X-POL and the UMASS W-Band Radar, 25th AMS 25th Conference on Sever Local Storms, 5.4, 13 Oct 2010, Denver, CO.

Khelif, D., C. A. Friehe, and R. Bluth, Air-sea interaction measurements with the Controlled Towed Vehicle (CTV). 17th Conference on Air-Sea Interaction, American Meteor. Soc., Annapolis, MD , 27-30 September 2010.

Bluestein, H.H., M.M. French, I. PopStefanija, R.T. Bluth, Mobile, Phased-Array, X-Band Doppler Radar Observations of Tornadogenesis in the Central U.S., ERAD, The Sixth European Conference on Radar in Meteorology and Hydrology, 5 July 2010.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 1680 PopStefanija, I., B. Seeger, C. Baldi, R.T. Bluth and H.H. Bluestein, Techniques for Rapid Scanning Weather Surveillance using the MWP-05XP, A Mobile, Phased-Array, X-band, Doppler Radar, AMS, 34th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 6 Oct 2009, Williamsburg, VA.

Bluestein, H.H. M.M. French, I. PopStefaniji, R.T. Bluth and J. Knorr, Observations of Tornadogenesis Using A Mobile, Phased-Array, Doppler Radar, AMS, 34th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 6 Oct 2009, Williamsburg, VA.

Bluestein, H.H., R. Tanamachi, M. French, J. Houser, I. J. Snyder, R.Bluth, J. Knorr, PopStefanija, B.

Seeger,C. Baldi, S. Frasier, and P-S Tsai, Preliminary Results from the Fielding of a Disparate Triad of Mobile Doppler Radars to Study Severe Convective Storms, AMS, 34th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2009, Williamsburg, VA.

French, M.M., H.H. Bluestein, I. PopStefanija, R. Bluth and C. Baldi, A Preliminary Analysis of a Tornadic Supercell using Mobile, Plased-Array Doppler radar Data, AMS, 34th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2009, Williamsburg, VA.

French, M.M., H.H. Bluestein, I. PopStefanija, C. Baldi and R. Bluth, Rapid-Scan Analysis of Supercells During Tornadogenesis Using a Mobile, Phased-Array, X-Band, Doppler Radar, AMS, 34th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2009, Williamsburg, VA.

Maese, T., J.A. Hunziker, H.S. Owen, C. Reed, and R. Bluth, Modular Software Architecture for Tactical Weather Radar Processing, 25 Conference on International Interactive Information and Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteology, and Hydrology, Radar Applications, 15 Jan 2009.

Khelif, D., C. A. Friehe, R. Bluth, J. Barge, T. Morse, and D. Bierly, Air-sea interaction measurements from a new towed airborne platform, 16th Conference on Air-Sea Interaction, American Meteor. Soc., Phoenix, AZ, 11-15 January 2009. Soc., Phoenix, AZ, 11-15 January.

Bluestein, H.H., R. Tanamachi, J. Houser, I. PopStefanija, B. Seeger, R.Bluth and J. Knorr, Use of a moble, Phase –Array, X-Band Doppler Radar to Study Sever Concective Storms and Tornadoes, ERAD, The Fifth European Conference on Radar in Meteorology and Hydrology, July 2008.

Khelif, D., C. A. Friehe, R. Bluth, J. Barge, T. Morse, and D. Bierly, A New Aircraft-Towed Platform for Air-Sea Interaction Measurements. Ocean Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2-7 March 2008 PopStefanija, I., J. Knorr, P. Buczynaski and R. Bluth, Advanced Weather Surveillance Algorithms and Techniques Using A Rapid Scanning X-Band Radar – First Results, AMS, 32th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2005.

Emmitt, G.D., C.O. Ohandley, S. Wood, S. Greco, R. Bluth, and H. Jonsson, TODWL: An Airborne Doppler Wind Lidar for Atmospheric Research, 2ed Symposium on Lidar Atmospheric Research, 11 Jan 2005, DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 1681 PopStefanija, I., A. Pazmany and R. Bluth, An X-Band Phassed Arrary Doppler Weather Radar, AMS, 31th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2004.

Mead, J.B., I. PopStefanija, P. Kollias, B. Albrecht, and R. Bluth, Compact Airborn Solid-State 95 GHZ FMCW Radar System, AMS, 31th Conference on Radar Meteorology, 2004.

Emmitt, D., C.O. O’Handley, J. Rothernel, S.C. Johnson, D.A. Bowdle, P. Krornis, R. Bluth and H. Jonsson, Two-micron Doppler Lidar Returns from Water Surfaces and the Overlying Aerosols, SPEI, Earth Observing Systems Conference, 25 Sept 2002.

Paduan, J., S. Ramp, F. Bahr, D Fay, P. Koski, F. Chavez, J. Read and R. Bluth, Atmospheric Forcing and Oceanic Response During Late Summer Upwelling and Relaxation Events in the Monterey Bay, AMRS Association, 2002 edition of Aquatic Features.

POSTERS
Bluth, R., J. Knorr and A. Pazmany, Rapid Scan 3D Volumetric Weather Radar, Poster at American Meteorlogical Society Radar Conference, Aug 2001.

Paduan, .J, S. Ramp, F. Bahr, D Fay, P. Koski, F. Chavez, J. Read and R. Bluth, Atmospheric Forcing and Oceanic Response During Late Summer Upwelling and Relaxation Events in the Monterey Bay, Poster at the Oceanography Society Meeting in Miami, April 2001.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 11, Packet Page 1682 Robert T. Bluth
Monterey, CA 93940

WORK EXPERIENCE
Naval Postgraduate School
Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies NPS Research Office
Monterey, CA 93940
15 March 98 – 30 Dec 2017
As the (Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely Piloted Aircraft Studies) CIRPAS Director, I am responsible for the day-to-day operations of CIRPAS. I direct research using the CIRPAS facilities which are a national asset.

Duties also include ensuring that faculty and students involved with CIRPAS science and flight operations have continuous support and that the students are supported in their educational and thesis research activities.

Duties:

Conducts research as a PI or Co-PI, that contributes to numerous DoD and Navy research programs at the CIRPAS facility. Scholarly research is folded back into the classroom using CIRPAS laboratory facilities along with a description of the results that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and conferences proceedings; Using CIRPAS facilities, the development and classroom lecturing of course materials, and teaching of laboratory exercises to support resident and non-resident student thesis and faculty research. Supervise the activities of faculty and students in their use of the CIRPAS facilities, to include the research aircraft (Twin Otter and Pelican), Mobile Weather Radars and the UAS (unmanned aerial systems) airfield at Camp Roberts. It also includes the development of new research facilities, such as Storm Penetrating A-10 research aircraft, Sentry UASs, and additional mobile radars. Promotes various CIRPAS facility capabilities to the research community and develops and maintains contacts with various science funding agencies (e.g., ONR, NSF) for continued support of the facilities. As part of my NPS/CIRPAS duties, I work with classified information. I currently hold a Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Top Secret security clearance including access to other special programs DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 12, Packet Page 1683 Office of Naval Research
Ocean, Atmosphere, and Space Department
Code 321
800 N. Quincy St.

Arlington, VA 22207
1 Nov 91 – 14 March 98
As a Program Officer (manager) at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in both the Ocean, Atmosphere, and Space Department, Sensing and Systems Division and Modeling and Prediction Division , I was responsible for the development and management of a broad base of atmospheric science and technology projects. As part of these duties, I conceived, organized, directed, coordinated, and defend integrated projects that exploited scientific and engineering opportunities and then support their transition to the fleet. Duties included formulation of overall program objectives and tasks, allocation of resources among science and technology areas in a manner to best meet the program objectives, establishment of priorities and milestones, selection of performers, and monitoring progress of individual projects. I supported the development of new science and technology initiatives through individual activity, workshops, discussions with investigators, and other Federal science and technology organizations. As part of these duties, I managed the allocations of large sums of research and technology development Moines and competed for additional financial support at ONR and through other Federal agencies.

As a ONR Program Officer, I acted as a liaison to seek out and draw together (from many diverse fields) those persons, ideas, discoveries, and resources necessary to effect creative, fruitful science and technology programs. As part of my duties, I kept aware of relevant science and technology trends and innovations, while working closely to maintain frequent contacts with appropriate scientists and engineers at Navy laboratories, warfare centers, other Federal science and technology funding agencies (NSF, NASA, NOAA), universities, and private industry. I also represented ONR on various national committees to formulate and evaluate current and future science and technology initiatives. I have developed collaborative research initiatives with DoD and other Federal and foreign agency that have enhanced the success of the projects I managed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 13, Packet Page 1684 DocuSign Envelope ID: 943EABF3-66BF-47BE-842C-C32DC0A086B9 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 14, Packet Page 1685 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 15, Packet Page 1686 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F5A0AD3-B0A6-4289-9986-AE9AAA60E34C X
Justin Cheng
Work Experience:

Finance
Law
Entrepreneurship
Education:

BA Economics UC Berkeley
JD Santa Clara University
Volunteer Experience:

Measure P & S
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 16, Packet Page 1687 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 17, Packet Page 1688 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 18, Packet Page 1689 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 19, Packet Page 1690 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 20, Packet Page 1691 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 21, Packet Page 1692 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 22, Packet Page 1693 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 23, Packet Page 1694 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC N/A
Garbacz Nicholas A
X
Educational Consultant
N/A
N/A
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 24, Packet Page 1695 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC Nicholas "Niko" Garbacz I am a recent graduate of the Middlebury Institute with a Master's degree in Public Administration (MPA) and an MA in International Education Management. I have lived in Monterey for almost 2 years, I previously worked with the American Red Cross in disaster services, helping families, businesses, and communities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. I also served in Peace Corps as a community development volunteer and as an education volunteer. I would be interested in helping on any board that helps people use common resources to support development.

