Agenda packet, regular meeting — Monterey City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

Council Chamber, 580 Pacific
St. and Zoom Teleconference
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
City Manager
Hans Uslar
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Pursuant to California Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(A) and (C) and the Monterey City Council’s resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings of the Monterey City Council and its Boards, Commissions, and Committees are being conducted with a hybrid format providing both inperson and virtual (electronic) participation in order to promote social distancing and protect the health and safety of attendees.

Details for public participation in this City Council meeting:
 BEFORE THIS MEETING, members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages will not be read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments received become part of the record.
 DURING THIS MEETING, members of the public may attend and participate:
o In-person (location listed above), with masks highly recommended for all, regardless of vaccination status, except those who are younger than two years old or have a medical condition that prevents wearing a mask.  Online via ZoomGov Webinar live (no time delay):
 Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
 Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, Calif.) or 646-828-7666 (New York, NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.
 Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.  Need more help using or updating Zoom? Read our ZoomGov Meeting Instructions.
o This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay). ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the 2/21/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

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

Approval of Minutes

1. February 7, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."

2. Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Proposal to Provide Fire Services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District in Response to Their Request for Proposals (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Other

3. Receive Mayor’s Recommendation and Appoint Peter Silva to the Disabled Access Appeals Board (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

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

4. Resolution Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Renewing the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
2/21/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

5. Adopt a Resolution Terminating the Local Emergency and Related COVID-19 Resolutions and Ordinances on February 28, 2023; Provide Direction on the Use of Masks in City Council Chambers; and Extend Existing Temporary Outdoor Business Permits and Outdoor Heaters on the Wharves until December 31, 2023 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Authorize the Mayor to Submit an Online Public Comment to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Behalf of the City of Monterey in Support of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Application (A2111024) Requesting that the CPUC Compel California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) to Execute the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement Authorized in Decision 22-12-001 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Council will adjourn to closed session no later than 5:00 p.m.

RECESS 5:30 p.m.

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
2/21/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 Adjourn to Joint Special Meeting and Establish Quorum of the Planning Commission
Planning Commissioners:

Daniel Fletcher (Chair)
Robert Bluth
Michael Brassfield
Michael Dawson
Sandra Freeman
Terry Latasa
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION

7. Progress Report on Monterey 2031 – a General Plan Update of the Housing, Land Use, and Safety Elements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjourn to City Council Meeting

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

8. Second 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)

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

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

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

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

City Council Meetings are cable cast live and recorded for replay on Monterey's Government Access Channel 25 by Access Media Productions (AMP).
2/21/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

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

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

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

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present:

Barber, Garcia*, Haffa**, Smith (present for the evening session only), Williamson

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

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Senior Administrative Analyst, Sustainability Coordinator, Police Lieutenant, Senior Administrative Analyst (Public Works), Senior Engineer, Environmental Regulations Manager, Recreation Manager, Harbormaster, Police Lieutenant, General Services Superintendent, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Administrative Analyst (Public Works)
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 23-002 C.S.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll as highlighted above, with Councilmember Smith absent for the afternoon session.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Steve Lightfoot.

CONSENT ITEMS
It was requested by a member of the public to pull Item 11 from Consent. Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Item 11:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
2 Approval of Minutes

1. January 17, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

2. January 25, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Award of Construction Contracts

3. Award a General Municipal Improvements Job Order Contract 2023-2024 for Intergovernmental Service Agreement / Presidio Municipal Services Agency Projects in the Amount of $1,000,000 to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. ***PMSA*** (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).); Categorical Excluded (CX) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations 32 CFR 651, Appendix B, CX(e)(1), CEQA Not A Project)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-007 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

4. Award Job Order Contract in the Amount of $140,000 to David Olson, Inc. dba Airtec Service for Presidio of Monterey Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Repair and Replacement Job Order Contract (Excluded from NEPA per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (G(5), CEQA Not a Project Under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, Subd. (A) and Pub. Resources Code § 21080, Subd. (B)(1)) ***PMSA***
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-008 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

5. Award Job Order Contract in the Amount of $120,000 to Commercial Services and Environmental Solutions, Inc. dba Monterey Environmental Solutions and Services for City of Monterey Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contract (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-009 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

6. Award Job Order Contract in the Amount of $120,000 to Commercial Services and Environmental Solutions, Inc. dba Monterey Environmental Solutions and Services for Presidio of Monterey Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contract (Excluded from NEPA per 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (G(5), CEQA Not a Project Under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, Subd. (A) and Pub. Resources Code § 21080, Subd. (B)(1)) ***PMSA*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-010 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Ordinances

7. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 828 Pacific Street from R-1-6 to R-1-6-H-2 as a City Historic Resource (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3658 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) This ordinance was duly noticed on February 4, 2023.

Resolutions

8. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period February 17, 2023 through February 28, 2023 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-011 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
3 9. Approve Termination of Electric Service Provider Contract and Authorize Withdrawal from the Direct Access Program (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-012 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

10. Adopt the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-013 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

11. 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***
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 23-014 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who expressed concerns about the City's becoming more entangled with the federal government than she said was intended by the original "Monterey Model" of collaboration.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-014 C.S. to 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:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

12. 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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-015 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

13. 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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-016 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
4 Other

14. 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)
Action: Appointed Peter Silva to the Building and Housing Appeals Board for a term expiring June 30, 2027, Chinyere Ogbonna as New Monterey Representative to the NCIP Committee for a term expiring June 30, 2027, and Robert Bluth to the Planning Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2027 (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) *** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

15. 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)
Action: Received update
City Clerk Klein gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who spoke in favor of the City continuing to provide the ability for the public to participate remotely.

16. Modifying the Employee Relocation Assistance Program (Not A Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-017 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Human Resources Director Neal gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from City Manager Uslar.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-017 C.S. Modifying the Employee Relocation Assistance Program:

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmember Smith present.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
5 *** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Williamson led the Pledge.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Nick Tome, Lorna Moffat, and Nina Beety.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)

17. 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)
Action: Waived further reading and passed ordinance to print, amended as follows: Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (F)(4)(c): deletion of the sentence requiring a 100-foot setback from schools and residences; Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (F)(10)(e):
removal of items (ii) and (iii); and Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (G)(1): removal of reference to Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(t). (4-1, Councilmember Barber voting no) Mayor Williamson introduced the ordinance by reading its full title. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation, recommending the removal of language approved by the Planning Commission that would require a 100-foot setback from residences and schools.

She demonstrated how much of the City was covered by various setbacks including the 100- foot option.

Due to the number of attendees planning to speak, public comment was limited to two (2) minutes per person and was received as follows:

Displeasure with the draft ordinance recommended by staff was expressed by: Marta Kraftzeck, Tony Tollner, Susan Nine, Jeannie Ferrara, Charles Martin, Charisse Carlyle, Catherine Adamo, John Adamo, Lori Wheeler, Pat Venza, Jean Rasch, Daniel Dotterrer, Kristen Dotterrer, Ray Meyers, all of whom urged the Council to require a minimum required setback from residences and schools and some also requested to increase the distance between facilities as an aesthetic concern and to include fall zone protections; by Lorna Moffat, Claudia Eyre, Carol Kuzdenyi, and Nina Beety, whose comments focused specifically on health concerns; by Bruce Zanetta and Luke Martin, whose comments focused specifically on the potential to place utilities underground; by Elizabeth Murray and Tammy Jennings, whose comments emphasized the aesthetic beauty and history of the Monterey area. Timothy Barrett spoke in favor of some setback that does not create a moratorium. During public comment, Councilmember Smith briefly left the Chamber at 7:47 p.m. and returned at 7:49 p.m. When Ms. Beety spoke, she requested extra speaking time because she said she had not been able to speak via the remote call-in feature at the January 17, 2023 Council meeting, and City Clerk Klein clarified that the Zoom system was fully functioning at that meeting with many comments received.

Remarks in favor of progress were made by Paul Bruno and comments in favor of access to information were made by Kevin Dayton. Tabitha Schneider read aloud from a letter she had sent on behalf of Crown Castle alleging that several provisions of the draft ordinance did not conform with federal law and requesting that the Council refrain from passing the ordinance to print before industry representatives had the opportunity to meet with the City. Esther Malkin Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
6 remarked about the federal government's role in the City's limited ability to regulate wireless installations.

With no further requests to speak, Mayor Williamson closed the public comment period.

On question from Council, City Manager Uslar said that other cities provide clearly defined exceptions with their setback requirements, so that it was not an effective prohibition and the wireless providers could put their small cell equipment in certain locations. City Attorney Davi pointed out that each part of another city's ordinance must be considered in context with the rest of the ordinance. Gail Karish, outside counsel with Best Best & Krieger, pointed to language in the draft ordinance that required wireless providers to prove effective prohibition in order to propose installing equipment in residential areas.

City Attorney Davi summarized the issue of effective prohibition, and said that the ordinance was crafted to comply with the chain of control, from federal to state to local power, on the placement of wireless facilities.

On question from Council, Community Development Director Cole spoke to the concept of a 500-foot search ring. She said that if the Council chose that option, which she stated has not been evaluated through the extensive process, it would involve reviewing and redrafting the ordinance to include that provision. It was emphasized by the Council that the proposed ordinance puts the burden of proof on the wireless service providers to prove proactively a claim of effective prohibition.

The Council posed the idea that City staff could return to Council with a rewritten ordinance based on those from the cities of Malibu or Petaluma.

On question from Council, Community Development Director Cole spoke about the process to ensure that hardware meets federal guidelines, and the three analyses that she explained are done on radio frequency ("R.F." emissions for each proposed wireless equipment installation.

The Council emphasized that the residents had spoken and the Council had heard them, and had created the Wireless Committee and joined a coalition of cities to litigate wireless issues, in response to hearing the community's concerns. It was stressed that public concerns about possible health effects could not legally be part of the Council's decision-making process or it would hamper the defense of any adopted ordinance. It was noted that the City had authority to regulate aesthetic impacts of wireless installations, and that the Council wanted to protect the unique beauty of Monterey within the constraints of regulations that the Council could not control. It was strongly recommended that residents raise their concerns to their federal elected representatives.

The Council expressed concern that even a 25-foot setback would result in effective prohibition, and therefore would not be in accord with federal law. The Council weighed the options before them. It was stressed that protections for residential areas were built into the proposed ordinance. It was stated that one option would be to pause the process, look at other ordinances and if those approaches to regulating aesthetics were what the community wanted, then the Council could ask staff to bring back an ordinance based on one of those ordinances.

Two needed corrections to the draft ordinance were noted by Council and staff: draft ordinance Section 4 subsection (F)(10)(e): removal of items (ii) and (iii); and draft ordinance Section 4 subsection (G)(1): removal of reference to Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(t).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
7 The Council stated that they were comfortable with the staff's recommendation to remove the 100-foot setback, stating that the draft ordinance allowed the City to put the burden on the applicant to show good cause regarding a claim of effective prohibition, versus a statutory flat number of feet for a setback.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to waive full reading and pass to print the First Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities, amended as follows: Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (F)(4)(c): deletion of the sentence requiring a 100-foot setback from schools and residences; Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (F)(10)(e): removal of items (ii) and (iii); and Draft Ordinance Section 4 subsection (G)(1): removal of reference to Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(t).

The Council requested that staff outline other protections built into the ordinance and review again for the public the way in which the ordinance handles the issue of effective prohibition in residential neighborhoods. It was noted that it would not be possible to combine everything that residents like from every other city's wireless ordinance. Comments of deep appreciation were made regarding the work of the Wireless Subcommittee and Planning Commission on such a highly technical subject matter that it was noted had also changed a lot during the years. The Council stressed that their goal is to protect the community and avoid clutter and adverse impacts, and that they must follow legal parameters to do so. It was noted that there may be adaptations and more opportunities for protection in the future. The Council stressed that within the City's legal standing, the Council would do all it could to represent and protect its residents.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
This public hearing was duly noticed on January 28, 2023.

