Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, March 7, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 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
How to participate in this meeting:
 Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
 In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is recommended and encouraged.
 Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (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 o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay). ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of March 2023 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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.
3/7/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.

Approval of Minutes

2. February 21, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

3. February 23, 2023 Special Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Award of Construction Contracts

4. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,446,085.00 to Precision Grade Inc., for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (35C1552) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP***
Ordinances
ORDINANCES are legislative acts by the Council, are the most permanent and binding type of Council action as they modify the City Code, and may be replaced only by a subsequent ordinance. An ordinance requires legal advertisement when introduced, and two readings at separate Council meetings. An ordinance is considered "passed to print" when approved for a second reading, and is "passed and adopted" when given final approval by the Council.

5. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Amending Administrative Provisions of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance that do not Require Voter Approval (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."

6. Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Amend Resolution 22-086, the FY 22/23 Position Control List by Adding One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Facility Attendant Position and Removing One (1) Vacant FTE Facility Attendant Position (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, 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 3/7/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)

8. Amend and Restate Resolution 22-077, Master Fee Schedule to Adjust Fees for each of the Following Departments: Community Development, Parks and Recreation, City Clerk, Library, Police Department, Finance Department, Public Works Department, Parking Division, and Harbor Division (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Recommended for Continuance to March 21, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

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.

9. Authorize a Contract with Community Human Services to Pass Through $2.5 Million in State Funding for the Shuman HeartHouse, a Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3)
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.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)
3/7/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 10. Adopt the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

11. Resolution Adopting Proposed Draft Findings and Declaring an Intent to Overrule the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission’s Consistency Determination for the Draft Ordinance Amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and Amending Section 38-11 “Definitions” (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.) and Directing That Notice Be Provided to the Commission and the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics

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

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

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

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

City Council Meetings are cable cast live and recorded for replay on Monterey's Government Access Channel 25 by Access Media Productions (AMP).

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

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

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102- 3/7/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communicationrelated assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of March 2023 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Mayor and City Council recognize March 2023 as American Red Cross Month in Monterey and receive a presentation from the Central Coast Chapter of the American Red Cross.

VALUE DRIVER:

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:

None.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to present the proclamation and receive the presentation.

Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 DISCUSSION:

The proclamation honors the volunteers, staff, and donors who support the American Red Cross mission. The community depends on these local heroes to deliver assistance, shelter, food, and hope during emergencies, including the coronavirus pandemic.

The American Red Cross has a long history of helping our neighbors in need in Monterey. The Central Coast Chapter assisted households affected by home and wildfires, helped collect blood donations from our generous community blood donors, provided training services, and assisted families of our armed forces, among many other vital efforts.

The Red Cross partnered with the City of Monterey on numerous Disaster Relief Operations, Blood Drives, and training for Preparedness, Health, and Safety. In 2022 in Monterey County, volunteers helped 62 households affected by 45 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging and providing recovery support. In addition, they installed over 450 smoke alarms, collected over 1,700 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to over 2,500 residents, helped the families of 235 students prepare for disasters through its Pillowcase Project, and assisted over 300 families of our armed forces.

The City of Monterey dedicates the month of March to those who support the American Red Cross’ mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies. Our community depends on the organization, which relies on volunteers and the public’s generosity to perform its essential mission.

Attachments: 1. Proclamation
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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation declaring
March 2023

AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH
WHEREAS, March is American Red Cross Month, a special time to celebrate the humanitarian spirit of Monterey County and reaffirm their commitment to help ensure no one faces a crisis alone in Monterey County, across the United States, and around the world. Their dedication touches millions of lives each year as they carry out the organization’s 140-year mission of preventing and alleviating suffering; and, WHEREAS, caring for one another is at the heart of our community and exemplified by the people of Monterey, whose simple acts of kindness through the Red Cross provide help and hope in people’s most difficult moments — continuing the lifesaving legacy of Clara Barton, who founded the organization more than 140 years ago to prevent and alleviate human suffering; and, WHEREAS, Central Coast Chapter volunteers (190 in the county) give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours. Last year in Monterey County, volunteers helped 62 households affected by 45 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging, as well as providing recovery support. In addition, they installed over 450 smoke alarms, collected over 1700 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to over 2500 residents, helped the families of 235 students prepare for disasters through their Pillowcase Project, and assisted over 300 families of our armed forces; and, WHEREAS, the Central Coast Chapter’s support, volunteerism, and generous donations are critical to our community’s resilience. We hereby recognize this month of March in honor of all those who fulfill Clara Barton’s noble words, “You must never think of anything except the need and how to meet it,” and ask everyone to join in this commitment; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of March 2023 as American Red Cross Month. I encourage all Americans to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission.