X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 25, Packet Page 1696 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 26, Packet Page 1697 Resume
Nicholas “Niko” Alexander Garbacz
Tel./WhatsApp +1 · ·
Education
Master of Public Administration & Master of Arts in International Education Management with studies in Language Program Administration and Intercultural Competencies Middlebury Institute of International Studies, August 2020–December 2022 U.S. Dept. of State Critical Language Scholarship Finalist Indonesian language (Intermediate-Mid), Malang, Indonesia, June–August 2022 Bachelor of Science in Business, Sustainable Enterprise Management University of Phoenix, 2013–2017; member of Delta Mu Delta Business Honors Society Cambridge Certificate for English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA) Regent Oxford, UK, June–August 2003
Experience
International School of Monterey
• Organizational Learning and Development Consultant (August 2022–present) Practicum (applied internship) position under the Head of School:
o Support and improve daily operations (management, administration, as well as assisting teachers) aligned with principles and values of an IB K-8 school o Conduct organizational assessment on special topics and draft recommendations o Design a sustainable graduate practicum position for future Middlebury students Middlebury Institute of International Studies
• Teaching Assistant, Organizational Development and Leadership, January 2022– present, and Foundations of Interpreting, August 2022–present Joint lesson planning with faculty, co-facilitation of synchronous classes (online and in-person), individual student support, and administrative/recording-keeping support. • Managing Editor, Case Studies in International Education Management, September 2021–May 2022
Coordinate editorial and publication of twice-yearly journal with staff and authors including:
o Manage workflow through Open Journal Systems platform o Copyedit and proof article submissions
o Facilitate peer review process
o Maintain communications with authors, reviewers, and journal staff o Document workflow for training future staff
o Create training on how to write a case study
• Graduate Assistant, Experiential Learning and Community Engagement, January – May 2022
Support director with strategic planning, research, communications, and marketing of experiential learning programs such as applied internships and study abroad.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 27, Packet Page 1698 TESOL International Association
• Program Administration Interest Section Leadership (Member-At-Large) & Assistant Editor PAIS Newsletter, July 2022–present
Support PAIS leadership with strategic planning, newsletter content creation, and editing U.S. Peace Corps, October 2018–March 2020
• Teacher Training & Curriculum Consultant, Peace Corps Volunteer Increased capacity of English teachers in working in English and teaching in a student-centered methodology; improved student knowledge and motivation for learning and speaking English; and increased community capacity in support of education via:
o National curriculum reform project with Ministry of Education grades through participation on English language team: developed, piloted and revised new materials including guide to Total Physical Response for second/additional language acquisition o Community of Practice established for 56 teachers in local community (Ainaro) and capital (Dili), included monthly and ad hoc meetings for training and networking o Daily co-teaching with Timorese teachers, reaching 827 middle school students and additional students in extracurricular activities
o Technology procurement & training project implemented including teacher training on equipment and supplies including new laptops with Internet access, speakers for listening exercises, projector, and laminating machine to create new classroom activities and materials; and
o Peace Corps Project Review Committee: Assisted fellow volunteers to develop project plans and applications for 5 additional community-based projects including media resource centers, youth development camps and water-access improvements American Red Cross
• Regional Disaster Officer, Western PA Region, March 2016–January 2018 o Led consistently successful regional and chapter programs aligned with established performance metrics, managing local and remote teams comprised of 15 employees and over 1,400 disaster response and preparedness volunteers o Ensured development, implementation, and maintenance of service delivery standards throughout preparedness, response, and recovery cycle, serving nearly four million people across 28 counties, over 1,400 clients in over 800 disaster events per year o Worked with all levels of organization (CEO, Operations, Finance, Communications) to support Disaster Cycle Services departmental activities o Analyzed current data trends and provided direction to support management decision making, and supported development and delivery of workforce and partner training, coaching and readiness support
o Monitored safety and disability protocols to facilitate appropriate actions to reduce accidents and injuries as well as improving accessibility for workforce and clients. o Ensured compliance with internal financial standards as well as partner and governmental requirements
o Collaborated with partner organizations including Pennsylvania state VOAD, Western PA VOAD (chair), and the PA Emergency Management Agency, maintaining close relationships including with Salvation Army, UMCOR, Southern Baptists, Lutheran Disaster Response, Mormon Helping Hands, National Baptist Convention, Missionary Baptist Convention, Lott Carey, and various local and regional volunteer and disaster relief organizations
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 28, Packet Page 1699 o Participated on large and small disaster relief operations in community and government partnership roles, as well as providing extensive leadership in operations, planning and logistics
• Disaster Program Manager, North Mississippi Chapter, February 2014–March 2016 o Built and maintained diverse, highly responsive, volunteer-based disaster program, managing chapter employees as well as collaborating with other regional stakeholders o Elevated focus on responsiveness to client needs based on data-driven analysis of incident location, frequency, and severity as well as mapping coverage of volunteers’ technical, geographic, and scheduling availability
o Mentored workforce to grow into supportive, collaborative leadership roles within chapter/regional program, across services lines and with external partners, delegating relationship management to local workforce
o Ensuring successful preparedness, response, and recovery program with emphasis on Incident Command System training and awareness in team processes to ensure alignment with FEMA, local county emergency management agencies and other disaster stakeholders
o Fostered relationships with Missionary and Southern Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, NAACP, FNSS advocacy groups, and other various other disaster voluntary agencies. o Successful deployment to various national disaster relief operations. • Training Coordinator, National HQ / Greater New York Region, January 2013– February 2014
o Established, managed and supervised Red Cross training programs o Ensured training needs were met across the network of collaborating organizations in the states impacted by Hurricane Sandy; included federally funded Disaster Case Management Program providers, government agencies, community-based, faith-based, and non-profit agencies, and long-term recovery groups
• Disaster Training Lead (unpaid), National Capital Region, January 2009–December 2012
o Partner to the national lead for Disaster Training
o Contributed to Preparedness & Response efforts at local chapter and national headquarters, including various deployments to disaster relief operations Outreach and Language Training, Cox & Co., Wuppertal, Germany, February 2005– November 2008
o Developed and maintained relationships with clients including businesses as well as partners in state government and other social service agencies o Booked and conducted English-language training courses for clients in groups and individual settings
o Provided analysis of results-based outcomes and helped improve business processes to increase individual and organization success in training programs Easy English, English Language Trainer, Essen, Germany, September 2003–January 2005 o Taught English to German and other non-native English speakers in small group, classroom, and individual settings
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 29, Packet Page 1700 Graphic Designer, various companies, 1996–2002
o Worked with art directors, copy editors, photographers, illustrators, and other creative professionals in addition to sales and marketing teams to produce print and online materials including weekly sales ads, healthcare consumer newsletters, and various items for print and online
Additional Skills and Experience
Language—English (native speaker), German (C2+:fluent written and spoken), French and Spanish (B1- 2:proficient); Tetun (language of Timor-Leste, LPI Advanced Low); Indonesian (OPI Intermediate-Mid) Computer— Advanced skills analyzing data with Excel and creating impactful reports with Word and PowerPoint; intermediate skills with MS Project, Visio, and Access; design software: Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Quark Xpress; responsive webpage design in HTML and CSS; Open Journal Systems (OJS)
Other—American Red Cross certified instructor for First Aid, CPR, AED, and Babysitting, as well as disaster response in mass care (sheltering, feeding), information and planning, and case management; extensive FEMA IS certifications
DocuSign Envelope ID: AC7D592C-3585-4474-921B-C5C5EC6A85FC ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 30, Packet Page 1701 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 495CE4CC-2841-4F23-A0F8-C6FB9AA6971C N/A
X
N/A
Nagel Laura O
N/A
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 31, Packet Page 1702 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 495CE4CC-2841-4F23-A0F8-C6FB9AA6971C Employment History
2000-date Database Design and Web Development, self-employed 2009-2020 Executive Director and Program Director, International Convocation of UU Women 2000-2004 Fundraising Consultant, Unitarian Universalist Association 1997-2000 Neighborhood Capacity Building Administrator, City Manager’s Office, City of Fort Worth
1993-1997 Model Blocks Program Manager, Housing Department, City of Fort Worth 1992-1993 Allocation Specialist, United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County 1987-1991 Adjunct Professor, Cuyahoga Community College, and Cleveland State, John Carroll, Southern Illinois at Edwardsville, and Capitol Universities 1982-1984 Housing Planner, Housing Department, City of Evanston, Illinois 1978-1981 Senior Planner, Planning Department, City of Pittsburgh 1976-1977 Methods Analyst, Mayor’s Management Advisory Board, City of New York Education
1972 B.A. Urban Studies/Sociology Barnard College, Columbia University 1976 M.A. Urban Affairs and Policy Analysis New School for Social Research 1989 Doctoral Studies, Social Welfare Case Western Reserve University 2000 Dwight Brown Leadership Experience Southwest Unitarian Universalist Conference
Laura Oberbeck Nagel
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 32, Packet Page 1703 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 33, Packet Page 1704 , Monterey, CA 93940 •
Highlights Of Accomplishments
 Founder and Executive Director of the International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women (icuuw.com) a nonprofit organization dedicated to work through concerted action and in partnerships around the world to achieve tangible advances in the lives of women.  Design and maintain data driven websites for nonprofits. Development of secure business services online, ecommerce, bulk email services, social networks. Programming in HTML and Cold Fusion. Macromedia Suite: Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks and Freehand. Database design in Access and SQL.
 Business Development. Founded and directed several nonprofit corporations: Near Southeast Development Corporation, Fort Worth, TX; Southwest Unitarian Universalist Women, Houston, TX; International Convocation of UU Women, Houston, Texas.
 Fundraising Consultant for the Unitarian Universalist Association Office of Congregational Fundraising Services, assisting congregations of all sizes in clarification of vision and mission, development of long range comprehensive plans, and the planning and implementation of annual fund drives, capital campaigns and planned giving programs to promote the long-term fiscal health.  Three years as administrator of the City of Fort Worth’s Neighborhood Capacity Building Program providing training and development services to over 150 neighborhood associations and 10 community development corporations. Developed nine-month leadership training course for community-based organizations, spring 2000. Lead organizer and planner for the 1999 Neighborhood Conference in Fort Worth, by far the largest in the nine-year history of the event.  Managed a staff of four planners for the City of Fort Worth in implementing the City’s Model Blocks Program, a comprehensive community revitalization. Program received the National Affordable Housing Award by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1995.  Fifteen years experience as a policy analyst and program manager for local government and the nonprofit sector.
 Four years teaching social science courses as an adjunct professor for five colleges and universities in the Cleveland metropolitan area.
 As Congregation President at First Jefferson UU Church, Fort Worth, TX, successfully guided the congregation through the comprehensive plan, capital campaign, and obtained mortgage for a $1.4 million expansion and remodeling of 9,000 square feet of program space completed in the summer of 2000.