The Council recessed at 9:28 p.m. and reconvened at 9:39 p.m.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

18. Authorize the City Manager to Terminate Cruise Ship Passenger Landing Services by the City of Monterey (Not a Project Subject to Approval Under CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065, 21080, subd. (a), 14 CCR §§ 15061, 15352, 15378)
Action: Authorized termination of cruise ship passenger landing services (3-2, Councilmembers Barber and Smith voting no)
City Manager Uslar quoted from the Council's mission and value drivers in support of protecting the environment, and stated that he had brought this matter to the Council on his own initiative.

He gave a verbal presentation focusing on the risk of accidental spills and the importance of preserving the ecological health of the Monterey Bay.

Public comment in favor of terminating cruise ship passenger landing services was received from: Carrie Larson, Taylor Adams, Hamish, Heidi Wood, Aliyah Denton, Phil DiGirolamo, Jean Rasch, Lorna Moffat, Dave Eckstaedt, Esther Malkin, Tammy Jennings, and Nina Beety.

Neutral comment on the proposal was received from Lisa Wooninck, of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, who requested to work with the City and to continue to monitor cruise ships' Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
8 discharges and noise impacts. Comment against terminating cruise ship passenger landing services was received from: Jeff Shindell, Kevin Dayton, Doug Lumsden, an unidentified woman, Brian Salerno, Monica Lal, Anne McIntyre, Cevan LeSieur, Paul Bruno, Kristin Horton, Chris Shake, Tom Rowley, Mike Bekker, Gary Cursio, Brad, Wendy Brickman, and Rick Aldinger.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that all arguments made on the matter had validity. It was stated that the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary tenets included encouraging the public to visit and use the Monterey Bay, and that the Sanctuary allows visits by cruise ships. It was stated that the answer to risk concerns would lie in setting limits of number of cruise ships and enhancing collaboration with associations and cruise lines.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the Council extended the meeting through 11:30 p.m.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council discussion continued. It was stated by the Council that the City had a responsibility to nurture a healthy economy but also to care for the natural environment.

A motion was made by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Haffa, to authorize the City Manager to Terminate Cruise Ship Passenger Landing Services by the City of Monterey.

Comments in support of the motion focused on the risk-reward analysis. It was noted that the City did not control regulations, and that regulations and fines had not been sufficient to control bad behavior by cruise lines. It was stressed that the risk to the Monterey Bay was not hypothetical, but was likely a matter of time and of how bad the inevitable disaster would be. It was stressed that the proposed action would not constitute a ban, and would not send a message to visitors not to visit at all, or treat the Sanctuary as a museum, but would point out the value that Monterey places on its environment and show that the City acts accordingly. It was stressed that the youth will be dealing with the implications of efforts, and lack of efforts, regarding protecting the environment. Concern was shared about noise concerns, and about the aesthetics of cruise ships in the bay blocking views of the natural environment. It was noted that the hospitality industry had commented in the past that cruise ship guests do not eat in Monterey restaurants. It was stated that just because something might generate revenue did not necessarily mean it should be done.

Comments against the motion focused on the stated desire to mitigate risks while collaborating with business. The concern was shared that the proposed action constituted an anti-business move that would have an impact on tourism and small businesses. It was proposed that the City work to determine which bad actors in the cruise industry should be banned, and ban them, but not punish others.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes February 7, 2023
9 RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Garcia thanked Esther Malkin for organizing a recent community event in Council District 4.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 11:18 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 14 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Proposal to Provide Fire Services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District in Response to Their Request for Proposals (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to submit a proposal to provide fire services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District in response to their request for proposals dated December 20, 2022.

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 the City Council’s Strategic Priority to “recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City.”.”
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no significant costs associated with the submission of a proposal. The proposal will be structured to recoup all costs associated with providing the required services. Should Monterey be the successful proposer, an agreement will be negotiated with the Airport District that will outline all fiscal considerations. This agreement will be subject to Council approval before Monterey enters into an agreement.

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.

Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 15 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager to submit a proposal. This alternative is not recommended as it would eliminate opportunities for Monterey to benefit from the regionalization of fire services and it would be inconsistent with the City Council’s adopted Strategic Priorities.

DISCUSSION:

Monterey has a long history, dating back to 1956, of being a leader in regionalized fire services by providing those services to neighboring jurisdictions under contract. Current contractual relationships include Sand City, Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSAM), Navy housing at La Mesa Village, City of Pacific Grove, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (MPAD). Monterey’s current agreement with MPAD has been in effect since January 2014.

The MPAD is undertaking a major reconstruction of the Airport and all associated facilities. As part of this reconstruction, the Fire Station is being relocated to the north side of the airfield.

This relocation impacts the ability for the engine stationed there to respond off the airport property into the surrounding areas. Because of the change in fire station service capability and associated impacts to our current Fire Services Agreement, the MPAD exercised its option to give the City of Monterey 12-months’ notice that it intends to terminate the current contract. This notice terminates the contract on October 15, 2023. The MPAD outlined a new scope for desired services and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on December 20, 2022.

Monterey has realized a benefit from its partnership with the Airport in having an engine closer by that can respond to areas of the city previously served by other engine companies stationed at the City’s fire stations. Additional benefits are derived from the depth of resources available to respond to emergencies in all of the jurisdictions served by Monterey and the shared cost of administrative services and other overhead costs.

Monterey recently hired a consultant to review the costing methodologies used in its various fire services contracts. That review has identified opportunities to improve the methodology and ensure that Monterey is fully recovering all costs associated with providing services to other jurisdictions. These changes will be included in preparing a proposal for the MPAD. Because the RFP process is competitive, the details included in Monterey’s proposal will not be made public until the process has concluded.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to submit a proposal to provide fire services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District in response to their Request for Proposals dated December 20, 2022.

GP/gp
Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: 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, 2/21/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 16 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE FIRE

SERVICES TO THE MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT DISTRICT IN RESPONSE TO

THEIR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has been a leader in providing regionalized fire service by providing those services to neighboring jurisdictions under contract; WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (MPAD) has given Monterey 12- months’ notice that they intend to terminate their current agreement for fire services on October 15, 2023;
WHEREAS, MPAD has issued a Request for Proposals for Monterey Regional Airport Fire & Related Emergency Services that includes a revised scope consistent with the relocated fire station currently under construction;
WHEREAS, Monterey can continue to benefit from a fire services partnership with MPAD; 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 17 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to submit a proposal to provide fire services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District in response to their request for proposals.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 21st day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 18 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Mayor’s Recommendation and Appoint Peter Silva to the Disabled Access Appeals Board (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 one of the vacant member seats on the Disabled Access Appeals Board 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.

Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 19 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:

Architectural Review Committee – one vacant member seat* (vacated on February 7, 2023 when Robert Bluth was appointed to the Planning Commission) Building and Housing Appeals Board – 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 – vacant Alternate seats representing Aguajito Oaks, Alta Mesa, and Deer Flats neighborhoods (all three Alternate seats vacant for over six years), Del Monte Beach* (vacated by the resignation of Harry Nagel on January 27, 2023), and New Monterey* (vacated on February 7, 2023 by the appointment of Chinyere Ogbonna to the Representative position) Planning Commission – one vacant seat* (vacated by the resignation of Stephen Millich on January 27, 2023)
* The new vacancies were advertised on February 9, 2023. Priority review will be given to all applications received by February 24, 2023.

Applications for the ongoing vacancies have been and will continue to be received on a rolling basis until the seats are filled.

One qualified application for the Disabled Access Appeals Board (“DAAB”) position was received from Peter Silva, and is attached to this packet. The residency requirement was confirmed by the City Clerk using the GIS assessment database. The City Clerk also confirmed that the combination of positions to be held by Mr. Silva, if he is appointed to the DAAB, conform with Monterey City Code section 2-3.04(e). The Building Official confirmed that Mr.

Silva’s qualifications meet the special eligibility requirements of City Code section 2-11.00(b)(1).

Disabled Access Appeals Board
Peter Silva
Recommendation
Mayor Williamson reviewed Peter Silva’s application, conducted the interview in accordance with Council policy, and gave appropriate attention and time to the process that resulted in the following recommendation. Mayor Williamson is grateful that a resident applied, and recommends that the Council appoint:

Disabled Access Appeals Board
Peter Silva – for a term expiring June 30, 2027
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 20 Next Steps
Seats remain available on the Architectural Review Committee, Building and Housing Appeals Board, Disabled Access Appeals Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee, and Planning Commission, as highlighted in “Background,” above.

Applications will continue to be received on an ongoing basis until vacancies are filled, with priority review given to all applications received by February 24, 2023.

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. Application received from Peter Silva
e: Peter Silva
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, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 21 (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: 11875F3B-ADFD-4F7C-BC68-1B44E4D19731 Silva Peter
X
Architect
2340 Garden Road, Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 22 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: 11875F3B-ADFD-4F7C-BC68-1B44E4D19731 Peter Silva Licensed architect, State of California since 1989. California license # c20083 Chair and committee member, City of Monterey Architectural Review Board (2013-2019) Committee member, City of Santa Cruz Board of Building and Fire Appeals (2003-2013) Committee member, City of Monterey Building and Housing Appeals Board (pending) Docent, Fort Ross State Park
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 23 Name:
3 Are you employed by the City of Monterey? Yes No
Do you have any relatives who are employed by the City of Monterey? Yes No Initial to confirm that you understand and will comply with the following requirements:

All members of Boards and Commissions are subject to the conflict of interest laws of the State of California and are required to submit the Form 700, “Statement of Economic Interests,” within 30 days of assuming office, annually thereafter, and upon the completion of a member's term of office. More information is available at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Form700.html Members who are compensated for their service* or reimbursed for expenses undertaken in the performance of official duties shall take two hours of training in ethics principles and laws every two years as required by Government Code. The training shall occur, and a signed certificate of completion shall be filed with the City Clerk, within 30 calendar days of assuming office, and every two years thereafter. * NCIP and Measure P & S members receive no compensation.

Sign and date your application:

Signature: Date:

Full Name:

Return the application electronically, or by mail or personal delivery to:

A submitted application is a public record. It will be published (with signatures and personal contact information redacted) in the agendas for relevant meetings of the City Council. initial
initial
City of Monterey
Attn: City Clerk’s Office
580 Pacific St, Room 6
Monterey, CA 93940
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11875F3B-ADFD-4F7C-BC68-1B44E4D19731 X
Peter Silva
X
2/6/2023 | 1:35 PM PST
Peter Silva
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 24 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Renewing the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewing the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The public hearing will be held on February 21, 2023 on the renewal of the MCTID and the levy of assessments on lodging businesses, and if there is no majority protest, the district will be renewed, and the assessment levied.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None immediately. The City will continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey to cover its costs of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections should the MCTID be renewed. All direct costs relating to the MCTID renewal process incurred by the City of Monterey will be reimbursed by the Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau.

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 Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to hold the public meeting, which would stop the renewal process for the MCTID. Staff does not recommend this option.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is a benefit assessment district proposed to continue as a revenue source to help fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses in Monterey County. The MCTID is formed under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The five-year term of the MCTID is set to expire on December 31, 2023, and the required number of lodging business owners have submitted a written petition to renew the district. Pending successful renewal of the MCTID, the Owner’s Association will request to modify the current MCTID term to end early on June 30, 2023, with the renewed district beginning on July 1, 2023.

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

Tourism improvement districts have been used successfully throughout the state to enhance tourism marketing and drive additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses. The renewed MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside.

Lodging business owners decided to pursue renewal of the MCTID in order to continue a revenue source devoted to marketing Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and event destination. If renewed, the MCTID would generate an initial annual budget of approximately $8,856,266, increasing biennially as assessment rates increase, for the promotion of travel and tourism specific to Monterey County.

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

TID benefits include:
 Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs;  They are customized to fit the needs of each destination;  They allow for a wide range of services; including destination marketing, tourism promotion, and sales lead generation;
 They are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and
 They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 The key difference between TIDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TID.

Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment 5) includes the proposed boundary of the renewed MCTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance. The MCTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside. The cities of Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Sand City, and Soledad were originally intended to be part of the District, but have chosen not to be part of the MCTID. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones as described in the Plan.

The renewed MCTID would have a ten (10) year term, beginning on July 1, 2023.. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of district renewal, there is a 30-day period in which lodging business operators paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate proceedings to terminate the MCTID. Pending successful renewal of the MCTID, the MCCVB will request the term of the current MCTID to be modified to end six (6) months early on June 30, 2023, which will be brought to Council for consideration at the next Monterey City Council meeting.

The cities and County shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties, and interest) from each lodging business located within the boundaries of the MCTID. The cities and County shall make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The cities and County shall forward the assessments to Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), serving as the MCTID Owner’s Association, which will have the responsibility of managing MCTID programs as provided in the Management District Plan. The cities and the County may retain a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of the assessment collected within their respective jurisdictions to cover their costs of collection and administration.

The MCTID is funded through an assessment on lodging businesses based on room night stays in the lodging businesses and does not utilize City funding. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on:
stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 Current MCTID Assessment Rate Per Night:

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

Hotel Type Zone 1 Zone 2
Luxury $7.00 $7.50
Non-Luxury Full
Service
$4.50 $5.00
Limited Service $1.50 $2.00
MCTID Renewal Process
December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO RENEW (Completed - Attachment 1) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the lodging business owners in the renewed MCTID who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the City of Monterey City Council initiated proceedings to renew the MCTID by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to renew the MCTID.

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

December 20, 2022 RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSENT (Completed - Attachment 2) The City Council adopted a resolution requesting consent from the County of Monterey and cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad to be included in the renewed MCTID.

Consent must be received from the cities and County prior to the final public hearing for their jurisdiction to be included in the renewed MCTID.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 28 January 6, 2023 NOTICE (Completed)
Written notice was mailed to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the renewed MCTID.

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

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

Agendas will be published at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

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

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

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

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Adopted Resolution of Intention

3. Adopted Resolution Requesting Consent

4. Adopted Resolution Adopting Procedural Guidelines

5. MCTID Management District Plan
c: City Attorney
MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 29 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, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

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

DECLARING RESULTS OF MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AND RENEWING THE

MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID)
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 by Ordinance No. 3376. This district was disestablished on December 20, 2018 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3587;
WHEREAS, the existing MCTID was established effective January 1, 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-207 for a five (5) year term, which ends on December 31, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes the City to renew business improvement districts for the purposes of promoting tourism; and
WHEREAS, Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), lodging business owners, and representatives from the City of Monterey have met to consider the renewal of the MCTID; and WHEREAS, MCCVB has drafted a Management District Plan (Plan) which sets forth the proposed boundary of the MCTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance; and
WHEREAS, the renewed MCTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside; and WHEREAS, consent to include lodging businesses in their respective jurisdictions have been received from the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside; and
WHEREAS, lodging businesses who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessment under the MCTID have petitioned the City Council to renew the MCTID; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City of Monterey Council Chambers, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 22-168; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. at the City of Monterey Council Chambers, the City Council held a public meeting regarding the renewal of the MCTID, and the City Council heard and received objections and protests, if any, to the renewal of the MCTID and the levy of the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023 at 4:00pm at City of Monterey Council Chambers, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the renewal of the MCTID, and the City Council Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 31 2 heard and received all objections and protests, if any, to the renewal of the MCTID and the levy of the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, or his or her designee, has determined that there was no majority protest. A majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of businesses in the renewed MCTID which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each lodging business; and
WHEREAS, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an assessment imposed for a specific benefit or specific government service is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the costs to the City in providing the specific benefit or specific government service, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the specific benefits or specific government services received by the payor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The MCTID is hereby renewed for a ten (10) year term, beginning July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2033.

3. The Plan dated February 17, 2023 is hereby adopted and approved.

4. The activities to be provided to benefit businesses in the MCTID will be funded by the levy of the assessment. The revenue from the assessment levy shall not be used: to provide activities that directly benefit businesses outside the MCTID; to provide activities or improvements outside the MCTID; or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in this Resolution, the Resolution of Intention, and the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the MCTID boundaries to create a specific benefit to the assessed businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the MCTID.

5. The City Council finds as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 32 3 a) The activities funded by the assessment will provide a specific benefit to assessed businesses within the MCTID that is not provided to those not paying the assessment.
b) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. c) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
d) Assessments imposed pursuant to the MCTID are levied solely upon the assessed business, and the business owner is solely responsible for payment of the assessment when due. If the owner chooses to collect any portion of the assessment from a transient, that portion shall be specifically called out and identified for the transient in any and all communications from the business owner as the “MCTID Assessment” or “Tourism Assessment” as specified in the Plan.

6. The annual lodging business assessment rate shall be a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type as defined in the Plan. The initial annual assessment rate for Zone 1 is $7.00 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $4.50 per paid occupied room night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $1.50 per paid occupied room night for limited service lodging businesses. The initial annual assessment rate for Zone 2 is $7.50 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $5.00 per paid occupied room night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $2.00 per paid occupied room night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26 for both Zone 1 and Zone 2, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall remain static over the life of the district. The biennial assessment increase in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 (notwithstanding the static $0.50 rate in Zone 2), shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for nonluxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.

Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 33 4 employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.

7. The assessments levied for the MCTID shall be applied towards sales and marketing programs to market MCTID lodging businesses as tourist, meeting and event destinations, and other improvements and activities as set forth in the Plan.

8. Assessments levied on lodging businesses pursuant to this resolution shall be levied on the basis of benefit. Because the services provided are intended to increase room rentals, an assessment based on room rentals is the best measure of benefit.

9. The assessments for the entire MCTID will total approximately $8,856,266 in year one (1).

10. Bonds will not be issued to fund the MCTID.

11. The MCTID shall include all lodging business located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-bythe-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones. A boundary map, which includes both zones, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

12. The assessments shall be used for the purposes set forth above and any funds remaining at the end of any year may be used in subsequent years in which the MCTID assessment is levied as long as they are used consistent with the requirements set forth herein.

13. The assessments to fund the activities and improvements for the MCTID will be collected by the cities and County on a bi-monthly or quarterly basis, and in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36631.

14. The City Council, through adoption of this Resolution and the Plan, has the right pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the MCTID as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The City Council has determined that Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall be the MCTID Owners’ Association.

15. MCCVB, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650, shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvement and activities described in the report. The first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the MCTID.

15. The MCTID established pursuant to this resolution will be subject to any amendments to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (California Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.).

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 34 5 16. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to complete the establishment of the MCTID and to levy the assessments.

17. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on this___ day of________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 35 RESOLUTION NO. 22-168 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO RENEW THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM

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

ASSESSMENT ON LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT, AND FIXING

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

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

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 36 2 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26 for both Zone 1 and Zone 2, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 37 3 automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.

Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall remain static over the life of the district. The biennial assessment increase in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 (notwithstanding the static $0.50 rate in Zone 2), shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.

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

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

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

10. Bonds shall not be issued.

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

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

13. At the public meeting and hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the renewal of the MCTID may be received. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the renewed MCTID that will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the estimated total assessment of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 38 4 entire MCTID, no further proceedings to renew the MCTID shall occur for a period of one (1) year.

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on this 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

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

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 15, Packet Page 39

EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 16, Packet Page 40 RESOLUTION NO. 22-169 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
REQUESTING CONSENT OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND CITIES OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, KING CITY, MARINA, PACIFIC

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

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

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

Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2: Consent of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad, through their Board of Supervisors and City Councils, is hereby requested to create DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 17, Packet Page 41 2 the MCTID, and to grant to the City Council of the City of Monterey jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection with the creation, operation and future renewals of the proposed MCTID.

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

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

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

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 18, Packet Page 42 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 19, Packet Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. 22-170 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RENEWAL OF PROPERTY AND

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

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

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

SECTION 2: Protest Submittal.

A. Any business owner who is subject to a proposed assessment that is the subject of the hearing may submit a written or oral protest to the City Clerk, by:
 Personal delivery to the secure dropbox outside the Council Chamber at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey,
 Mail to City Clerk, 580 Pacific Street, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940, or DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 20, Packet Page 44  Personally submitting the protest in writing at the public meeting or public hearing or orally at the public hearing.

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

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

SECTION 3: Protest Requirements.

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4: Protest Withdrawal. Any person who submits a protest may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a written request that the protest be withdrawn at any time prior to DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 21, Packet Page 45 the close of the public hearing. The withdrawal of a protest shall contain sufficient information to identify the affected business, and the name of the record owner or business owner who submitted both the protest and the request that it be withdrawn.

SECTION 5: Transparency, Confidentiality, and Disclosure.

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

B. Once a protest is opened during the tabulation, it becomes a disclosable public record.

SECTION 6: City Clerk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 10: Report of Tabulation. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 22, Packet Page 46 Clerk determines that he or she will require additional time to tabulate the protests, he or she shall so advise the City Council, which may adjourn the meeting to allow the tabulation to be completed on another day or days. If so, the City Council shall declare the time and place of tabulation, which shall be conducted in a place where interested members of the public may observe the tabulation, and the City Council shall declare the time at which the meeting shall be resumed to receive and act on the tabulation report of the City Clerk.

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

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

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

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 23, Packet Page 47 2023-2033

MONTEREY COUNTY

TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
February 17, 2023 Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 24, Packet Page 48

CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................5 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................7 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES................................................................................9 A. Annual Service Plan ....................................................................................................9 B. Annual Assessment Budget........................................................................................11 C. California Constitutional Compliance ........................................................................12 D. Assessment................................................................................................................13 E. Penalties and Interest .................................................................................................14 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...........................................................15 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................16 A. Owners’ Association..................................................................................................16 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance........................................16 C. Annual Report ...........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................28 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE....................................................................................35 APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY ..............................................................................37 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 25, Packet Page 49 MCTID Management District Plan 3
February 17, 2023
I. OVERVIEW
Developed by the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is an assessment district which provides specific benefits to payors by funding group sales and services and marketing communications activities for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. The MCTID was initially created in 2006 pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 and was converted in 2019 pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 for a five (5) year term. MCCVB and Monterey County lodging businesses now wish to renew the MCTID for a ten (10) year term. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36620.5, the City of Monterey shall continue to act as the lead jurisdiction for renewing the MCTID. The City of Monterey shall continue to receive MCTID annual reports. Funds raised through the MCTID are meant to supplement the Jurisdiction Partnership investments so as to have a competitive budget and business plan.

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

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

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

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

Hotel Type Zone 1 Zone 2
Luxury $7.00 $7.50
Non-Luxury Full Service $4.50 $5.00
Limited Service $1.50 $2.00
Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 26, Packet Page 50 MCTID Management District Plan 4
February 17, 2023
MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 27, Packet Page 51 MCTID Management District Plan 5
February 17, 2023
II. BACKGROUND
A. Tourism Improvement District Overview
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TID laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TID. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TIDs without a state law.

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 28, Packet Page 52 MCTID Management District Plan 6
February 17, 2023
C. MCTID History and Partnerships with Jurisdictions
The history of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is one of partnership.