Dated: March 2023 ________________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Associate Planner, City Consultant, Administrative Assistant (City Clerk’s Office)
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. 23-011 C.S.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM. Administrative Assistant Tulett documented the full Council’s attendance in person as highlighted above. She explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for in-person attendance.

Councilmember Haffa briefly left Chamber during participation instructions, returning at 4:08 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Jack Erickson and Anna Acosta.

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

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

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
2 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)
Action: Approved
Resolutions

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-018 C.S.

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)
Action: Appointed Peter Silva to the Disabled Access Appeals Board for a term ending June 30, 2027
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC HEARING

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) Action: Held protest hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 23-019 C.S.

City Manager Uslar gave a brief introduction to the presentation, and then turned it over to Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira who gave a brief verbal report and answered Councilmembers’ questions. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira unlocked the ballot box to remove the one protest vote received by mail at the City Clerk’s Office, and Administrative Assistant Tulett verified there were no other written protests received ahead of the meeting.

There were no verbal protests received. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira announced there were not enough protest votes to stop the proceeding to renew the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID). The City Manager and Council spoke positively about the work that went into renewing the plan.

Rob O’Keefe spoke in favor of renewing the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID). No other public comment was received.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council declared the results of the protest hearing and confirmed the renewal of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID):

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
3 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-020 C.S.

City Manager Uslar introduced the item and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation. City Manager Uslar, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, and City Attorney Davi answered Councilmembers’ questions and clarifications.

Public comment on the matter was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23- 020 C.S. and to accept the staff recommendation relating to wearing of masks, removal of temporary and extend outdoor dining to December 31, and to continue to allow virtual participation in public meetings.

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

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) Action: Authorized submission of comment (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Mayor Williamson gave a verbal presentation to the Council.

Public comment on the matter was received from Josh Stratton, Jennifer Haydu, and Melodie Chrislock, who all spoke in favor of submitting an online public comment.

Council stated concerns about getting involved in the discussion, but also pointed out how the submission of the comment to the CPUC would be tied to the City’s value drivers and show support for the residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
4 On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council authorized submission of an online comment:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was not received.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:20 PM.

RECESS

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:01 PM.
*** 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 Nelson Vega, Tom Rowley, Jennifer Haydu, Lorna Moffat, Curt Tipton, and Nina Beety.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Davi announced:
cs1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.1(d)(1): Felix Colello vs. City of Monterey (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel
cs2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.1(d)(1): Edward Olson vs. City of Monterey (Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a roll-call vote of 4-1, Councilmember Smith abstaining, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
5 cs3. Conference with Legal Counsel Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2),(e)(3), Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation, USAA a/s/o David Connell Govt. Claim Dated November 14, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel
Adjourn to Joint Special Meeting and Establish Quorum of the Planning Commission The Council adjourned to the joint special meeting and was joined by the Planning Commission.

Planning Commissioners

Present: Bluth, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa, Fletcher

Absent: None
Administrative Assistant Tulett called the roll with the full Planning Commission present in person as highlighted above.

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)
Action: Received progress report
City Manager Uslar gave a brief introduction of the item, and Community Development Director Cole, Associate Planner Christy Sabdo, and consultant Andrew Hill of Dyett and Bhatia, gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers’ and Planning Commissioners’ questions. Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 7:41 p.m. and returned at 7:42 p.m.

Public comment on the matter was received from: Kevin Dayton, who encouraged Council to move ahead with plan; Tom Rowley, who said growth along the Highway 68 corridor should be considered in the Plan and reiterated the amount of outreach necessary; an unidentified gentleman, who indicated lack of water supply must be addressed and that the City should take a more active role with the CPUC; Nelson Vega, who expressed concerns about hurdles to housing that he said are present in the City rules and procedures; Tom Galling, who expressed concerns with lack of water and state housing mandated programs; a gentleman who indicated representation from the Monterey County Hospitality Association and shared support for working together on a plan that must consider zoning and water issues; Felicia Webster, who urged consideration of the developmentally disabled population and SB 812 in the City’s plan; Rick Aldinger, who spoke about the importance to focus on workforce housing and water needs; Nina Beety, who expressed concern about the short timeline to prepare the draft, need to reach renters in all outreach notifications, and water issues; Esther Malkin, who suggested the plan could be clearer about home ownership vs. rental, income level, and job data; Gabriel Sanders, who offered support for the plan, increased housing, reduced commute times for local workers, reduced greenhouse gasses, and continuing to explore more ideas for “up-zoning”; Lorna Moffat, who suggested a survey of current empty houses for Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
6 potential rental incentives for landlords, and stated disagreement with state housing requirements for Monterey; Monica Lal, who spoke in support of the plan and of assisting entry-level home ownership and affordable housing for workers; Gordon Foxworthy, who shared concerns with increased housing and traffic congestion and asked for consideration for infrastructure; Tammy Jennings, who discussed the voter decision to buy out Cal-Am Water and consideration for a desalination plant, and echoed concerns that the projected housing numbers in the state’s plan were too high for Monterey.