Employment History
2000-date Database Design and Web Development, self-employed 2009-2020 Executive Director and Program Director, International Convocation of UU Women 2000-2004 Fundraising Consultant, Unitarian Universalist Association 1997-2000 Neighborhood Capacity Building Administrator, City Manager’s Office, City of Fort Worth 1993-1997 Model Blocks Program Manager, Housing Department, City of Fort Worth 1992-1993 Allocation Specialist, United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County 1987-1991 Adjunct Professor, Cuyahoga Community College, and Cleveland State, John Carroll, Southern Illinois at Edwardsville, and Capitol Universities 1982-1984 Housing Planner, Housing Department, City of Evanston, Illinois 1978-1981 Senior Planner, Planning Department, City of Pittsburgh 1976-1977 Methods Analyst, Mayor’s Management Advisory Board, City of New York Education
1972 B.A. Urban Studies/Sociology Barnard College, Columbia University 1976 M.A. Urban Affairs and Policy Analysis New School for Social Research 1989 Doctoral Studies, Social Welfare Case Western Reserve University 2000 Dwight Brown Leadership Experience Southwest Unitarian Universalist Conference Writing
Margot Adler Biography, Dictionary of Unitarian Universalist Biographies, Dec 3, 2016; Blogs: Phebe Force:

Blogging Into Retirement, 2014-15; Houston Writers’ Group: The Journey Begins, 2018-date.

LAURA OBERBECK NAGEL
DocuSign Envelope ID: 495CE4CC-2841-4F23-A0F8-C6FB9AA6971C ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 34, Packet Page 1705 , Monterey, CA 93940 •
Volunteer/Community Involvement
2014-Date. Member, Unitarian Universalist Church of the Monterey Peninsula. 2020-Date. Regional Strategy Team, Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action, Watsonville, CA. 2021-Date. President, Del Monte Beach Neighborhood Association, Monterey, CA. 2018-Date. Monterey Peninsula Gospel Community Choir.
2021-Date. Camerata Singers
Awards
1984. Distinguished Public Service Award, Evanston, IL. 1993. The HUD Secretary's Opportunity & Empowerment Award for the City of Fort Worth Model Blocks Program. 2020. The Annie Margaret Barr Award, International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women DocuSign Envelope ID: 495CE4CC-2841-4F23-A0F8-C6FB9AA6971C ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 35, Packet Page 1706 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: ne:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B4F23DB0-3975-436E-93FB-F35D5A0AC018 Chinyere
Physician
Ogbonna
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 36, Packet Page 1707 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B4F23DB0-3975-436E-93FB-F35D5A0AC018 X
I have had the privilege of serving as New Monterey NCIP Alternate during the 2022-23 application cycle. During this time, I had the opportunity to connect with the New Monterey Neighborhood Association and learn more about the issues that affect the community of New Monterey, as well as the City as a whole. I worked closely with the New Monterey Delegate to review nominated projects and acted as a liaison between the project submitters and the NCIP Committee. I also attended NCIP meetings and was able to observe the full process of how a nominated project becomes a funded project. I would like to continue to serve New Monterey as a NCIP Delegate and stay involved in my community.

X
Chinyere Ogbonna
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 37, Packet Page 1708 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 38, Packet Page 1709 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37404755-0049-4879-85AC-5301655914E9 N/A
Osorio
Land Use Professional
Luis
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 39, Packet Page 1710 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 37404755-0049-4879-85AC-5301655914E9 Luis A. Osorio X
Former senior staff at the Monterey County Planning Department for 26 years.

Former Planning Commissioner - City of Monterey
Former Member of the Architectural Review Committee - City of Monterey Former Member of the Neighborhood Improvement Committee - City of Monterey Former Member and President of the Oak Grove Neighborhood Association - City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 40, Packet Page 1711 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 41, Packet Page 1712 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C919259-FF53-4E91-8B93-977A9F51A218 n/a
n/a
n/a
Palmer
Public Education and Outreach Coordinator at Monterey Regional Waste Management District Eric
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 42, Packet Page 1713 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C919259-FF53-4E91-8B93-977A9F51A218 X
Please see attached.

Eric Palmer
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 43, Packet Page 1714 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 44, Packet Page 1715 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 45, Packet Page 1716 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 46, Packet Page 1717 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 47, Packet Page 1718 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 48, Packet Page 1719 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 94DB539A-4AE0-4A44-900F-33CD0F0EE945 N/A
N/A
Sanders
N/A
X
Gabriel
Housing Policy Advocate
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 49, Packet Page 1720 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 94DB539A-4AE0-4A44-900F-33CD0F0EE945 X
Gabriel Sanders
X
I graduated in 2019 from the Middlebury Institute with a Master's in Public Administration. The focus of my study was on development, homelessness, and housing policy. I wrote my thesis on the intersection of water and housing policy on the Monterey Peninsula as it relates to fulfilling RHNA requirements and meeting the SWRCB's CDO mandate.

In the years since I've worked for the CA Department of Housing and Community and Development in the Housing Policy Division which now oversees the Housing Element Review process. I worked to solve housing law compliance issues with my colleagues during my employment until I was hired as Deputy Director of a county-wide policy advocacy organization. For most of 2022, I've been working to advance pro-housing policy across Monterey County – including in the City of Monterey – and have developed a comprehensive policy framework for meeting HCD's Housing Element requirements.

I'm especially interested in and well-suited to the opening on the planning commission which will oversee some of the critical decisions for housing development in the coming years during and after the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. I understand that not all planning commission meetings and decisions concern housing development and I am eager to learn more about the operation of the commission as I am interested in becoming more deeply involved in local government administration.

X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 50, Packet Page 1721 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 51, Packet Page 1722 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D754BE55-67FD-4C00-AC8F-9ADEF895EBF4 Silva
X
Architect
Peter
X
X
WRD Architects
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 52, Packet Page 1723 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: D754BE55-67FD-4C00-AC8F-9ADEF895EBF4 Licensed Architect State of California
Former Chair and member, City of Monterey Architectural Review Committee Commissioner, City of Santa Cruz Building and Fire Appeals Board Chair, Ocean Harbor House Architectural Review Committee Peter Silva
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 53, Packet Page 1724 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 54, Packet Page 1725 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 55, Packet Page 1726 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 56, Packet Page 1727 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C53E9AA-2F87-4FA9-92B4-EC14F52D6F1D - I have a Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Management Information System - I work in our family business, DataRay Inc., as their Chief Financial Officer since 2019. I previously helped manage day to day operations including bookkeeping and financial reports, as well as marketing.
- I was involved in The Women’s Fund in Redding, CA, for 5 years until my move to Monterey, CA. I was on The Women’s Fund Board as Chair from 2020-2022. I was previously their Community Engagement Committee Chair from 2017-2021. My responsibilities include managing The Women’s Fund daily operations, being involved in The Women’s Fund grant process from start to finish (RFP submission, grantee selection, members voting process, grant funding, etc), as well as managing website and member communication process. The Women’s Fund awards funding to local nonprofits and public entities who seek to address its overall mission to create a better future for women and their families in the Redding area.
- I was also a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) in Shasta County since 2017, up until my move to Monterey, CA.
- I’m a very community-minded person. I love being involved in whatever community I’m in. I’m very familiar and well versed with volunteer work and grant process (directing fund to serve the fund’s mission). I love learning and truly believe the best way to learn about my new community and neighborhood in Monterey, specifically New Monterey, is by being involved in programs such as NCIP.

I appreciate the consideration.

Natalia Tjandra
X
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 57, Packet Page 1728 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 58, Packet Page 1729 (CONTINUED)

CITY OF MONTEREY APPLICATION

TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMITTEE, OR COMMISSION
Name:

Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Primary Phone Number: Alternate Phone:

Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:

Business Address: Business Phone:

Occupation:
* Monterey residence is required
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. Note that appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES – meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2DA2F8-30DD-49B3-B003-CD8C1AF10139 N/A
Third Party Relationship Manager / Supplier Governance Advisor X
N/A
Wells Stephen
N/A
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 59, Packet Page 1730 Name:
2 MEASURE P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – meets quarterly The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.

MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION – meets 1
st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C2DA2F8-30DD-49B3-B003-CD8C1AF10139 X
Stephen J Wells
Good evening,
My name is Steve Wells. I am very much interested in becoming more involved in the Monterey county community. I have always been an interested political observer, willing to volunteer, and civic minded.

Please consider me as an applicant for any positions you have available.

Sincerely,
Steve
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 60, Packet Page 1731 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 61, Packet Page 1732 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 62, Packet Page 1733 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 63, Packet Page 1734 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 64, Packet Page 1735 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 65, Packet Page 1736 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 66, Packet Page 1737 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 67, Packet Page 1738 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 68, Packet Page 1739 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 69, Packet Page 1740 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 70, Packet Page 1741 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 71, Packet Page 1742 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 72, Packet Page 1743 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 14., Item Page 73, Packet Page 1744 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Informational Update on Teleconference Attendance of Public Meetings Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive an informational update about the two options that are available for public officials to continue teleconference participation in meetings following termination of the COVID-19 state of emergency.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s policy is to ensure the public’s health, safety, and welfare of its employees, residents, and visitors. Regarding teleconference attendance by members of the public, the City’s continuing to provide virtual access to public meetings is a policy decision that will continue to help reduce the spread of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases and encourage and promote broader access for participation in public meetings. Regarding teleconference attendance by Council and board, committee, and commission members, the specific requirements and limitations imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 through 54963) are detailed in this report.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no new or additional cost associated with teleconference participation in the City’s public meetings. Access to attend virtually is provided to the public and legislative body members through toll-free telephone and internet-based ZoomGov webinars and free livestreamed 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.