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

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

D. Looking Ahead
Market share, revenue, improved community connectivity
Focus Currently Investment in a Better Future
Sphere of Marketing
Reach
Primarily Regional paid media
advertiser
National Brand with paid media reach into
Midwest, East Coast – high value travelers
Meetings &
Conferences
Five-person sales team; primarily
focused on regional meetings;
limited booking incentive
Expand sales team; increase sales activities;
aggressive booking incentive; intensify focus
on corporate, incentive and Tour & Travel
Event Attraction &
Promotion
No proactive event attraction
effort; promotion limited to
social and PR (no paid media)
Dedicated program to attract advantageous
events; paid media support for select events
Transportation
Development
Tactical and reactive; lacking a
well-supported MCCVB/
Community strategy
Annual dedicated budget; strategically proactive
International Marketing One sales executive, limited coop (VCA, Brand USA) marketing Multi-country sales representation, significant
increase in direct sales and marketing
Luxury Initiative
Direct sales through involvement
with Virtuoso, ILTM, VCA;
limited marketing
Significant expansion (2-3X) of both sales and
marketing programs
Sustainable/Responsible
Travel
Consistent messaging through
unpaid (social & PR), limited
paid media; implementation of
See Monterey app
On-going paid media campaign; support shuttle
programs/promotion; in-market
collateral/signage;
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 29, Packet Page 53 MCTID Management District Plan 7
February 17, 2023
III. BOUNDARY
The renewed MCTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside.

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

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

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

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

Zone 1: Includes the unincorporated area of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Seaside.

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 30, Packet Page 54 MCTID Management District Plan 8
February 17, 2023
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 31, Packet Page 55 MCTID Management District Plan 9
February 17, 2023
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds shall be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of Monterey of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the MCTID funds are group business development and marketing communications activities available only to assessed lodging businesses. The assessment rate for each hotel type will be commensurate with privileges and services provided to assessed businesses in each hotel type as detailed in Appendix 4.

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

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

Each assessment budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the marketing communications assessment budget includes the cost of MCCVB staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the marketing communications program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the assessment budget. The costs of Marketing
Communications,
$3,985,320 , 45%
Group Business Development,
$3,152,831 , 35.6%
Contingency Reserve,
$885,627 , 10%
City/County
Administration Fee,
$88,563 , 1%
Administration & Operations,
$619,939 , 7%
Salinas Visitor Services,
$123,988 , 1.4%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget - $8,856,266
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 32, Packet Page 56 MCTID Management District Plan 10
February 17, 2023
an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple assessment budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below shall be determined by the MCCVB on an as-needed basis.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 33, Packet Page 57 MCTID Management District Plan 11
February 17, 2023
Salinas Visitor Services
The Salinas Visitor Services portion of the assessment budget shall be utilized for funding visitor services activities for the benefit of generating overnight visitation and room night stays at Zone 2 lodging businesses. The Salinas Visitor Services program will provide visitors with brochures, maps, and information regarding local events. The Salinas Visitor Services assessment budget shall be the amount collected annually from the additional $0.50 assessment in Zone 2.

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 34, Packet Page 58 MCTID Management District Plan 12
February 17, 2023
Estimated Annual Assessment Budget
Fiscal
Year
Marketing
Comm.

Group Bus.

Devel.

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

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

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

The assessment imposed by this MCTID is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is the generation of room night sales. The specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses shall be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with MCTID activities promoting lodging businesses paying the MCTID assessment. The MCTID activities will be designed to generate room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the MCTID activities that specifically benefit the assessed lodging 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 35, Packet Page 59 MCTID Management District Plan 13
February 17, 2023
businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

D. Assessment
The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall not be increased over the life of the district. The biennial assessment 3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 36, Packet Page 60 MCTID Management District Plan 14
February 17, 2023
increase shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty. The assessment increase schedule is illustrated in the table below.

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

Bonds shall not be issued.

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

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

2. Continued Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any delinquent assessment on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the assessment first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 37, Packet Page 61 MCTID Management District Plan 15
February 17, 2023
assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten percent (10%) penalty first imposed.

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 38, Packet Page 62 MCTID Management District Plan 16
February 17, 2023
V. GOVERNANCE
A. Owners’ Association
The Monterey City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the MCTID as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board’s TID Committee shall continue to have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds. The TID Committee shall be comprised solely of assessed lodging business representatives. The number of seats on the TID Committee from each MCTID jurisdiction shall reflect the proportional assessment revenue derived from each MCTID jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the City of Salinas shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of funds raised by the additional $0.50 assessment rate on all lodging business types in Zone 2.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 39, Packet Page 63 MCTID Management District Plan 17
February 17, 2023
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2023 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2022 LEGISLATION)

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

Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 40, Packet Page 64 MCTID Management District Plan 18
February 17, 2023
incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 41, Packet Page 65 MCTID Management District Plan 19
February 17, 2023
36608. “City”
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council”
“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk”
“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.
36609.5. “General benefit”
“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.
36610. “Improvement”
“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.
36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”
“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association”
“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district.
36614. “Property”
“Property” means real property situated within a district.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 42, Packet Page 66 MCTID Management District Plan 20
February 17, 2023
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”
“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”
“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”
“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit”
(a) “Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
(b) “Special benefit” also includes, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit provided directly to each assessed parcel within the district. Merely because parcels throughout an assessment district share the same special benefits does not make the benefits general. 36616. “Tenant”
“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

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

CHAPTER 2. Establishment
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 43, Packet Page 67 MCTID Management District Plan 21
February 17, 2023
A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city.
36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.

The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan
The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the estimated cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 44, Packet Page 68 MCTID Management District Plan 22
February 17, 2023
statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against their property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k)
(1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (3) In a property-based district, properties throughout the district may share the same special benefits. In a district with boundaries that define which parcels are to receive improvements, maintenance, or activities over and above those services provided by the city, the improvements, maintenance, or activities themselves may constitute a special benefit. The city may impose assessments that are less than the proportional special benefit conferred, but shall not impose assessments that exceed the reasonable costs of the proportional special benefit conferred. Because one or more parcels pay less than the special benefit conferred does not necessarily mean that other parcels are assessed more than the reasonable cost of their special benefit. (l) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (m) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment
(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 45, Packet Page 69 MCTID Management District Plan 23
February 17, 2023
public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners.
36624. Changes to proposed assessments
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation
(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 46, Packet Page 70 MCTID Management District Plan 24
February 17, 2023
(7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36627. Notice and assessment diagram
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3. Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 47, Packet Page 71 MCTID Management District Plan 25
February 17, 2023
(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part.
36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan
The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention (a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627.

CHAPTER 3.5. Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 48, Packet Page 72 MCTID Management District Plan 26
February 17, 2023
(a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part.
(b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.

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

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

CHAPTER 5. Renewal
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 49, Packet Page 73 MCTID Management District Plan 27
February 17, 2023
36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 50, Packet Page 74 MCTID Management District Plan 28
February 17, 2023
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Business Address City/State/Zip Type
ABV Presidents Inn MUNRAS MTY 1150 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Adams Motel/Boronda Inn 2086 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited ADOBE INN 1919 GRAND CANAL BL.#B5 STOCKTON CA 95207 Full Aloha Motel 235 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited
ANDRIL MOTEL & COTTAGES 569 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited ARAMARK Sports & Entertainment 800 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3704 Limited AUBERGE CARMEL PO BOX J CARMEL CA 93921 Luxury
BAYSIDE INN 2055 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BEACHCOMBER INN 1996 SUNSET DR PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3787 Limited Bernardus Lodge 415 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9417 Luxury Best 5 Motel/Lakshmi Hotel Group 1010 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN DE ANZA INN 2141 NORTH FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Marina State Beach 3290 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited BEST WESTERN MONTEREY INN 825 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Salinas
Monterey/Western Hotel Corp 175 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Best Western Salinas Valley Inn 187 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN INN AND SUITES 4258 CESAR CHAVEZ ST San Francisco, CA 94131-1815 Limited BEST WESTERN-PARK CREST 1100 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BIDE A WEE INN AND COTTAGES 221 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2093 Limited Big Sur Campground & Cabins 47000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Big Sur Lodge 47225 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Full Big Sur River Inn 46800 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9693 Full

BLU PACIFIC HOTEL (FORMERLY
COMFORT INN-MTY BAY) 2050 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Blue Sky Lodge 10 FLIGHT RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9617 Limited BORGS MOTEL 1315 SKYVIEW DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010-6236 Limited Budget Inn Motel/BMN LLC 219 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited BUTTERFLY GROVE INN 1073 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2357 Limited Cabana Holiday 8710 Prunedale North Rd SALINAS, CA 93907-1371 Limited California Inn Motel 736 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CANDLE BAY INN 2118 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CANDLELIGHT INN P.O. Box 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CANNERY ROW INN 200 FOAM ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Capitol Motel/Jainika Corporation 2110 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Captain's Inn At Moss Landing 8122 MOSS LANDING RD Moss Landing, CA 95039-9617 Limited CARMEL BAY VIEW INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95825 Limited CARMEL COTTAGE INN PO BOX 5805 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL COUNTRY INN PO BOX 3756 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL FIREPLACE INN INC. P.O. BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL GARDEN INN PO BOX 5547 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL GREEN LANTERN INN PO BOX 1114 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 51, Packet Page 75 MCTID Management District Plan 29
February 17, 2023
CARMEL INN & SUITES P.O. BOX 1295 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL LODGE P.O.BOX 4235 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Carmel Mission Inn 3665 RIO RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8609 Full CARMEL OAKS INN P.O. BOX 3696 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL RESORT INN P.O. BOX 2106 MONTEREY CA 93942 Limited Carmel River Inn 26600 OLIVER RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9219 Limited CARMEL TRADEWINDS INN P. O. BOX 3403 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Carmel Valley Lodge 8 FORD RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9511 Limited Carmel Valley Manor 8545 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9556 Full Carmel Valley Ranch 1 OLD RANCH RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8551 Luxury CARMEL WAYFARER INN P.O. BOX 1896 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL'S TOWN HOUSE LODGE P.O. BOX 3574 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARRIAGE HOUSE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Casa Linda Motel 1109 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CASA MUNRAS HOTEL 700 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Casa Palmero 1518 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury CASA VERDE INN 2113 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CENTRELLA INN 612 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2611 Limited Ciudad Del Rey Motel 50620 Mesa Verde Rd King City, CA 93930 Limited CLARION HOTEL 1046 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COACHMAN'S INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY CA 93940 Limited
COLTON INN 707 PACIFIC ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
COMFORT INN 140 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2522 Limited Comfort Inn & Suites/Shakti LLC 181 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Comfort Inn Monterey Airport 1200 OLMSTED RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COMFORT INN-CARMEL BY THE SEA P.O. BOX 3838 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Contenta Inn 20 VIA CONTENTA Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9501 Limited Continental Motel 1165 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited COUNTRY INN & SUITES 3288 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Country Inn/Meldi Inc 126 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Courtyard Salinas 17225 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CYPRESS INN P.O. Box Y CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Days Inn 1130 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited
DAYS INN 1288 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
DAYS INN - SAN CARLOS 850 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited DEER HAVEN INN 750 CROCKER AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3727 Limited Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 48865 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9512 Full Discovery Inn 1106 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited