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 Date: 2/7/2023
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1745 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 alternative is considered; staff recommends Council receive this information-only update.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Ralph M. Brown Act (“the Brown Act”) requires local government business to be conducted at open and public meetings with few exceptions. The California Government Code (Gov. Code sec. 54953(b)(2)) provides restrictions when “the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing.” The Brown Act first allowed meetings to be conducted via video teleconference in 1988. 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 that were first authorized by Governor Newsom’s emergency executive orders, and later by the Brown Act as it was amended by Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”). Details of the state of emergency and current findings supporting continued teleconference attendance have been considered and adopted by the Council at least monthly from October 2021 to the present. 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 January 1, 2024, apply to meetings held during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor.

On September 13, 2022, Governor Newsom approved Assembly Bill 2449 (“AB 2449”), which authorizes local agencies to use teleconferencing without identifying each location in the meeting notice and making accessible to the public (traditional Brown Act teleconference rules) if “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” exist and specified procedures and rules are followed as described below.

AB 2449 Provisions for Teleconference Attendance by Members AB 2449 Timeframe: The law is now in effect, and it expires on December 31, 2025 (unless extended).

AB 2449 Basic Requirements for Teleconference Attendance:

Noticing:

Emergency attendance requests should be agendized for body’s approval if the request is made in time to agendize.

Participation:

A quorum of the body must attend the meeting in person at the same place in the city. Teleconferencing member(s) must participate through both audio and video.

A teleconferencing member must provide a general description of their Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1746 circumstances requiring remote participation. Per the law, this general description does not have to be more than 20 words and the member is not required to disclose personal medical information. Remote participants must disclose others over 18 in the room. If technology is disrupted and prevents the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet-based service option, no further action can be taken.

Votes: Roll call
AB 2449 Member Teleconference Attendance Limitations and Requirements:
“Just Cause” circumstances permitting remote participation may be used by a member for two meetings per year. Just cause is defined as: :
 Caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires a member to participate remotely,  Contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person,  Need related to physical or mental disability not otherwise accommodated, or  Travel for official public business.

Member’s notification to body:

Member must notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, and provide a general description of the circumstances requiring remote attendance. Body’s approval is not required.

Limit on use per member:

Maximum of two (2) times per calendar year.

AB 2449 “Emergency” Clause:

Allowable reason:

Physical or family member medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.

Member’s request to body and body approval:

Requests to attend remotely pursuant to the “Emergency” clause should be agendized if time allows, must be addressed at the beginning of the meeting, and must be approved by the body through official action (affirmative vote).

Limit on use per member:

Maximum of three (3) consecutive months of solely remote attendance, OR 20% of regular meetings in a calendar year (see table below), OR Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1747 two (2) meetings total if the legislative body holds fewer than 10 regular meetings per year.

Body Regular
meetings per
year
Maximum # of meetings
per member attended
remotely pursuant to
“Emergency” clause
City Council 24 4 (20%), not during 3
consecutive months
Appeals Hearing Board Fewer than 10 2
Architectural Review
Committee
24 4 (20%), not during 3
consecutive months
Board of Library Trustees 12 2 (20%)
Building and Housing
Appeals Board
Fewer than 10 2
Disabled Access Appeals
Board
Fewer than 10 2
Historic Preservation
Committee
12 2 (20%)
Measure P & S Oversight
Committee
Fewer than 10 2
Neighborhood and
Community Improvement
Program (NCIP) Committee
12 2 (20%)
Parks and Recreation
Commission
12 2 (20%)
Planning Commission 24 4 (20%), not during 3
consecutive months
Traditional Brown Act Provisions for Teleconference Attendance by Members Traditional Brown Act Timeframe: Anytime. These provisions were in place prior to the pandemic and remain available for use at a legislative body’s discretion.

Traditional Brown Act Basic Requirements for Teleconference Attendance:

Noticing:

Teleconference location(s) must be identified in the meeting agenda and have agenda physically posted at each such location within the legal posting timeline (e.g., 72 hours in advance for regular City Council meetings).

Public Access:

Teleconference location(s) must be open to public attendance for the meeting.

Participation:

A quorum of the body must attend from agendized physical meeting location(s) within City’s boundaries.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1748 Votes: Roll call
Member teleconference attendance reasons and limitations/requirements:

None. Any teleconference attendance that is properly noticed and conducted under traditional Brown Act teleconference requirements would not count against the maximum number of meetings that may be attended remotely under AB 2449 provisions.

Teleconference Attendance by Members of the Public
City staff finds that providing teleconference participation in public meetings allows for broader access by all, regardless of ability, and can assist in reducing the spread of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. As a policy decision, the City plans to continue to provide virtual access to public meetings whenever possible.

Staff recommends that Council receive and evaluate the information presented in this report.

CBK
e: City of Monterey Boards, Committees, and Commissions and associated City staff 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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 1749 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Modifying the Employee Relocation Assistance Program (Not A Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying the Employee Relocation Assistance Program to:

1. Increase the current employee relocation reimbursement amount from $8,000 to $12,000 and include difficult-to-fill positions; and

2. Expand the current program to authorize the City Manager the ability to provide relocation assistance, in advance, of up to $20,000, for difficult-to-fill and management positions with an employment commitment of three years with the City of Monterey.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation would expand the City’s current Employee Relocation Assistance Program by increasing the relocation assistance amount, allowing advance payment, and expanding the program to include difficult-to-recruit positions that may be non-management employees.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Any relocation assistance will be paid out of department’s salary savings from the existing vacant position.

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 Date: 2/7/2023
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1750 to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to approve the staff recommendation. However, that is not recommended as the City of Monterey needs the ability to attract candidates that possess the skills, experience and knowledge needed for difficult-to-fill positions.

DISCUSSION:

Relocation assistance incentives may appeal to prospective employees who are reluctant to leave their current community. This incentive has helped the City attract talent and compete with other public and private sector organizations which offer similar benefits.

In 1989, the Monterey City Council first authorized the City Manager to negotiate various benefits, such as relocation assistance, with newly-hired management personnel. In 2006, the City Council updated its policy by authorizing the City Manager to reimburse new management hires for relocation expenses up to $8,000 through the City’s Relocation Assistance Program.

To account for inflation, staff recommend increasing the current reimbursement of $8,000 to $12,000. In addition to management positions, staff is recommending adding difficult-to-recruit positions.

Currently, the Relocation Assistance Program allows reimbursement of eligible expenses with receipts. However, some prospective employees may have financial difficulties covering these expenses upfront. As a result, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to enter into agreements with future employees that would allow for the advanced disbursement of funds and require employees to repay the City of Monterey within 30 days for any unused funds or submission of ineligible receipts.

It is important that employees who are granted relocation assistance maintain employment with the City of Monterey for an adequate amount of time. Therefore, employees who received advance disbursement of relocation expense funds would be required to repay the City a prorated amount should they not maintain employment with the City for at least three (3) years.

If the employee is terminated for reasonable cause or voluntarily resigns, repayment will be required.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1751 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

MODIFYING THE EMPLOYEE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in 1989 the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate relocation assistance to newly hired management and executive employees; WHEREAS, in 2006, the City Council updated its policy by authorizing the City Manager to reimburse new management hires for relocation expenses up to $8,000 through the City’s Relocation Assistance Program. However, the relocation amount offered to new employees has not been updated in 17 years;
WHEREAS, increasing the current employee relocation assistance amount from $8,000.00 to $12,000.00 accounts for inflation and allowing for difficult-to-fill positions to be included will assist with recruiting high-quality applicants; WHEREAS, some prospective employees may have financial difficulties covering relocation expenses upfront, expanding the current employee relocation assistance to allow for advance disbursement of up to $20,000.00 would be consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers by “Providing sufficient resources and support to develop and retain a high-quality city workforce”;
WHEREAS, employees granted relocation in advance would commit to stay with the City for at least three years;
WHEREAS, the proposed increase in relocation assistance will make the City of Monterey more competitive in its ability to attract highly qualified employees; WHEREAS, any relocation assistance will be paid out of salary savings from the existing vacant position; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1752 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby modifies the City of Monterey Relocation Assistance Program as follows:

1. The current Employee Relocation Assistance Program, where employees are reimbursed for expenses incurred to relocate to our region, will increase from $8,000 to $12,000 and include difficult-to-recruit and management positions.

2. The City Manager has the authority to negotiate relocation assistance with newly hired employees in an amount of up to $20,000.

3. The City Manager has the authority to allow employees to receive advance funds for relocation assistance.

4. The City Manager shall require employees who participate in relocation assistance to submit eligible receipts within thirty (30) days of relocation and require employees to repay the City of Monterey within 30 days for any unused funds or submission of ineligible receipts.

5. The City Manager may enter into signed agreements with future employees that would require employees to repay the City of Monterey a prorated amount should they not maintain employment with the City for at least three (3) years. If an employee who received relocation assistance funding voluntarily leaves City employment or is terminated for cause, then said employee shall be responsible for repaying the City the amount of relocation allowance as follows:

Duration of Employment Percentage of Relocation Allowance Owed to the City
Less than one year 100%
1-2 years 50%
2-3 years 25%
3+ years 0%

6. Any repayment required pursuant to this section shall be made to the City no later than the employee’s last day of City employment. As a term and condition of receiving the relocation assistance, the employee contractually authorizes the City to deduct any relocation repayment amount owed to the City pursuant to this section from the employee’s final paycheck.

7. Any repayment of relocation assistance shall be repaid in full to the City of Monterey within 30 days of separation or the City will pursue alternate collection methods.

8. Relocation expense assistance will be taxed in accordance with applicable federal and state tax requirements.

9. Relocation expenses may include the following: moving of household items and personal effects; meals and lodging, tolls, and mileage for en route travel; transportation of up to Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1753 3 two (2) personal vehicles; moving insurance from origin to destination; storage of household goods at destination; airfare for the relocation of newly-hired employee, spouse/partner and dependent children; temporary housing at destination; and the employee’s first month’s rent in Monterey County.

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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 1754 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Introduce by Title Only, Waive Full Reading and Pass a First Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace 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)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to repeal and replace City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 related to Wireless Communication Facilities drafted by the Wireless Subcommittee as edited by City Staff. Staff recommends the draft ordinance recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission at its October 25, 2022 meeting, be passed with one modification, removing the following sentence –from Section 112.4(F)(4)(c): “A 100-foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive.”
VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed ordinance replaces the City’s existing Wireless Communication Facility regulations in its entirety.

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 $278,411.64 in outside legal counsel costs from 2018 through December 2022 in connection with the facilitation and review of the Wireless Subcommittee’s ordinance. The majority of these costs were the direct result of the multiple Wireless Subcommittee meetings. In 2022,, outside counsel preparation and attendance for the five Planning Commission hearings cost $59,000.

The Commission required an extensive analysis of every change to the Subcommittee draft ordinance which resulted in a document with approximately 100 footnotes.

Date: 2/7/2023
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 1755 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance amendment to modify existing regulations affecting wireless communication facilities, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308 (Class 8) as an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the enhancement and protection of the environment, which includes the visual environment of the City.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment. Therefore, impacts would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment that would regulate the visual appearance of communications structures in the City right-of-way with uniform, objective standards. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment and the land use limitations imposed by the amendment are commonplace under Class 5 and Class 8 categorical exemptions. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed on a project-by-project basis for CEQA applicability.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment, which would not damage scenic resources, but rather, assure their protection. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment regulating the visual Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 1756 effect of communications structures. Therefore, impacts to hazardous waste sites would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment that would regulate the visual effect of communications structures in the City, and not any historic resources. Therefore, impacts to historic resources would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The purpose of the meeting is to review proposed amendments to the City Code regarding wireless communication facilities. The City Council could choose to not pass the ordinance, pass an ordinance with amendments, or direct staff to take a different approach. :

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 (subject to approved deviations and certain exclusions) undergrounding of all new utilities used for communications service, regardless of the type of utility proposing the installation, in all new development and for existing utilities that are part of a redevelopment project . The amendments to the City’s Personal Wireless Facilities Ordinance now being proposed was drafted by the Wireless Subcommitee and edited by staff, as explained below, to address the evolving state and federal regulations and case law decisions since the last updates in 2018.

Legal Context
The City Council may pass an ordinance that is not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State or the United States. (Government Code section 37100.) 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 1757

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 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 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. 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 4, Packet Page 1758 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 “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:
3 Gov. Code 65964.1.
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.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 5, Packet Page 1759 $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

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
Project Background
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 5 Pub. Util. Code § 7901.
6 Pub. Util. Code § 2902.
7 Id.
8 Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1.
9 Gov. Code 65850.75.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 6, Packet Page 1760 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. No appeal was taken of the Planning Commission’s decision. 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 the formation of a wireless subcommittee to City Council
July 17, 2018: City Council received report on risks of a moratorium ordinance 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 consisting of David Breedlove, Lois Hansen, Susan Nine, Hebard Olsen, Duane Peterson, and Planning Commissioners Mike Brassfield and Mike Dawson.

Wireless Subcommittee Meets 20 Times in 2018:

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.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 7, Packet Page 1761 September 5, 2018: The FCC issued a draft ruling that would limit local control over small cell facilities and reduce wireless permitting timelines.

September 18, 2018: City Council authorized joining a coalition of communities represented by Best, Best & Krieger (Joe VanEaton, Esq. and Gail Karish, Esq.) to comment on and challenge the FCC proposed orders..This coalition intervened in what is commonly referred to as the City of Portland v.

United States of America, Federal Communications Commission.

Monterey was the only public entity in Monterey County to join this effort. .

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.

December 4 & 5, 2019: Wireless Subcommittee meets
December 17, 2019: City Council dissolved the subcommittee Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 8, Packet Page 1762 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 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 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 9, Packet Page 1763 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.

Nine (9) members of the public provided public comment, and four (4) emails were received and posted to the City’s website.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 10, Packet Page 1764 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.

January 17, 2023: City Council received a presentation to introduce the City Council to the legal framework of personal wireless facilities and provide background information about the City’s process to update the wireless ordinance.

No ordinance was presented or introduced at this meeting.

Several questions were raised at the meeting which are addressed below in the Analysis Section.

Staff can support the Planning Commission recommendation with the exception of the 100-foot setback from schools and residences, as described below in the Analysis Section.

Analysis
The Wireless Subcommittee’s draft ordinance, as edited by staff, contains the following sections:

A. Purpose
B. Applicability
C. General Requirements
D. Planning Applications and Approvals Required
E. Applications and Submittals
F. Location, Design and Development Standards
G. Eligible Facilities Requests
H. Abandoned or Decommissioned Facilities
I. Transfer of Ownership
J. Notices
K. Independent Consultant Review
L. Additional Conditions of Approval for Wireless Use Permits M. Post Construction Reporting
N. Municipally Owned or Controlled Property and Supporting Structures O. Pre-Approval of Designs
P. Definitions
The ordinance establishes a transparent and deliberative planning process for all wireless applications. All facilities require public hearings in front of the Planning Commission despite many applications being subject to a 60-day shot clock established by the FCC. Furthermore, all projects require independent peer review of wireless facility emission levels and post construction reports. New facilities are prohibited in residential zones unless an effective prohibition which requires the wireless company to prove why they have to locate in a specific area to provide service.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 11, Packet Page 1765 As mentioned above, the staff and Planning Commission recommended ordinances differ by one sentence. The Planning Commission recommends a 100-foot setback from schools and residences be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive. Staff recommends this one sentence be excluded because it could be reasonably argued that significant portions of the city would be unavailable for wireless facility placement.10 This is clearly shown in Figures 1-4 which mark in orange those areas of the City that would be precluded from a buffer to schools and residences of different distances, ranging from 25 feet to 100 feet. The buffers are measured from the edge of residential and school parcels. The impact of reducing the buffer to 25 feet is marginal because homes are located close together on relatively small lots.

Figure 1: Residential and School Parcels Buffered 25’
10 A recent letter from Paul Albritton, an attorney representing Verizon Wireless, highlights this issue as a concern. The letter is included in Attachment 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 12, Packet Page 1766 Figure 2: Residential and School Parcels Buffered 50’
Figure 3: Residential and School Parcels Buffered 75’
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 13, Packet Page 1767 Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 14, Packet Page 1768 Figure 4: Residential and School Parcels Buffered 100’
Other Questions:

A number of questions were raised at the January 17, 2023 City Council meeting in public comment and Council discussion about the wireless presentation. A summary of key questions and responses is provided below:

Question #1: Does the ordinance require that the owner of the wireless facilities is financially responsible for maintenance and corrections even if a safety issue becomes apparent at a later date than installation?
Response: Any permit that is granted will be subject to appropriate conditions consistent with other permits the City issues. The standard conditions of approval require the site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval. .

Question #2: What department in the city is responsible for ensuring maintenance is done by the wireless facilities and are there regular inspections? Response: The City’s Building Division inspects all installations in order to finalize the building permit. The City’s Code Compliance Coordinator does respond to and investigate complaints. The one existing facility with periodic maintenance complaints is Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 15, Packet Page 1769 at 620 Divisadero where the neighbors have been concerned that the screening trees died or did not grow to the anticipated height. The City’s Code Compliance Coordinator continues to meet with the wireless company, property owner and neighbors to review the issue. One lesson learned is that the City should not depend on landscaping to screen a facility that is tall.

The City does not have a program to inspect all sites on a yearly basis. This would be a new City program that would need to be funded. The Ordinance does include a condition for new permits that could allow for inspections and testing.

L.33. Ongoing Compliance. City may inspect and test wireless facilities to ensure ongoing compliance with permit conditions, and charge the cost of the inspection to persons holding wireless permits for the facilities inspected. Testing and inspection may include, but is not limited to, testing to ensure compliance with RF exposure limits. Tests may be based on complaints received, or may be part of a regular testing and inspection program. Permittee shall, within 30 days of a request therefor, provide the City with access and information it may require regarding the wireless communications facility in order to inspect or conduct testing.

It is also important to note that most of the facilities are located on rooftops and it is not possible to inspect the sites without contacting the companies and having all the equipment shutoff in advance of a roof inspection. It is not a simple inspection process.

Question #3: Does the ordinance require that when facilities are mounted on structures the equipment must identify the name of the company, contact information of company and date of installation to be logged with the city department responsible for oversight? Response: The proposed City Code requires: No wireless communications facility may display any signage or advertisements unless expressly allowed by the City in a written approval, recommended under FCC regulations, or required by law or permit condition.

Every facility shall at all times display signage that accurately identifies the facility owner, provides the facility owner’s unique site number, and a local or toll-free telephone number to contact the facility owner’s operations center. “Signage” does not include approved banners or directional signage used to conceal a or camouflage a wireless communications facility.

Question #4: Does the city currently have a list of equipment including location which has been mounted on lines and poles and is the installation and quantity evaluated for safety by the city?
Response: There is only one wireless facility currently located on a pole in the public right-of-way. It is located in the public right of way near 860 Wave Street.

All of the remaining wireless sites in the City are located on private property and most are roof-mounted. The City has issued building permits and documents regarding existing installations. The Building Division ensures the projects are installed per the approved plans that include detailed information about placement, attachment, etc.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 16, Packet Page 1770 Question #5: Is there a written requirement that if utilities are later undergrounded or if the equipment is no longer needed the wireless facility operators must cooperate at their own expense in relocating or removing their equipment?
Response: The City Code already requires undergrounding of new communication facilities in the public right-of-way. As part of the code updates related to wireless, the City adopted Ordinance 3609 in 2020 requiring no new utility encroachment may be placed aboveground in a street unless a deviation is granted. Deviations are permitted for wireless facilities in certain circumstances.

The wireless ordinance addresses the procedures for abandoned or discontinued facilities. There is a notice process, and if the permittee fails to remove the facility when required to do so, the City may exercise any rights or remedies to abate the public nuisance pursuant to City Code chapter 22, Article 4, and exercise any other remedy allowed by law.

Question #6: Some cities have setbacks from residences and schools and the request is to keep the 100’ recommended setback in the ordinance. The identified cities were Encinitas, Petaluma, San Anselmo, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Mendocino, Walnut, Fairfax and Mill Valley.

Response: Staff has reviewed these ordinances and additional ordinances of coastal communities in California. Setback regulations between wireless facilities and residential and school uses are uncommon. Staff continues to recommend the residential and school setback be excluded because it could be reasonably argued that significant portions of the city would be unavailable for wireless facility placement.