ECONO LODGE (MONTEREY
FAIRGROUNDS INN) 2042 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited EconoLodge Bay Breeze Inn 2049 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Economy Inn 214 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Economy Inn 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 52, Packet Page 76 MCTID Management District Plan 30
February 17, 2023
EL CASTELL MOTEL 2102 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited El Dorado Motel/Café Main Street 1351 N. Main Salinas, CA 93906 Limited El Rey Motel 443 W. Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited El Sombrero Motel/Ramesh J. Patel 210 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Embassy Suites 1441 Canyon Del Rey Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Full Esalen Institute 55000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9546 Full Fairview Inn 1060 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Fernwood Resort 47200 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Limited FOREST LODGE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Gateway Lodge 1909 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Glen Oaks Big Sur 47080 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Gorda Cabin Rental 7801 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Limited GOSBY HOUSE INN 643 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2691 Limited GREEN GABLES INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY, CA 93942-3080 Limited H.I. Resort Condominium Assoc, Inc 120 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Full Hacienda House 505 CORRAL DE TIERRA RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8950 Limited HAMPTON INN 17777 Center Court Dr. #725 MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Hampton Inn & Suites/Salinas Hotel
Investors 523 Work St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
HAMPTON INN (formerly LaQuinta) 2401 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HHLP SANCTUARY ASSOCIATES 3295 DUNES RD MARINA, CA 93933-2002 Full Hidden Valley Inn 102 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9573 Limited Highlands Inn 140 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Limited HILTON GARDEN INN 1000 AGUAJITO RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full HOFSAS HOUSE INC. P.O. BOX 1195 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Holiday Inn Express 1400 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 443 WAVE STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites 195 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Marina 189 SEASIDE AVE MARINA, CA 93933-2505 Limited
Holman Ranch, LLC 60 HOLMAN RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9620 Limited HOME 2 SUITES 1534 Fremont Blvd Suite D MARINA, CA 93933 Limited HORIZON INN P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
HOTEL 1110 1110 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOTEL ABREGO 755 ABREGO ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
HOTEL CARMEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Limited HOTEL PACIFIC 300 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOWARD JOHNSON 416 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited Howard Johnson Inn/Ambakari, Inc 131 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited HYATT REGENCY MONTEREY ONE OLD GOLF COURSE RD. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full IHG ARMY POM Presidio of Monterey MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Inn At Moss Landing Point 8425 MOSS LANDING RD D Moss Landing, CA 95039-9679 Limited Inn At Spanish Bay, Attn: David
Hoopingarner 2700 17 MILE DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury Inn at the Pinnacles 32025 Stonewall Canyon Rd Soledad, CA 93960 Limited ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 53, Packet Page 77 MCTID Management District Plan 31
February 17, 2023
INN BY THE BAY MONTEREY 936 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Inns of California 1215 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited INTERCONTINENTAL – The Clement 750 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full JABBERWOCK 598 LAINE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
LA PLAYA HOTEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Luxury LAGUNA LODGE 430 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited LAMPLIGHTER INN PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Laurel Inn 801 W. Laurel Dr. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
Lincoln Green Inn 26200 CARMELO ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9134 Limited LOBOS LODGE P.O. Box L-1 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
LONE OAK MOTEL 2221 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Los Laureles Lodge 313 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9415 Full LOVERS POINT INN 9600 Blue Larkspur Ln Ste 101 MONTEREY, CA 93940-6585 Limited Lucia Lodge 62400 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9533 Limited MARIPOSA INN 1386 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MARRIOTT SPRINGHILL SUITES 215 10TH ST MARINA, CA 93933-6004 Limited MARTINE INN PO BOX 330 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0321 Limited MERRITT HOUSE 386 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Mission Ranch 26270 DOLORES ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9218 Full MONARCH RESORT 1111 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited MONTE VERDE INN PO BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
MONTE VERDE INN EAST P.O.BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited MONTEREY BAY INN 242 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY BAY LODGE 55 CAMINO AGUAJITO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIREPLACE INN 2362 N. Fremont MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIRESIDE MOTEL 1131 TENTH ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOSTEL 778 HAWTHORNE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOTEL 406 ALVARADO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
MONTEREY MARRIOTT 350 CALLE PRINCIPAL MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MONTEREY OCEANSIDE INN 2030 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PENINSULA INN 1101 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited Monterey Pines Inn 1298 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PLAZA 400 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
MONTEREY SURF INN 1200 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY TIDES HOTEL 2600 SAND DUNES DRIVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MOTEL 6 2124 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Motel 6 #0639/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 1257 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited MOTEL 6 #1026 100 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2517 Limited Motel 6 #1370/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 140 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
MOTEL 6 MONTEREY DOWNTOWN 1240 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Mountain Paradise 17717 CACHAGUA RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9319 Limited MUNRAS INN 1010 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
NORMANDY INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95925 Limited ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 54, Packet Page 78 MCTID Management District Plan 32
February 17, 2023
OCEAN VIEW LODGE P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited OCM LIGHTHOUSE LODGE LLC 1150 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2360 Limited OLD MARINA INN 3110 DEL MONTE BLVD MARINA, CA 93933-3049 Limited OLD MONTEREY INN 500 MARTIN STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited OLD SAINT ANGELA INN 321 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2934 Limited OLYMPIA MOTOR LODGE PO BOX 51907 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-6907 Limited Pacific Best Inn 1141 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited PACIFIC GARDENS INN 701 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited PACIFIC GROVE INN PO BOX 2106 MONTEREY, CA 93942-2215 Limited PACIFIC GROVE PLAZA PO BOX 476 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0476 Limited PACIFIC INN MONTEREY 2332 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited PADRE OAKS MOTEL 1278 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pal Rest Easy LLC 196 Infantry RD Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928 Limited Parkfield Inn 70403 PARKFIELD RD SAN MIGUEL, CA 93451 Limited PELICAN INN 2058 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pessagno Winery 1645 RIVER RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8751 Limited PINE ACRES LODGE 1380 LEAD HILL BLVD 201 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661-2997 Limited PINE INN P.O. Box 250 CARMEL CA 93921 Full
PORTOLA HOTEL & SPA 2 PORTOLA PLAZA MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Post Ranch Inn 47900 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9576 Luxury Prunedale Motor Lodge 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Prunedale Motor Lodge Cabins 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Quail Lodge And Golf Club 8205 VALLEY GREENS DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9512 Luxury QUALITY INN - FAIRGROUNDS 2075 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited QUALITY INN - MUNRAS (Arbor Inn) 1058 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Quality Inn/Om Namah 144 Kern St Salinas, CA 93905 Limited RAMADA INN 323 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3218 Limited RAMADA LTD. CARMEL HILL 1182 CASS STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited

RED LION INN (FORMERLY BAY
PARK HOTEL) 1425 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
RED ROOF INN 2227 N FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Residence Inn Salinas 17215 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited Rex Motel/Parshottambhai M Ahir 305 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Ripplewood Resort 47047 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Full Riverside Campground 47020 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited RODEWAY INN 2041 FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Rodeway Inn (Formerly Knights Inn) 1374 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited ROSEDALE INN 4781 SAN LUCAS WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95135-2345 Limited Salinas Travel Inn/MJ Nahal Inc 425 Monterey St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Salinas Valley Motel/Aatray Hotels,
Inc/BAPS LLC 2100 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sand Castle Inn 1011 La Salle Ave. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sand Dollar Inn (formerly Magic
Carpet Inn) 1875 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sandpiper Inn 2408 BAY VIEW AVE CARMEL, CA 93923-9118 Limited ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 55, Packet Page 79 MCTID Management District Plan 33
February 17, 2023
SEA VIEW INN 35 W.POPLAR AV. SAN MATEO CA 94402 Limited SeaLamp Inn 2201 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Seaside Inn 1986 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SEVEN GABLES INN 301 N CANON DR STE 302 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210-4724 Limited SPINDRIFT INN 652 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
STAGE COACH LODGE 1111 10 ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Steinbeck Lodge/Travelodge/J S Inc 109 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited STONEHOUSE INN 5130 COMMERCIAL CIRCLE CONCORD CA 94520 Limited Stonepine Estate Resort 150 E CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9605 Full SUNSET HOUSE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
SUNSET INN 133 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2094 Limited SUPER 8 - FREMONT 2120 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited SUPER 8 - MUNRAS 1300 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Super 8/Ram Hotels LLC 131 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sure Stay Hotel 1893 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SVENDSGAARD'S INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
TALLY HO INN P.O. Box 3726 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Tehama Golf Club, LLC 25000 Via Malpaso Canada
Woods CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN II PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited THE COLONIAL TERRACE P.O. BOX 1375 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited The Holly Farm 9200 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9574 Limited THE HOMESTEAD 26270 DOLORES ST. CARMEL CA 93923 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1252 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1262 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Lodge At Pebble Beach Attn:

David Hoopingarner 1500 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury THE SEA BREEZE INN 1100 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2362 Limited THE STEVENSON MONTEREY 675 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited THE VAGABOND'S HOUSE PO BOX 2747 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Thunderbird Motel 1933 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Tickle Pink Motor Inn 155 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9601 Limited TRAVELODGE - FAIRGROUNDS 2030 N. FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Treebones Resort 71895 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9573 Limited Vendange Carmel Inn & Suites 24815 CARPENTER ST CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited Ventana Big Sur 48123 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9538 Luxury VICTORIAN INN 487 FOAM STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited

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

WAVE STREET INN (PREVIOUSLY
OTTER INN) 571 WAVE ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
WAYSIDE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 56, Packet Page 80 MCTID Management District Plan 34
February 17, 2023
Western Motel/Western Skylodge
LLC 6 S. Wood St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
WILKIES INN 1038 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2424 Limited Willow Lodge 719 S. Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Zen Mtn Center/Tassajar Springs
C/O Ccao Controlle 39171 TASSAJARA RD CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924-9316 Limited *List as of October 2022
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 57, Packet Page 81 MCTID Management District Plan 35
February 17, 2023
APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE
PROGRAMS / ACTIVITIES Luxury
NonLuxury
Full
Service
Limited
Service
General: Inclusion in Sales, Marketing, and Promotional Opportunities* X X X General: Listing on www.SeeMonterey.com with direct link to hotel page X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Online travel planning app X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Consumer Brochures X X X General: Access to SeeMonterey research reports and insights X X X General: Represented by SeeMonterey at industry conferences & events X X X Consumer: Opportunity to participate in Consumer Marketing Campaigns X X X Consumer: Public Relations participation opportunities X X X Consumer: Familiarization Tour (Press & Influencer) Opportunities X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Social Media Efforts X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Destination Video & Photo Shoots X X X Consumer: New project & special event opportunities X X X Travel Trade: Trade Show Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Sales Mission Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Lead Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Familiarization Tour Leads (Press & Travel Trade) Opportunities X X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Mention) X X X
Meetings/Group: Familiarization Tours X X
Meetings/Group: Tradeshow Participation X X
Meetings/Group: Site Inspections X X
Meetings/Group: Marketing Campaigns X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Full Page) X X
Inclusion in SeeMonterey destination partnership with Virtuoso Network X ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 58, Packet Page 82 MCTID Management District Plan 36
February 17, 2023
Representation a luxury travel conferences (e.g. ILTM) X Representation at VCA luxury travel week X
Featured in Luxury Advertising Campaign X
Featured in Luxury Public Relations Campaign X
* Each property that meets the minimum criteria of the client, journalist, or meeting planner will be promoted.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 59, Packet Page 83 MCTID Management District Plan 37
February 17, 2023
APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 60, Packet Page 84 2 Introduction
Monterey visitor economy: overview and trends
MCCVB performance
Growing the visitor economy
Competitive funding analysis
Impact of TID funding on Monterey’s economy
Appendix 1: The impact of TIDs
Appendix 2: The ROI of destination marketing
1 2
3 4
5 6

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 61, Packet Page 85 1 Introduction
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 62, Packet Page 86 4 In 2019, visitors to Monterey County spent a total of $3.2 billion locally and booked 3.1 million rooms. Total visitor spending increased 43% from 2011 to 2019. The revenue generated by the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (TID) and the work performed by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) is a major factor in this accelerated growth.

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

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

Introduction
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 63, Packet Page 87 5 In 2019, visitors spent
$3.2 billion in Monterey
County, supporting
40,480 jobs and $2.1
billion in local income
(including direct,
indirect, and induced
impacts).

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 64, Packet Page 88 Monterey Visitor Economy: 2 Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 65, Packet Page 89 7 Importance of the visitor economy
Visitors to Monterey County spent $3.2 billion in 2019. Most of this spending accrued to the accommodations and food services sectors.

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

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

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

Overview and Trends
Total visitor spending $3,241
Accommodations $879
Food Service $967
Food Stores $78
Local Tran. & Gas $267
Arts, Ent. & Rec. $394
Retail Sales $520
Visitor Air Tran. $24
Other $112
Total Earnings** $2,161
Direct earning $1,420
Total jobs** 40,480
Direct jobs 27,160
Total S&L taxes** $398
Direct S&L taxes $298
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 66, Packet Page 90 8 Trends in the visitor economy
Meanwhile earning and jobs increased 65% and 32%, respectively.