Figures 1-4 show what areas of the City would be precluded from a buffer to schools and residences.

In summary, staff can recommend approval of the attached ordinance. This recommendation differs from the Planning Commission by eliminating one sentence regarding a 100’ setback from schools and residences.

Attachments: 1. Ordinance

2. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2022

3. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2022

4. Planning Commission Minutes, September 13, 2022

5. Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 2022

6. Planning Commission Minutes, October 25, 2022

7. Correspondence received for the October 25, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to January 1, 2023

8. Letter from Paul Albritton of October 25, 2022

9. Correspondence received through February 2, 2023 for the January 17, 2022 Council public appearance and February 7, 2023 Council hearing All public correspondence received during 2022 can be accessed at monterey.org/wireless.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 17, Packet Page 1771 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, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 18, Packet Page 1772

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
ORDINANCE NO. xx

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 38, ARTICLE 17, SECTION 112.4 – WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND FINDING THE SAME

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey currently regulates the placement, design, construction and modification of wireless communications facilities in the City of Monterey; WHEREAS, these regulations are designed to protect and promote the public’s health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, the City’s aesthetics, unique historic setting, and views benefit residents, attract visitors worldwide, enhance property values, are a catalyst for economic development, and increase the City’s tax base;
WHEREAS, the City finds that wireless communications facilities should not be placed in the rights-of-way at such points or in such manner as to incommode the public use of the same, except as such placement is required under federal law; and because of the impacts on the City and its residents, should not be placed at certain points or in such manner on public or private property unless required by federal law;
WHEREAS, 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 (subject to approved deviations and certain exclusions) undergrounding of all new utilities used for communications service, regardless of the type of utility proposing the installation, in all new development and for existing utilities that are part of a redevelopment project; WHEREAS, on August 7, 2018, the City Council appointed a Wireless Subcommittee which met 20 times in 2018, and five times in 2019 until it was dissolved on December 17, 2019;
WHEREAS, the Wireless Subcommittee drafted the ordinance and it was edited by staff;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find that to avoid unsightly visual clutter that would degrade the visual character of the streets and incommode the public enjoyment and use of the rights-of-way, wireless communications facilities placed in the rightsof-way should be separated from each other and from certain non-commercial properties unless required by federal law;
Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 19, Packet Page 1773

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 9, September 13, September 27, 2022 and October 25, 2022, took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to recommend City Council adoption of the Zoning Ordinance amendment;
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the City Council received a presentation from outside counsel on the legal framework applicable to wireless facilities and received public comment; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance amendment to modify existing regulations affecting wireless communication facilities, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Class 8) as an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the enhancement and protection of the environment, which includes the visual environment of the City.

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

Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Therefore, significant impacts would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed on a project-by-project basis for CEQA applicability.

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
3 negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment, which would not damage scenic resources, but rather, assure their protection. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment regulating the visual effect of communications structures. Therefore, impacts to hazardous waste sites would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment that would regulate the visual effect of communications structures in the City right-of-way, and not any historic resources. Therefore, impacts to historic resources would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, THE MONTEREY CITY COUNCIL DECLARES, as follows:

SECTION 2: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 3: CEQA The passage of the ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as Lead Agency, has determined the Project qualifies as being Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8.

SECTION 4: Section 38-112.4 is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
38-112.4 Wireless Communications Facilities
A. Purpose.

This section is enacted to reasonably regulate, to the greatest extent permitted under California and federal law, the placement, design, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities within the City of Monterey. These regulations are designed to protect and promote public’s health, safety, and welfare, including by minimizing adverse aesthetic impacts and protecting persons and property from potential dangers. The City’s aesthetics, unique historic setting, and views benefit residents, attract visitors worldwide, enhance property values, are a catalyst for economic development, and increase the City’s tax base. The City’s economy, as well as the well-being of all who work, visit or live in the City depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty.

B. Applicability.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 21, Packet Page 1775

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
4 1. The provisions in this section shall be applied to all applications for new wireless communications facilities and all applications for changes to existing wireless communications facilities filed after the effective date of this section, unless the wireless communications facility is exempt from the permitting requirement. For all other applications, the provisions of Section 38-112.4 as it existed before the effective date shall apply.

2. This section is not intended to exempt wireless communications facilities from any applicable laws.

3. This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with state and federal law.

4. The time within which any act provided by this Section is to be done has been computed to permit the City to comply with state and federal regulations governing the time for action on applications for wireless communications facilities, and may be extended by the City Manager where an extension will not result in a violation of those state or federal regulations, or otherwise prejudice the public, or shortened by the City Manager when necessary to prevent a violation of applicable law.

C. General Requirements.

1. Every wireless communications facility, whether or not installed pursuant to a use permit, shall:
a. Comply at all times with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) standards for radiofrequency (“RF”) emissions currently in effect or as may be amended;
b. Comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and requirements; and, c. Comply with conditions applicable to encroachments if located in the public rights-of-way.

2. No wireless communications facilities may be installed speculatively.

3. All wireless communications facilities located within an airport safety zone as defined by the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), or an airspace protection zone as defined by the FAA shall comply with applicable criteria in the ALUCP, and FAA standards. No work may proceed on a permit except in compliance with such standards, or without issuance of any required determinations of no hazard to aviation.

No work may proceed on a permit where an applicant has failed to provide notices or seek reviews required under applicable requirements. Provided, nothing herein requires compliance with ALUCP standards where such standards have been overruled in accordance with applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, under the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in effect as of April 1, 2022:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 22, Packet Page 1776

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
5 a. In Runway Protection Zone 1, all structures are prohibited except facilities set by aeronautical function. No objects may exceed FAR Part 77 height limits as determined by the FAA. The City shall refer all objects within Zone 1 to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and FAA.
b. In Inner Airport/Departure Zone 2, Inner Turning Zone 3, and Sideline Safety Zone 5, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions: i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) Structures shall be located the maximum distance from extended runway centerline; and iii) The City shall refer objects greater than 35’ tall to the ALUC and FAA.
c. In Outer Approach/Departure Zone 4 and Airport Property Zone 6, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions:
i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) The City shall refer objects greater than 70’ tall to the ALUC and FAA.
d. In Airport Influence Area Zone 7, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions: i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) The City shall refer objects greater than 100’ tall to the ALUC and FAA; iii) New structures are prohibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces; and iv) New structures require additional airspace analysis and FAA Form 7560 within the 50-foot terrain penetration buffer. e. All structures that could penetrate 14 CFR Part 77 elevations shall file Form 7460 with the FAA.

D. Planning Applications and Approvals Required

1. Use Permit Review. All new wireless communications facilities and all modifications to existing wireless communications facilities require a use permit issued pursuant to Section 38-156 et seq., except those subject to administrative review under this section.

The use permit for placement in the public rights-of-way, if granted, shall be deemed to constitute the encroachment permit required by Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article

8. The application for a use permit shall satisfy all the requirements for an encroachment permit, and without limitation any use permit issued shall be subject to all conditions set forth in, and regulations adopted pursuant to, that Chapter.

2. Administrative Review for Temporary Wireless Communication Facilities: A use permit may be issued for a temporary wireless communications facility by the Community Development Director under this section.
a. Application. An application for a temporary wireless communications facility shall provide a detailed description of the facility including: how it will be anchored or otherwise supported; where it will be placed; how it will be designed, secured, and marked to protect against harm to persons or property; the purpose of the placement; the duration it will be in place; a certification by a California licensed Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 23, Packet Page 1777

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
6 structural engineer that the installation will be structurally safe; and the information required by Sections 38-112.4 (E)(3)(a),(b), (q) and (r). b. Approval. Administrative approval shall be granted if:
i. The facility meets the definition of a temporary wireless communications facility;
ii. The proposed facility will be placed and protected to prevent hazards to persons and property, and so as not to unreasonably interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or disrupt the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties;
iii. There is an appropriate plan for removal of the facility and restoration of property affected by it; and
iv. Except in the case of an emergency, the temporary wireless communications facility is not proposed for a residential zoning district (i.e., R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3 and any PC Zone not governed by a Specific Plan).
c. Conditions. Each permit for a temporary wireless communications facility shall be granted for the shortest period of time it will take to achieve the purposes for which it was installed. The permittee’s period for removal and restoration shall be based upon the work required to remove the facility and restore affected property, and shall not exceed ten (10) days except for good cause shown as determined by the Director. Any facility that is not removed from private property by the date specified in the permit is hereby declared a public nuisance, which may be remedied pursuant to Monterey City Code Chapter 22, Article 4 and any other remedy allowed by law. Any facility that is not removed from City property by the date specified in the permit may be removed by the City and the City may restore affected property and charge the permittee the costs thereof. d. Emergency Installation. A permit shall be obtained before a facility is installed except: (1) in the case of an emergency declared by federal, state, regional, or local officials; (2) when it is necessary to install a facility to immediately address an unanticipated service outage; or (3) when immediate action by a person or agency performing a public service is required to protect life or property in response to an emergency. In such cases, an application shall be submitted within five business days after the date of installation. The time for filing may be extended by the Director as needed based on the circumstances giving rise to the need for the temporary placement. If an application is not timely filed, or is denied, in addition to being subject to any other remedy available at law or equity, the temporary wireless communications facility will constitute a public nuisance, which on private property may be remedied pursuant to Monterey City Code Chapter 22, Article 4. Without limiting the foregoing, if the temporary wireless facility is on public property, and a timely application is not filed, or is Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 24, Packet Page 1778

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
7 denied, the facility shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours of failure to timely file, or the denial, as applicable, unless the Director specifies a later, alternative time for removal and restoration. If the facility is not removed and property restored as required, the City may remove the facility, and restore the property, and charge for costs associated with the same.

E. Applications and Submittals

1. This section establishes minimum application requirements for wireless communications facilities other than eligible facilities requests, for which applications shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in Section 38-112.4(G).

2. Application Required. Each application for a permit under this section shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the Director, in an electronic searchable format, and accompanied by a fee in the amount set by resolution. The Director may amend the submittal form and requirements as the Director deems appropriate to achieve the purposes of this section.