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 67, Packet Page 91 9 Hotel sector KPIs
From FY2016-2019, ADR grew from $192 to $224, a 17% increase over three years
RevPAR grew to $164 from $137, a 20% increase.

Hotel occupancy increased to 73% from 71%.

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

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

Overview and Trends
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Occupancy (right axis)
ADR (left axis)
RePAR (left axis)
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 68, Packet Page 92 10 Visitor spending share
In 2019, Monterey County accounted for 34.7% of all spending in the Central Coast region, up from 32.5% in 2011. This increase of 2.2% may seem small; but given that visitors spent $9.4 billion dollars in the region in 2019, the 2.2% increase represents an additional $202 million in visitor spending injected into Monterey’s economy.

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

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

31.0%

31.5%

32.0%

32.5%

33.0%

33.5%

34.0%

34.5%

35.0%

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 69, Packet Page 93 11 Visitor spending comparisons
Monterey County outpaced three of four nearby leisure-oriented counties from 2011-2019, including Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.

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

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 70, Packet Page 94 12 Tourism employment growth comparisons
Direct employment in Monterey County reached 27,160 in 2019, up from 20,510 in 2011. This represents an increase of 32% over that time period, which is slightly faster than growth in the state and region.

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

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 71, Packet Page 95 13 Hotel sector growth comparisons
Hotel room revenue in Monterey outpaced 10 competing destinations and grew almost 8% faster than the state.

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

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

17.8%

17.6%

11.8%

10.3%

10.2%

10.0%

9.4%

8.8%

8.3%

7.1%

6.6%

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 72, Packet Page 96 14 Visitor spending comparisons
While Monterey’s strong performance is notable over the entire decade, the county achieved particularly robust growth in the later half of the decade.

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

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

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

Overview and Trends
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 73, Packet Page 97 3 MCCVB Performance
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 74, Packet Page 98 16 Advertising ROI
In the first half of FY2022, media campaigns run by the MCCVB generated awareness of Monterey County as a tourism destination in 4.2 million households in both drive and fly markets. These newly aware households made 115,261 trips to Monterey County and spent $136.8 million locally.

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

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

MCCVB advertising performance by market type, mid-year FY2022 Source: SMARI
MCCVB Performance
Drive Fly Total
Aware households created 2,500,000 1,700,000 4,200,000
Influenced trips to Monterey 45,857 69,404 115,261
Influenced visitor spending (millions) $44.0 $92.8 $136.8 Ad spending (millions) $0.7 $1.1 $1.8
ROI 62-to-1 84-to-1 75-to-1
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 75, Packet Page 99 17 Group sales performance
The sales teams booked 255 events in FY2019, up from 250 in FY2016.

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

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

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

MCCVB Performance
MCCVB group sales
Rooms booked
Source: MCCVB
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2016 2017 2018 2019
Rooms
Events
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 76, Packet Page 100 18 Group sales return on investment
The events booked by the MCCVB sales team resulted in 96,800 total room sales and $44 million in visitor spending. This provided an ROI of 14-to-1 when measured against their $3.1 million budget.

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

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

Total event rooms* 96,800
Spending per room** $455
Total Spending (millions) $44.0
Sales and group services expenses (millions) $3.1
Group sales ROI 14-to-1
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 77, Packet Page 101 19 Group sales and seasonality
While group sales* remain low in November and December, they create a substantial boost in the shoulder months of Jan.-Apr. and Sep.-Oct. when transient (i.e., not group or contract) room bookings are lower. *As reported by STR, which includes additional rooms beyond what the MCCVB books.

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

MCCVB Performance
Seasonality of room bookings in Monterey County, 2018
Monthly share of annual rooms
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Transient rooms
Group rooms
Source: STR
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 78, Packet Page 102 4 Growing the Visitor Economy
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 79, Packet Page 103 21 Overcoming supply constraints
This section reviews ways to increase the economic impact of tourism given current supply constraints
While a 73% occupancy rate may leave an impression that there are numerous available rooms, this is close to full capacity for a leisure destination. It is rare to see non-urban destinations (cities fill weekdays and ‘low’ seasons with business travelers) maintain annual occupancy rates above 75%.

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

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

Growing the Visitor Economy
Occupancy rate in Monterey County and competing destinations, FY2019 Source: STR
82%
78%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
72%
71%
70%
68%
62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
San Francisco/San Mateo
San Diego
California
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County
Monterey County
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Laguna Beach,
Napa Valley
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
South Lake Tahoe
Palm Springs
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 80, Packet Page 104 22 Importance of visitor value
To maximize the value of each visitor, the MCCVB can concentrate on the domestic-fly and overseas markets. The domestic-fly market spends 42% more than the drive market, and the overseas* market spends 192% more than the domestic drive market.
*The overseas spending estimate is a statewide average that comes from Tourism Economics’ International State Travel database and includes data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel. This includes spending in California, but not spending on travel to the US.

Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per trip.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per trip by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per trip
*California figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 $959
$1,364
$2,799
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Overseas*
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 81, Packet Page 105 23 Importance of visitor value
Compared to the domestic drive market, the domestic fly market spends 31% more per night, the business conference market spends 158% more, and the overseas* market spends 190% more.
*The overseas origin market estimate uses San Jose data, the closest available data point, and comes from Tourism Economics’ Global City Travel database. This uses data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel.

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

Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per night.

Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per night by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per night
*San Jose figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 ** Includes spending by the event organizer.
$153
$201
$455
$561
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Business conference**
Overseas*
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 82, Packet Page 106 24 Boosting the low season
While Monterey’s 73% annual occupancy rate is quite high for a non-urban leisure destination, MCCVB can realize the opportunity to increase lowseason bookings.

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

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

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

Rooms booked Occupancy rate Potential new bookings*
Jan 214,000 56% 93,000
Feb 215,000 64% 53,000
Mar 253,000 68% 44,000
Apr 277,000 75% 18,000
May 290,000 76% --
Jun 302,000 82% --
Jul 319,000 84% --
Aug 317,000 83% --
Sep 291,000 79% --
Oct 295,000 77% --
Nov 248,000 67% 49,000
Dec 210,000 55% 97,000
Total 3,231,000 354,000
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 83, Packet Page 107 5 Competitive Funding Analysis
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 84, Packet Page 108 26 TID overview
Full-service hotels are assessed $2.00 and other hotels are assessed $1.00. In FY2019, the TID (tourism improvement district) generated $4.2 million of funding dedicated for tourism promotion through the MCCVB and represented the largest source of funding for tourism promotion in the county.

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

Competitive Funding Analysis
Monterey hotel sector and TID details by scale, FY2019
Source: MCCVB, STR
ADR Room revenue % of Revenue
Current Avg TID per
Room Assumption
Current TID
Contribution
Contribution % of
Total TID
Luxury $455 $294,000,000 41% $2.00 $1,293,000 31%
Upper Upscale $229 $134,000,000 19% $1.50 $875,000 21%
Upscale $180 $48,000,000 7% $1.25 $333,000 8%
Upper Midscale $185 $75,000,000 10% $1.15 $468,000 11%
Midscale $179 $39,000,000 5% $1.00 $218,000 5%
Economy $132 $133,000,000 18% $1.00 $1,013,000 24%
Total $231 $724,000,000 100% $0.00 $4,201,000 100%
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 85, Packet Page 109 27 TID rate comparison
This set includes the MCCVB’s competitive set and additional DMOs that disclosed their assessment rate to Destinations International (DI).

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

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

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

4.0%

3.0%

2.9%

2.3%

2.1%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.6%
0% 2% 4% 6%
Stockton
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Pasadena
San Francisco
Average
Anaheim
Portland
Sonoma County
Napa Valley
San Diego
Orange County
Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo
Mendocino County
Monterey County
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 86, Packet Page 110 28 Napa County, CA
Monterey
County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Sonoma
County, CA
Stockton, CA
Ventura,
CA
San Luis
Obispo, CA***
Huntington
Beach, CA
Palm Springs,
CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Newport,
CA
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Thousands
Competitive funding analysis
This analysis compares destinations’ DMO budgets relative to the size of the local tourism sector (as measured by hotel room inventory). This analysis shows that Monterey County tourism promotion is underfunded compared to the line of best fit (the dotted line).

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

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

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

Hotel rooms and DMO revenue in competing destinations, pre-pandemic* DMO budget, millions
Competitive
funding line
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 87, Packet Page 111 29 Competitive funding analysis
Examining the same data as the prior slide, we see that Monterey County provides $630 of tourism promotion spending for every hotel room, 38% below the set average.

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

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

Tourism promotion funding per room in select destinations, pre-pandemic $2,000
$1,536
$1,328
$1,310
$1,031
$1,012
$865
$687
$634
$630
$624
$484
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Huntington Beach, CA
Napa County, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Average
Newport, CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Ventura, CA
Monterey County, CA
Stockton, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA**
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 88, Packet Page 112 Impact of TID Funding on the 6 Monterey Economy
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 89, Packet Page 113 31 Importance of visitor value
Increasing or decreasing the TID assessment rate would do little to change Monterey’s price competitiveness amongst its main competitors. Economically, elimination of the TID is unlikely to produce any positive benefit on room demand. Tourism Economics modeling on behalf of STR has consistently found hotel room demand to be highly inelastic at the market level. That is, while an individual property may gain or lose share within a market based on price, a market-wide shift in rate has no appreciable impact on room demand.

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

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

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

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

Average room rate in Monterey and competitors, FY2019*
$353
$333
$251
$226
$224
$200
$199
$181
$172
$171
$169
$131
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
Laguna Beach
Napa County
San Francisco/San Mateo
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Monterey County
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County,
Palm Springs
California
San Diego
South Lake Tahoe
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 90, Packet Page 114 32 Importance of visitor value
Based on prior calculations of paid media and group sales ROIs, we estimate that the MCCVB has an organizational ROI of 47-to-1 (i.e., one dollar of MCCVB funding generates $47 of visitor spending).

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

Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
MCCVB organizational ROI calculations
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Value Source / calculation
Paid media ROI on visitor spending 75-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Paid Media expenses share of total DMO budget 56% MCCVB Group Sales ROI on visitor spending 14-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Group sales share of total DMO budget 33% MCCVB
Organization ROI on visitor spending 47-to-1 (75 * 61%) + (14 * 33%) ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 91, Packet Page 115 33 Scenario development
Here we evaluate the impact of changes to the TID structure via three scenarios. In the Baseline Scenario the TID structure remains the same, in the TID elimination scenario the TID is removed, and in the Alternative TID Scenario the TID structure is changed to a three-tiered flat assessment that begins at $1.50 for limited-service hotels, $4.50 for full-service hotels, and $7.00 for luxury properties with biennial escalators.