3. Application Content. Each application shall be signed by the owner of the wireless communications facility. If the applicant is not a provider of wireless services, it shall provide a letter from each wireless service provider that will use the facility affirming: it will use the facility proposed, if approved; that it will make available such information as the City may require to act upon the application, either directly or through applicant; and will ensure that any representations made to the City regarding the services it will provide, or equipment it will use, are true, accurate, and complete. Each application shall include at least the following:
a. Written Authorizations. A written authorization signed by the owner(s) of the property and supporting structure consenting to the placement of the wireless communications facility as proposed. An authorization is not required as part of the application for placement on City-owned or controlled property, but appropriate consents and contracts shall be obtained before a permit may issue. b. Licenses. Evidence that the applicant and operator hold all current licenses and registrations from the FCC and California Secretary of State where such license(s) or registration(s) are necessary to provide wireless services using the proposed wireless communications facility.
c. Notice and Proof of Service of Notice. Applicant shall mail notice of the application to all persons entitled to notice under Section 38-159 In addition to providing the information required by Section 38-159(D), the notice shall provide a brief description of the wireless communications facility and its location; identify what entities will own or operate any part of the wireless communications facility; state that the application may be reviewed online as posted by the Planning Department; and state that comments may be submitted to the Planning Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 25, Packet Page 1779

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
8 Department. The notice shall be mailed by the applicant on the day the application is filed and a proof of service on a form provided by the City shall be provided with the application.
d. Effect of Deadlines. To the extent that filing of the wireless application would establish a deadline for action on any other permit, agreement, or other authorization that may be required in connection with the wireless communications facility, the application shall include complete copies of applications for every such required permit, including without limitation, electrical permits, building permits, traffic control permits, and excavation permits, with all engineering completed, and with all fees associated with each permit. Provided, such additional applications are not required if applicant agrees, in the application for the wireless communication facility, that any such deadline will not begin to run until a separate and complete application for those permits is submitted.
e. Project Description Letter. A full written description of the proposed facility and the work that will be required to install or modify it, which description shall include whether:
i. the facility will be on a new, existing, or replacement supporting structure; ii. excavation work will be required and where it will occur; iii. foundational work will be required; and
iv. if the application is for a modification to an existing wireless communications facility, or a support structure, the application shall identify whether the existing wireless facility or support structure was installed pursuant to a permit and if so provide the original permit and any permit modifications; describe any camouflage and concealment elements, and describe how the modifications to the facility or proposed support structure will maintain the concealment elements, and how it will preserve other requirements intended to camouflage or otherwise limit the visual impacts of a wireless communications facility, or support structure; and state whether the existing wireless communications facility or support structure is currently in compliance with such original permit and any permit modifications.
f. Equipment Specifications. Specifications that show the dimensions (height, width, depth, and cubic feet) for all components of the proposed wireless communications facility and the support structure, and the weight of all components of the wireless communications facility and any replacement or new support structure. If the wireless communications facility will be placed on an existing or replacement support structure, the specifications shall include:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 26, Packet Page 1780

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
9 i. a clear description of all components of the existing support structure, and how it is anchored/supported;
ii. a clear description of all attachments to the existing support structure and their dimensions; and
iii. a description of changes that will be made in connection with an attachment to, or replacement of, the existing structure, including but not limited to, steps that may be taken to strengthen or secure the supporting structure.
g. Lease Area. If the wireless communication facility will be installed pursuant to a lease or license, a plan depicting the leased or licensed area in relationship to the proposed facility.
h. Plot Plan. A plot plan of the lot, premises, or parcel of land showing the exact location of the proposed wireless facility (including all related equipment and cables), exact location and dimensions of all buildings, parking lots, walkways, property lines pertaining to the area leased or otherwise dedicated to the use of the wireless communications facility. For freestanding facilities, the plans shall indicate surrounding grade, structures, and landscaping from all sides. If new ground mounted equipment or structures (retaining walls, etc.) are proposed in the public right-of-way, a site survey with topography lines shown in 1’ intervals be submitted. The survey should show all improvements in the public right of way within 10’ of the proposed area of disturbance.
i. Licensed Site Survey. If the project involves new ground mounted equipment, grading or fill, a site survey is required.
j. Elevations and Roof Plan. Building elevations and roof plan including exact location and dimensions of equipment proposed. For freestanding facilities, the plans shall indicate surrounding grades, structures, and landscaping from all sides.
k. Screening. Proposed landscaping and maintenance plan for the life of the facility and/or non-vegetative screening (including required safety fencing) plan for all aspects of the facility.
l. Manufacturer’s Updated Specification. Manufacturer’s specifications, including installation and maintenance specifications, exact location of cables, wiring, materials, color, and any support devices that may be required. m. Photographs and Photo Simulations. Accurate color photographs and photo simulations that show the proposed facility both close up at street level and in context of the site from reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets or Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 27, Packet Page 1781

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
10 other viewpoints which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as proximity to the site or their elevation relative to the site, together with a map that shows the photo location of each view angle.
n. Hazard Compliance Certification. For placement of wireless communications facilities on utility poles, street light poles, or towers in the public rights-of-way, as part of the safety certification required by Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(o):
i. If the application is for a wireless communications facility in a “High Hazard Zone” (“HHZ”) (as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire-Threat Map), and is to be placed on a supporting structure that applicant contends is or will be under the jurisdiction of General Order (“GO”) 95 (“GO 95”), or GO 165, or GO 166, the applicant shall submit documentation showing the HHZ where the wireless communications facility will be located and whether all required Fire Prevention Plans are in place. Applicant shall also submit documentation showing whether the supporting structure has been inspected and when; the results of the inspection (if any), and proof that the structure, any existing facilities, and planned structures and facilities will comply with standards for placement on structures in a HHZ. If existing or proposed structures or facilities are or will be non-compliant in any respect, the application shall identify what applicant will do to ensure the structure and existing and proposed facilities are compliant. ii. If the application is for a wireless communications facility in a HHZ on a supporting structure or tower that applicant contends is not under the jurisdiction of GO 95, GO 165, and GO 166, the applicant shall submit documentation showing:
a) The specific HHZ in which the wireless communications facilities will be located, as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire-Threat Map;
b) A description of the steps the applicant has taken to reduce hazards to public safety, including fire safety hazards, that may be caused by the proposed wireless communications facility or any supporting structure; and
c) What applicant will do to inspect and maintain the safety of the wireless communications facility, or any supporting structure which steps shall be at least as rigorous as if GO 95, 165, and GO 166 applied.
d) The documentation shall be supported by sworn statements from qualified and California licensed engineers attesting that the Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 28, Packet Page 1782

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
11 wireless communications facility and any supporting structure as installed will comply with applicable law, and be as safe as facilities and structures which are subject to the General Orders. o. Safety Certification. Applicant shall submit structural analyses prepared by a licensed or registered California engineer or engineers qualified to attest to the facts showing that the portions of the wireless communications facility placed on or within the tower or supporting structures will be safely supported by the tower, or supporting structure, and also showing that all components of the structure and the wireless communication facility comply with applicable safety standards. p. Noise study. A noise study certified by an acoustical engineer licensed by the State of California for the proposed facility and all associated equipment including environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators, and permanent backup power generators, demonstrating that the facility will comply with the city’s noise regulations when fully operational. For example, if a wireless communications facility is planned to include multiple cooling units, the noise study will be performed assuming that all the units will be in place and operational. The noise study shall also include an analysis of the manufacturers’ specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines. A study is not required if the proposed facility does not contain equipment that generates noise q. Radio/antenna detail. Information regarding the radio units that are proposed to be installed at the site, including the manufacturer’s name and specifications, and the actual frequencies and power levels (in watts effective radio power [ERP]) for the proposed wireless communications facility and for any existing wireless communications facility that shall be considered in determining compliance with FCC RF standards.
r. Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance Report. Applicant shall submit a RF exposure compliance report prepared by a licensed RF engineer. The report shall include a certification by the engineer that the facility complies with FCC RF standards, be prepared in accordance with FCC guidelines, and include the calculations and information on which the engineer relied. The report shall clearly identify any areas where exposure would exceed occupational or general FCC exposure limits, vertically and horizontally, and shall include drawings that show those areas in relation to the proposed structure, adjoining buildings, and property lines. The report shall clearly identify any measures that shall be taken to ensure compliance with FCC rules. The report’s analysis will be based on a “worst case” scenario, and assuming all antennas are operating at maximum output. The report shall be signed by the licensed RF engineer and include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the content thereof is true and correct. s. Underground vault and venting plans, if any element of the wireless communications facility will be placed underground. The underground vault and Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 29, Packet Page 1783

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
12 venting plans shall include manufacturer’s specifications for cover, color, materials, dimensions, and reveal at the sidewalk, and evidence that all enclosures will comply with California Public Utilities Code standards for underground utility enclosures.
t. Master Plan. A master plan which identifies the location of the proposed facility in relation to all existing wireless communications facilities used by the wireless service providers that will use the facility; and if the facility proposed is part of a planned network, the approximate location of other planned facilities. u. For any wireless communications facility located within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area (AIA), the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City demonstrating the following: 1) applicant submittal to the FAA of the FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) or other equivalent FAA form notifying the FAA of the proposed construction or alteration of any wireless communications facility in the AIA that has the potential to obstruct or pose a hazard to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities, or has the potential to interfere with any aircraft flight components affecting air safety, except for minor alterations that do not have this potential; 2) written authorization from the FAA or other official FAA determination of no objection to the proposed construction or alteration; and 3) compliance with all applicable FAA and FCC rules, regulations, and standards.
v. If applicant contends that denial of the application would result in an effective prohibition under federal law, or otherwise violate federal law such that the application shall be approved, it shall provide all facts that it relies upon and clear and convincing evidence for that claim. Where the applicant is not a wireless service provider, the information shall be provided for the affected wireless service providers. Applicants who claim that denial would be a “prohibition” or “effective prohibition” are encouraged to address at least the following:
i. If it is contended that compliance with an aesthetic standard is not reasonable, explain why in detail, and describe alternatives considered in determining whether service objectives for the wireless service provider could be reasonably satisfied by other means.
ii. What existing or planned personal wireless services the affected wireless service provider would be effectively prohibited from providing if the application is denied.
iii. The factual basis for any claim that denial will substantially impair a wireless service provider’s ability to provide a personal wireless service, and the information relied upon in support of that claim. iv. The factual basis for any claim that denial would result in a prohibition or effective prohibition under applicable precedent in the United States Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 30, Packet Page 1784

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
13 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the information relied upon in support of that claim.
v. Current signal coverage, by providing maps showing existing coverage in the area to be serviced by the proposed facilities (including areas outside the City, if applicable). In order to be treated as probative, maps shall be dated, and based on data collected within the prior six months or less, to reflect all facilities installed inside and outside of the City as of the date of the application that may affect coverage.
vi. The exact geographic area that would be served by the proposed facility, using coverage maps that describe the distances between the proposed and existing sites that show how the proposed service area fits into and is necessary to each affected wireless service provider’s provision of personal wireless services given existing facilities, and planned or pending modifications or additions to those facilities that that may affect the provision of services;
vii. Alternatives considered within and outside the City prior to the submission of the application, including but not limited to alternatives that take advantage of software capabilities or reconfiguration of existing sites; the reason the alternative chosen was selected, and the reason other alternatives were not selected with supporting evidence; and why applicant contends existing sites could not be used to provide service. viii. Provide results of drive tests within the specific geographic areas where an effective prohibition is being claimed. In order to be treated as probative, maps shall be dated, and based on data collected within the prior six months or less, to reflect all facilities installed inside and outside of the City as of the date of the application that may affect coverage.