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 92, Packet Page 116 34 '19-'32
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Growth Spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 17% Earnings $1,387 $1,239 $991 $1,179 $1,405 $1,418 $1,431 $1,445 $1,473 $1,487 $1,501 $1,515 $1,529 $1,543 10% Jobs 26,895 23,765 19,342 24,226 28,431 28,265 28,100 27,936 28,053 27,890 27,727 27,565 27,404 27,244 2% Local taxes $168 $130 $114 $143 $172 $175 $178 $182 $186 $190 $193 $196 $200 $204 19% Sales tax $72 $58 $50 $63 $75 $76 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $83 $83 $84 15% TOT $71 $53 $47 $60 $72 $74 $76 $78 $80 $82 $84 $86 $88 $90 23% State taxes $142 $109 $96 $115 $143 $147 $153 $156 $159 $162 $164 $166 $169 $171 19% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Spending 100 79 69 86 103 105 106 108 111 112 114 115 117 119 Earnings 100 89 71 85 101 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 Jobs 100 88 72 90 106 105 104 104 104 104 103 102 102 101 Local taxes 100 78 68 85 103 105 106 108 111 113 115 117 119 121 Sales tax 100 81 70 87 104 105 106 108 110 111 113 114 115 117 TOT 100 75 66 84 101 104 106 109 112 115 117 120 123 126 State taxes 100 77 68 81 101 104 108 110 113 114 116 118 119 121 Baseline Scenario forecast
In our Baseline Scenario, visitor spending grows to $3.8 billion in FY2032**.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario*
Dollar figures in millions
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
*Fiscal years
**Based on MCCVB projections of hotel revenue
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario
Index, (FY2019=100)
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 93, Packet Page 117 35 TID Elimination scenario
The TID Elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, TID Elimination Scenario Dollar figures in millions
Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
These spending losses result in losses of $939 million in earnings, $120 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,759 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total losses Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Lost TID Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,221 $3,192 $3,157 $3,201 $3,280 $3,325 $3,370 $3,416 $3,463 $3,510 -- Lost spending -- -- -- -- $73 $150 $233 $239 $245 $251 $257 $263 $270 $277 $2,259 Lost earnings -- -- -- -- $31 $64 $98 $100 $102 $104 $106 $108 $111 $113 $939 Lost jobs* -- -- -- -- 633 1,270 1,933 1,941 1,949 1,957 1,966 1,974 1,982 1,990 1,759 Lost local taxes -- -- -- -- $3.8 $7.9 $12.3 $12.6 $12.9 $13.3 $13.7 $14.1 $14.5 $14.9 $120 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Lost state taxes -- -- -- -- $3.2 $6.6 $10.6 $10.8 $11.1 $11.4 $11.6 $11.9 $12.2 $12.5 $102 ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 94, Packet Page 118 36 TID Elimination scenario
The TID elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
TID Elimination
$2.3bn lost
over 10 years
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 95, Packet Page 119 37 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Alternative Assessment Scenario Dollar figures in millions
These spending gains result in gains of $920 million in earnings, $118 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,716 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total gains Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Alternative Assessment Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,349 $3,448 $3,594 $3,638 $3,766 $3,812 $3,906 $3,953 $4,048 $4,096 -- Gained spending -- -- -- -- $55 $106 $204 $199 $242 $236 $279 $273 $316 $310 $2,218 Gained earnings -- -- -- -- $23 $45 $86 $83 $101 $98 $115 $112 $129 $126 $920 Gained jobs* -- -- -- -- 471 896 1,688 1,613 1,923 1,842 2,132 2,047 2,317 2,228 1,716 Gained local taxes -- -- -- -- $2.9 $5.6 $10.7 $10.5 $12.8 $12.5 $14.8 $14.6 $16.9 $16.7 $118 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Gained state taxes -- -- -- -- $2.4 $4.7 $9.2 $9.0 $10.9 $10.7 $12.6 $12.4 $14.3 $14.0 $100 Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 96, Packet Page 120 38 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
Alternative Assessment
$2.2bn gained
over 10 years
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 97, Packet Page 121 39 Scenario comparison
The changes in TID funding create a notable impact on the future path of the visitor economy.

Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, three scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Alternative Assessment
Baseline
TID Elimination
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 98, Packet Page 122 Appendix: The National Impact of
Tourism Improvement Districts
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 99, Packet Page 123 41 National study of TID benefits
The study finds that tourism improvement districts (TIDs) provide a competitive advantage for destinations. By examining TID impacts on room demand, revenue, and visitor spending, this white paper explores that ground-breaking research and explains how TIDs enhance economic impacts in destinations.

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

The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 100, Packet Page 124 42 Destination sample
The analysis covers 100 cities, including 29
TID destinations and 71 non-TID
destinations.

The Impact of TIDs
Cities included in Tourism Economics’ TID impact analysis ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 101, Packet Page 125 43 Room demand regression model
Our approach to estimate the effect of TID on room demand included:

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 102, Packet Page 126 44 High-level view
Visually, we can observe that TID destinations outperformed non-TID markets in the latest upcycle.

The Impact of TIDs
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities growth
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities growth
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities (2002=100)
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
220%
240%
260%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities (2002=100)
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 103, Packet Page 127 45 TID growth premium: demand
The Impact of TIDs
Room demand growth premium*
2003-2019
-0.12%

0.34%
-0.20%
-0.10%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

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

On average, a destination gains 0.5% in demand growth per year after a TID is put in place.
“Premium” is measured as the difference in growth rates between TID and non-TID destinations Source: STR, Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 104, Packet Page 128 46 TID growth premium: revenue
The Impact of TIDs
Room revenue growth premium*
2003-2019
The revenue premium is calculated as the difference between an average 3-year growth in TID cities and non-TID cities prior to the TID (“Before TID”) and post the TID (“After TID”).
• Before authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 24 basis points faster compared to growth in non-TID cities
• After authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 130 basis points faster compared to non-TID cities
• Gain of 1.1% in room revenue.

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

0.24%

1.30%

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%
Before TID After TID
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 105, Packet Page 129 47 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate 7,027,654 rooms in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated 6,878,260 rooms.

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

Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
6,878,260
7,027,654
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
7,500,000
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
Actual room
demand
Estimated room
demand in
absence of TID
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 106, Packet Page 130 48 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities (millions)
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate $1.12 billion in room revenue in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated $1.07 billion in room revenue.

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

Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
$1,067
$1,118
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Average annual hotel room revenue
TID cities (millions)
Actual room revenue
Estimated room
revenue in
absence of TID
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 107, Packet Page 131 49 Economic benefits of TIDs
Tourism promotion funding provided by TIDs results in more visitors and visitor spending, and this spending represents a new injection to the local economy with many downstream benefits . In total, benefits are felt on three levels.
• Direct Impacts: Visitors create direct economic value within a discreet group of sectors (e.g., recreation, transportation). This supports a relative proportion of jobs, wages, taxes, and GDP within each sector. • Indirect Impacts: Each directly affected sector also purchases goods and services as inputs (e.g., food wholesalers, utilities) into production.

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

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

The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
RETAIL

ENTERTAINMENT/REC

FOOD & BEVERAGE

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

LODGING

AIR TRANSPORTATION
SALES
GDP
JOBS
INCOME
TAXES
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 108, Packet Page 132 Appendix 2: The ROI of Destination Marketing
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 109, Packet Page 133 51 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Many state and local CVBs and DMOs conduct periodic assessments of marketing effectiveness. There are several goals of these studies, including understanding how specific marketing campaigns are perceived by households, how effective the campaigns are in having an impact on households’ intent to travel to a given destination, and which target markets are showing differing level of responsiveness to marketing.

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

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

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

Tourism Economics summarized the estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from these studies in the table on the following page
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 110, Packet Page 134 52 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from the set of studies we analyzed is summarized in the adjacent table, supporting the following observations:

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

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

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

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

Marketing ROI matrix
Sources: Local studies compiled by Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 111, Packet Page 135 53 For more information:
[email protected]
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of the travel sector with proven economic tools to answer the most important questions facing our clients. More than 500 companies, associations, and destination work with Tourism Economics every year as a research partner. We bring decades of experience to every engagement to help our clients make better marketing, investment, and policy decisions. Our team of highly-specialized economists deliver:
• Global travel data-sets with the broadest set of country, city, and state coverage available • Travel forecasts that are directly linked to the economic and demographic outlook for origins and destinations • Economic impact analysis that highlights the value of visitors, events, developments, and industry segments • Policy analysis that informs critical funding, taxation, and travel facilitation decisions • Market assessments that define market allocation and investment decisions Tourism Economics operates out of regional headquarters in Philadelphia and Oxford, with offices in Belfast, Dubai, Frankfurt, and Ontario.

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

About Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 112, Packet Page 136 City Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Terminating the Local Emergency and Related COVID-19 Resolutions and Ordinances on February 28, 2023; Provide Direction on the Use of Masks in City Council Chambers; and Extend Existing Temporary Outdoor Business Permits and Outdoor Heaters on the Wharves until December 31, 2023 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution terminating the local emergency and related COVID-19 Resolutions and Ordinances on February 28, 2023 and providing direction to staff on the use of masks in the City Council Chambers; and extend existing temporary outdoor business permits and authorize the use of outdoor heaters on the wharves until December 31, 2023.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Pursuant to Government Code section 8680.9, a local emergency is a condition of extreme peril to persons or property proclaimed as such by the governing body of the local agency affected by a natural or other disaster. The purpose of a local emergency is to provide extraordinary policy power, immunity for emergency actions, to authorize the issuance of orders and regulations, and activate pre-established emergency provisions.

Monterey City Code section 11-14(b) requires the City Council to ratify the City Manager’s proclamation of a local emergency.

Government Code section 8630(d) requires the City to terminate the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. On October 17, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he intends to end the COVID-19 State of Emergency on February 28, 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On March 3, 2020, the City Council appropriated $35,000 to prepare and respond to COVID-19.

Since March 2020, the City has incurred $3,093,664 in COVID-19 related expenses, $339,846 of which have been reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In addition, the City experienced approximately $32 million in revenue loss due to the pandemic and is still recovering financially from the effects of the pandemic. Since there are few expenses Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 137 related to COVID-19 that remain reimbursable, terminating the local COVID-19 emergency would have no fiscal impact to the City.

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:

The City Council could choose not to terminate the local emergency at this time and review the need for continuing the local emergency within the next 60 days. This is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

History of the COVID-19 Emergency Declaration
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, and on March 11, 2020, WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency in the United States. During the week of February 23, the CDC reported community spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 in California, Oregon and Washington.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-10. And, On March 12, 2020, Governor Newsom enacted Executive Order N-25-20 to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic because “despite sustained efforts, the virus remains a threat, and further efforts to control the spread of the virus to reduce and minimize the risk of infection are needed.” On March 6, 2020, the County Administrative Officer proclaimed a local emergency related to COVID-19, and this proclamation was ratified by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on March 10, 2020.

In early March 2020, the City developed and enacted a COVID-19 Response Plan that includes the closure and cancellation of city programs and events (outlined in the attached media release). In addition, the City has drafted a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) that ensures the delivery of critical city services across all departments. Also, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 138 The Monterey City Council ratified this emergency with the adoption of Resolution 20-033 on March 17, 2020, during a time when there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Monterey County.

COVID-19 Activity and Emergency Proclamations
As of February 16, 2023, Monterey County has experienced 99,117 confirmed cases of COVID19, resulting in 821 confirmed deaths since March 2020.

The City of Monterey has been a leader in the region in protecting the public during the pandemic.

To prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021, the Monterey City Council ratified numerous Orders of the Director of Emergency Services which implemented limited beach and park closures during certain periods. In addition, the City Council ratified orders authorizing outdoor heaters on Wharf 1 and Wharf 2, and allowed temporary outdoor business permits. In April 2021 once vaccines became more widely available, the City reopened all parks and playgrounds.

On January 3, 2021, the City of Monterey’s Fire Department became one of the first public agencies in the region to begin providing COVID-19 vaccines, and was the only City directly providing vaccines to the public through its supply directly from the State of California. In total, the City held 114 vaccine clinics and administered 8,105 doses, supporting vulnerable populations, seniors, unhoused individuals, students, public safety personnel, and the public at large.

A list of legislative actions taken by the City Council in connection with the COVID-19 emergency is set forth as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution.

Current Conditions and Recommendation to Terminate the Local Emergency Monterey County has not seen significant rates of COVID-19 hospitalized patients since the two largest peaks of 217 hospitalized patients on January 15, 2021 and 114 hospitalized patients on January 26, 2022. Over the past 90 days, the peak number of hospitalized patients was 27 on December 9, 2022 and a low of 8 on February 1, 2023. Seventy-two percent (72.7%) of eligible Monterey County residents are vaccinated.

Although COVID-19 is still contagious, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 vaccines are safe and reduce COVID-19 mortality. With COVID19 vaccines widely available in the Monterey area, staff believes it is appropriate to terminate the local emergency. This would allow the City to align its COVID-19 emergency termination with the State of California, which expects to end its emergency on February 28, 2023.

Mask Policy in the City Council Chambers
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) has implemented mask policies in City facilities that vary depending on the availability of vaccines, transmission rates reported by the CDC, the type of facility, and the level of potential overcrowding. In July 2020, the City adopted Resolution 20-105, and then Ordinance 3618 to Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 139 adopt the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines for the use of face coverings to be enforceable by administrative citation within the City, and to address crowded conditions on the wharf. At times and with certain exceptions, masking was mandatory, and at other times it was a recommendation only.

The current CDPH guidance was enacted in September 2022, and masking requirements are optional based on the CDC COVID-19 community level. With a low community level, people can wear a mask based on personal preference, and Monterey County is currently in a low level.

Even during a high level, the CDPH Guidance is a recommendation (not a requirement) for indoor places. Consequently, with the termination of the local emergency, staff recommends terminating/repealing Ordinance 3618, following CDPH guidance, and: (1) continue to maintain ventilation improvements in the City Council Chambers during meetings, including air filtration systems and open doors and windows if possible; and (2) recommend and encourage persons in the City Council chambers to wear face coverings to protect the health, safety, and welfare of public officials, staff, and the public attending the meetings in person.

Outdoor Seating
Resolutions 20-125 and 20-172 address outdoor seating permits and conditions.

Authorization for parklets terminated on October 31, 2022.

The authorization to conduct business on sidewalks or parking lots will end on March 21, 2023 if the City Council terminates the local emergency. Similarly, the authorization for outdoor heaters on the wharves will end on March 21, 2023. Staff recommends extending these policies for existing permittees until December 31, 2023 to coincide with Coastal Commission and staff review of the program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution
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, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 140 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№06/11
TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY AND RELATED COVID-19 RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON FEBRUARY 28, 2023 AND EXTENDING EXISTING TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR BUSINESS PERMITS, AND ALLOW HEATERS ON THE WHARVES, UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2023
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern; WHEREAS, on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a Public Health Emergency in the United States; WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, the City Council appropriated $35,000 to prepare and respond to COVID-19;
WHEREAS, the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020; WHEREAS, the County of Monterey declared a local emergency on March 10, 2020; WHEREAS, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020;
WHEREAS, as of February 2, 2023, Monterey County has experienced 97,259 confirmed cases of COVID-19, resulting in 790 confirmed deaths; WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has determined that vaccines widely available in the United States significantly lowers the risk of getting very sick, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19;
WHEREAS, there have been confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the counties neighboring Monterey County, including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Fresno; WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, Governor Newsom enacted Executive Order N-25-20 to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic because “despite sustained efforts, the virus remains a threat, and further efforts to control the spread of the virus to reduce and minimize the risk of infection are needed.”
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency related to COVID-19; WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Monterey City Council ratified the City Manager’s proclamation, which allowed the City to adequately plan, prepare, and deploy resources to effectively respond to the threat posed by COVID-19;
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2021, the City of Monterey’s Fire Department became one of the first public agencies in the region to begin providing COVID-19 vaccines, and was the only City directly providing vaccines to the public through its supply directly from the State of Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 141 2 California. In total, the City held 114 vaccine clinics and administered 8,105 doses, supporting vulnerable populations, seniors, unhoused individuals, students, public safety personnel, and the public at large;
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he intends to end the COVID-19 State of Emergency on February 28, 2023; WHEREAS, Monterey County has not seen significant rates of COVID-19 hospitalized patients since the two largest peaks of 217 hospitalized patients on January 15, 2021 and 114 hospitalized patients on January 26, 2022. Over the past 90 days, the peak number of hospitalized patients was 27 on December 9, 2022 and a low of 8 on February 1, 2023. 72.7% of eligible Monterey County residents are vaccinated as of February 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey continues to work with other local entities to diligently implement CDC guidelines, provide vaccination clinics when possible, and protect the public; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, that current conditions do not warrant the need for emergency declaration to continue and hereby terminates the local emergency related to COVID-19 pursuant to Government Code section 8630(d);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, that it terminates all COVID-19 related resolutions and ordinances set forth in Exhibit A;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, that existing COVID-19 Temporary Outdoor Business Permits shall remain in effect on the same terms and conditions and shall terminate on December 31, 2023. This action does not authorize the issuance of new permits; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, that it suspends enforcement of the amendment to Section 305 of the 2019 Fire Code as set forth in 12-0/2 to allow outdoor heaters on the wharves as long as those heaters are compliance with any conditions set by the City’s Fire Marshal. This authorization for outdoor heaters on the wharves shall remain in effect until December 31, 2023.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 142 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Mayor of Said City
__________________________
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 143

EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS RELATED TO COVID-19
March 17, 2020 Reso. No. 20-033 Ratifying the City Manager's Proclamation of a Local Emergency Related to COVID-19
(Coronavirus)
March 25, 2020 Ordinance No. 3614 Temporarily Prohibit Residential and Commercial Evictions Related to COVID-19
May 19, 2020 Reso No. 20-065 Directing Limited Beach and Park Closures to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19, Amended
05/08/2020
July 7, 2020 Reso. No. 20-101 Closing City of Monterey Beaches for the 4th of July Weekend to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19
July 7, 2020 Reso. No. 20-105 Adopting the California Department of Public Health's Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings to
be Enforceable by Administrative Citation within the
City of Monterey
July 17, 2020 Ordinance No. 3618 Adopt the California Department of Public Health's Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings to be
Enforceable by Administrative Citation within the
City of Monterey
August 4, 2020 Reso. No. 20-125 Allowing COVID19 Temporary Outdoor Business Permits and Delegating Design Approval Authority
to the City's Chief Building Official
August 19, 2020 Ordinance No. 3623 Temporarily Prohibit Residential Evictions and Residential Rent Increases Related to COVID-19
September 1, 2020 Reso. No. 20-129 Temporary and Limited Closure of McAbee and San Carlos Beaches on August 15 and 16, 2020 to
Prevent the Spread of COVID-19
September 1, 2020 Reso. No. 20-130 Temporary and Limited Closure of McAbee and San Carlos Beaches on August 21, 2020 through
September 22, 2020 and all Beaches on Labor Day
Weekend to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19
October 6, 2020 Reso. No. 20-151 Suspending Portions of Monterey City Code Section 25-10.06 (Promotion Eligibility during Probationary
Period) During the Local Emergency
November 17, 2020 Reso. No. 20-172 Amend Resolution 20-125 to Allow COVID-19 Temporary Outdoor Parklet Permits through
October 31, 2022, and Authorize Outdoor Heaters
on Wharf 1 and Wharf 2
November 17, 2020 Reso No. 20-176 Opening Parks with Some Exceptions and Closing Certain Park Facilities
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 144

EXHIBIT A
December 15, 2020 Reso. No. 20-194 Amending Resolution 20-176 and Ratifying the December 4, 2020, Order of the Director of
Emergency Services (Monterey City Manager) to
Keep Playgrounds Closed
April 6, 2021 Reso. No. 21-031 Reopening Playgrounds and Sports Fields with Some Exceptions and Keeping Certain Park
Facilities Closed
April 20, 2021 Reso. No. 21-036 Reopening All Parks and Playgrounds Under Certain Conditions
August 17, 2021 Reso. No. 21-092 Cancelling the Bakersfield Train Robbers at Monterey Amberjack Game on August 1, 2021, Due
to a Potential COVID-19 Outbreak Among
Bakersfield Train Robbers Baseball Players
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 145 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Tyller Williamson, Mayor
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Submit an Online Public Comment to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Behalf of the City of Monterey in Support of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Application (A2111024) Requesting that the CPUC Compel California-American Water Company (CalAm) to Execute the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement Authorized in Decision 22-12-001 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to submit an online public comment to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in support of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s (MPWMD) Application (A2111024) requesting that the CPUC compel CaliforniaAmerican Water (“Cal-Am”) to execute the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement authorized in Decision 22-12-001.

VALUE DRIVER:

Champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Providing public comment to the CPUC as recommended reaffirms the City Council’s commitment and passion for securing sustainable water sources for the City, as well as providing affordable housing for its residents and workforce.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from submitting the comment.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey staff determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378(b)(5)). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action is to authorize a public comment letter, and this matter has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a Date: 2/21/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 146 category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose to modify or not authorize the submission of public comment.

DISCUSSION:

The CPUC unanimously authorized Cal-Am to enter into the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement at its Dec. 1, 2022, virtual meeting as reflected in Decision 22-12-001 in Application 21-11-024. The approval cleared the way for the expansion of the Pure Water Monterey Project. The amount of water created from the expanded Pure Water Monterey Project would potentially lift the Cease-and-Desist Order imposed upon the Monterey Peninsula by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Monterey Peninsula region is in desperate need of the additional water as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment units are not being implemented because of the lack of water availability. As of February 16, 2023, two of the three parties needed to execute the Amended Water Purchase Agreement, Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, have already signed the document. The third party, Cal-Am has not yet signed the Agreement. Cal-Am indicates that it has not signed the agreement because Cal-Am can only move forward with the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement if the CPUC approved its request for recovery of the costs related to the facilities associated with the Pure Water Monterey expansion. However, it is the city’s view that once the Agreement is fully executed, the financing to construct the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project can be secured and bidding the various components of the Project can begin. The delays caused by not executing the Agreement are delaying efforts to provide water security for the residents and businesses in our communities.

Mayor Williamson and the City agree with MPWMD’s December 19, 2022 Petition for Modification, and it is respectfully requested that the City Council authorize the Mayor to submit an online public comment to the CPUC in support of compelling Cal-Am to sign the Amended and Restated Water Purchase Agreement in order for the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project to move forward.

NR
Attachments: 1. Proposed Online Comment to CPUC
e: Gavin Newsom, Governor of the State of California
Senator John Laird, 17th Senate District
Assemblymember Dawn Addis, 30th Assembly District
State of California, Housing and Community Development Department Maura Twomey, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Housing Outreach List
Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 147 Land Watch
State Water Resources Control Board
Paul Sciuto, Monterey One Water
Dave Stoldt, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Esther Malkin, Renters United
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, 2/21/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 148 February 21, 2023
President Alice Busching Reynolds
Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma
Commissioner Darcie L. Houck
Commissioner John Reynolds
Commissioner Karen Douglas
Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Application 21-11-024– Request to Compel Execution of the Amended Water Purchase Agreement Authorized in D. 22-12-001
Dear President Reynolds and Commissioners:

As the elected body representing the City of Monterey, we want to thank you for your unanimous approval of the amended Water Purchase Agreement at the Dec. 1, 2022, virtual meeting by the issuance of D.22-12-001 in A. 21-11-024. The approval cleared the way for the expansion of the Pure Water Monterey Project. The amount of water created from the expanded Pure Water Monterey Project would potentially lift the Cease-and-Desist Order imposed upon the area by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The area is in desperate need of the additional water as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment units are not being implemented because of the lack of water availability. Our council is eager to move forward with the construction of much-needed housing and this project is essential in our ability to lift barriers towards that end.

It is our understanding that two of the three parties needed to execute the Amended Water Purchase Agreement -- Monterey One Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District -- have already signed the document. The third party, California American Water, has not yet signed the Agreement. Once the Agreement is fully executed, the financing to construct the Project can be secured and bidding the various components of the Project can begin. The delays caused by not executing the Agreement are delaying efforts to provide water security for the residents and businesses in our communities.

As requested by the Water Management District in its December 16, 2022 Petition for Modification, we also respectfully request that the California Public Utilities Commission compel California American Water to sign the Amended Water Purchase Agreement in order for the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project to move forward. California American Water can Council Regular Meeting, 2/21/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 149

Page 2 ends

Monterey City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

Monterey City Council
February 21, 2023