The data shall specify the date and time of the test, the location in longitude and latitude of each point at which signal strength was recorded, and each signal strength recorded for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its customers. The signal strength data shall be provided in a separate table for each frequency. Drive test maps shall be submitted depicting the actual signal strengths recorded during the drive test for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its customers. vix. Provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number and percentage of calls within which the carrier’s customers were unable to initiate, maintain and conclude the use of the carrier’s personal wireless services without actual loss of service or interruption of service.

4. Presubmittal Conference. Before application submittal, applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule and attend a voluntary presubmittal conference with City staff for all wireless communications facilities applications. The presubmittal conference is Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 31, Packet Page 1785

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
14 intended to foster cooperative discussion between applicants and staff, identify potential avoidable issues, and generally streamline the application review process to occur after the applicant formally submits its application. Requests for voluntary presubmittal conferences will not be scheduled until the city receives payment of the associated fee in the amount set by City Council resolution.

5. Application Submittal Appointment. All applications for wireless communications facilities use permits shall be submitted to the City at a prescheduled appointment with the Director. During the application submittal appointment, or thereafter, the Director shall review the application materials and determine whether the application is complete. If the application is found to be complete, the Director will refer the application to the Planning Commission. If the application is not complete, the Director shall issue a written notice of incompleteness specifying the information missing from the application.

6. Applications Available Online. Except where good cause has been shown, as determined by the Director, applications will be posted on the City website within five working days of filing or as soon thereafter as practical, along with communications between the City and the applicant regarding those filings (including additions and modifications to the filing). The City shall post notice promptly when the application is deemed “complete.” The City’s failure to post the applications by the time required shall not affect the validity of any application submitted under this section.

7. Notice of Applications Within Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area. For any wireless communication facility located within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area, the City shall, upon deeming such application “complete”, provide written notice of the application to the staff of the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission and the Monterey Regional Airport District.

F. Location, Design and Development Standards

1. This section establishes design and development standards for wireless communications facilities and supporting structures, other than wireless communications facilities and supporting structures modified as part of an eligible facilities request. The Planning Commission may develop and approve, for mandatory use, neighborhood specific design standards that are consistent with this section.

2. Overall Goals. It is the overall goal of the City to minimize the visual impact of wireless facilities; to minimize the number and height of supporting structures that may intrude upon view sheds; to maintain the overall visual character of individual neighborhoods, to encourage placement away from residential units; to minimize the number of structures in the public rights-of-way and prevent interference with the other uses of the public rights-of-way.

3. General Principle for All Locations. The proposed wireless communications facility, and any supporting structure (to the extent installation requires installation of a new or replacement supporting structure, or any change in the height of an existing supporting Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 32, Packet Page 1786

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
15 structure) shall be of the minimum size necessary to serve the defined service objectives of the wireless service provider(s) that will be using the facility. a. Exception. Section Section 38-112.4(F)(3) does not apply when a larger facility is consistent with a stealth design approved by the City, or appropriate as part of the incorporation of a wireless communications facility into a structure such as a street light, where the facility shall mimic the height of existing street lights.

4. Design Standards for Facilities Off the Public Rights-of-Way - General Design and Aesthetic Standards. All new facilities and changes to existing facilities shall conform to the standards in this section.
a. Concealment. Wireless communications facilities shall incorporate concealment elements sufficient to render the facility stealth, as appropriate for the proposed location and design, or otherwise incorporate elements that will camouflage or limit the visual impacts of a wireless communications facility as well or better than a stealth facility. All facilities shall be designed to visually blend into the surrounding area and shall be compatible with the character of the area in which they are located, as described in the General Plan and provisions governing development of particular areas.
b. Height. Wireless communications facilities, and any supporting structure shall not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in the applicable zoning district.
c. Setbacks. Wireless communications facilities may not encroach into any applicable setback for structures in the applicable zoning district. A 100-foot setback from schools and residences must be required and any relief granted from showing effective prohibition must be the least intrusive d. Future Collocations. Applicants shall design wireless communications facilities to accommodate future collocated facilities to the extent feasible, and to the extent consistent with the other provisions of this Code.
e. Noise. A wireless communications facility shall comply with the noise standards in the City Code. Applicant may be required to install noise attenuating or baffling materials and/or other measures, including but not limited to walls or landscape features, as the City deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with noise limits.
f. Lights. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only timed or motion-sensitive light controllers and lights, and shall install such lights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. The City may, in its discretion, exempt an applicant from the foregoing requirement when the applicant demonstrates a substantial public safety need, or applicant shows that the light’s effect is negligible. All aircraft warning lighting shall use lighting enclosures that avoid illumination impacts to properties in the City to the maximum extent feasible. This section Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 33, Packet Page 1787

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
16 does not apply to designs that are intended to mimic or to be incorporated within lighting structures on the property where the facility will be located. g. Signs. No wireless communications facility may display any signage or advertisements unless expressly allowed by the City in a written approval, recommended under FCC regulations, or required by law or permit condition.

Every facility shall at all times display signage that accurately identifies the facility owner, provides the facility owner’s unique site number, and a local or tollfree telephone number to contact the facility owner’s operations center. “Signage” does not include approved banners or directional signage used to conceal a or camouflage a wireless communications facility. h. Fencing or Enclosures. Any fencing or enclosures proposed in connection with a wireless communications facility shall blend with the natural and/or manmade surroundings. Additional landscape features may be required to screen fences.

Barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences and similar measures for securing a wireless communications facility are not permitted.
i. Landscaping. Landscaping may be required to visually screen facilities from adjacent properties or public view or to provide a backdrop to conceal the facilities. All proposed landscaping is subject to architectural review approval by the Director, unless the Director refers the landscaping plan to the Architectural Review Committee. Landscaping may be required for the purposes that include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. To preserve existing on-site and associated access way vegetation and trees to the extent feasible at all times before, during and after construction.
ii. To minimize disturbance of the existing topography. iii. To provide screening of wireless communications facilities and access roads appurtenant to the wireless communications facility which screening may require planting of additional trees and other vegetation around the facility, and along access roads.
j. Applicants shall use flat rate electric metering, if available, so that no meter is required. If a ground-mounted or pole-mounted meter is used, applicant will provide information as to available form factors and show how those can be incorporated into the design to minimize visual impacts and, where possible, make the meter stealth.
k. Ground-Mounted Equipment. Where above-ground, ground-mounted facilities are permitted, in locations visible or accessible to the public, applicants shall conceal outdoor ground-mounted equipment, with opaque fences or landscape features that mimic the adjacent structure(s) (including, but not limited to, dumpster corrals and other accessory structures).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/7/2023, Item No. 17., Item Page 34, Packet Page 1788

10.25.22 DRAFT

PC RECOMMENDED
17 5. Building-Mounted Facilities. These requirements are in addition to design standards in Section 38-112.4(F)(4)(a)-(g) and (k).
a. General Design Preferences. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be one of the following, in this order of preference; provided that any change to any building within the National Historic Landmark Districts, local historic district (H-D) or any change to individually zoned historic property (H-1 and H-2) shall be fully consistent with design requirements and limitations on modifications to historic properties and buildings.
i. The wireless communications facilities shall be completely concealed and architecturally integrated into the facade or rooftop-mounted base stations with no visible impacts (including shadowing) from any publicly accessible areas at ground level (examples include, but are not limited to, antennas behind existing parapet walls or facades replaced with RFtransparent material and finished to mimic the replaced materials, provided such replacement is consistent with the historic preservation of a structure); then
ii. Wireless communications facilities may be completely concealed new structures or appurtenances designed to mimic the support structure’s original architecture and proportions (examples include, but are not limited to, cupolas, steeples, chimneys and water tanks), subject to height limits applicable to the area where the facility is located, and subject to standards that apply for similar modifications that do not involve wireless communications facilities.
b. Rooftop-Mounted Equipment. Consistent with Section 112.4(F)(5), and subject to Section 38-112.4(F)(5)(a)(i), and subject to Section 112.4(F)(4)(a), the City will not approve unscreened rooftop wireless communications facilities if the applicant has the right to increase the facility height so that the equipment would become visible to public view from ground level on adjoining properties or from the public rights-of-way, unless the applicant shows that because of the design proposed, or the location, approval of the design will be no more intrusive and consistent with the goals of this section.
c. Facade-Mounted Equipment. Applicants shall conceal all facade-mounted transmission equipment behind screen walls as flush to the facade as practicable. The City may not approve any “pop-out” screen boxes unless such design is architecturally consistent with the original support structure. The City may not approve any exposed facade-mounted antennas, which includes exposed antennas painted to match the façade, unless the applicant shows that because of the design proposed, or the location, approval of the design will be no more intrusive and consistent with the goals of this section.

Monterey City CouncilFebruary 7, 2023

Monterey City Council
February 7, 2023