Councilmember comments included urging thoughtful review of building and zoning standards so new housing is not densified only in any one area, the availability of transit and transportation factors of the City, current and future water supply issues, and finding a way to work in synchronicity with neighboring cities and agencies to increase community engagement around a creative vision for housing, jobs and transportation. The Council emphasized that Monterey should have a plan in place to meet state requirements and must try to seek opportunities for financial relief through state grants.

The Council also thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work on this topic and stressed the importance of balancing housing needs with quality-of-life concerns, while meeting the requirements of the state.

The Planning Commissioners stated that they recognized the challenge the City would face in meeting the state requirements, and discussed the size of the city, environmental issues, funding sources for building ADUs, opportunities for expanding city boundaries and water access through changes to zoning and building codes, and how to create zoning that allows for growth while maintaining a high quality of life.

Adjourn to City Council Meeting
At 10:00 p.m. the joint special meeting ended and the City Council adjourned to the regular City Council meeting. The Council recessed at 10:01 p.m. and reconvened at 10:18 p.m.

Due to the late hour of the evening, Mayor announced the meeting would be adjourned to March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

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)
Action: Meeting adjourned to March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
None made - meeting adjourned to March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made - meeting adjourned to March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
7 ADJOURNMENT
At 10:19 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Linda Tulett Tyller Williamson
Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 15

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Thursday, February 23, 2023
3:00 PM

VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Garcia*, Haffa*, Smith*

Absent: Barber, Williamson
* Attended remotely by teleconference
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant Police Chief, Public Works Director, Fleet Manager, Administrative Assistant (City Clerk’s Office)
This special meeting was held as a virtual teleconference, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 23-011 C.S. ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Haffa called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Administrative Assistant Tulett explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. She called the roll with the Council present as highlighted above.

CONSENT ITEMS
Public comment on the Consent Item was not received. A brief verbal report was made on Item 1 by Public Works Director Renny, who answered Councilmembers’ questions.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEM:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Smith
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Williamson
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes February 21, 2023
2 Resolutions

1. Approve Purchase of Four (4) 2023 Ford Police Suv Interceptors in the Amount of $200,563.36 from Folsom Lake Ford and Increase the FY 2022-23 Budget in the Equipment Replacement Fund (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-021 C.S. (3-2, Councilmember Barber and Mayor Williamson absent)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Linda Tulett Alan Haffa
Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office Vice Mayor Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 17 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jesus Rios, Engineering Project Manager
SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,446,085.00 to Precision Grade, Inc. for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (35C1552) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP*** RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Rejecting all non-responsive bids;

3. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Awarding a Construction Contract to the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the Amount of $1,446,085.00;

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

6. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns;” Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement.” This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council.

Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 18 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Six (6) bids were received through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on January 17, 2023 as follows:

Bidder Total Base Bid
ASG Builders $743,225.00**
Precision Grade, Inc. $1,446,085.00
Granite Rock Company $1,542,544.00
The Don Chapin Company $1,551,600.00
Monterey Peninsula Engineers $1,716,365.00
FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. $2,014,180.60
Engineer’s Estimate $750,000.00
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Base Bid. **The bid from ASG Builders was rejected as non-responsive.

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract (Total Base Bid) $1,446,085.00
Construction Contingency, 15% $216,912.75
Total Project Construction Estimate (This Authorization) $1,662,997.75 Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $87,000
Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $1,749,997.75 Funding Sources:

Measure P/S – Sidewalks (35C1552) $2,200,748.36
As of January 26, 2023, sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project involves the removal and replacement of curb ramps, storm sewer pipes, manhole and catch basins on the northwest and southwest corners of Pearl and Figueroa Streets as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. The project also includes the excavation of three new tree wells on El Dorado Street, Cass Street, and Carmello Street. All work is within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions founds at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 19 Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves the removal and replacement of storm sewer pipes, boxes, and catch basins; roadside improvements; and new tree wells.

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

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

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The proposed improvements involve the removal and replacement of storm sewer pipes, boxes, and catch basins; roadside improvements; and new tree wells. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A Phase I Archeological Assessment, dated November 11, 2022, was prepared by Dudek for the Pearl and Figueroa storm drain and three new tree wells that are located in the area of high archeological sensitivity as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8). The study concluded that there is moderate potential for encountering cultural resources during the planned construction.

As recommended by the study, the project will include an on-site qualified archeological monitor for all ground disturbing activities during construction, and will comply with regulations regarding accidental discovery of human remains. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this project; however, the proposed project implements maintenance and repair activities that are required to maintain existing infrastructure.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 20 DISCUSSION:

The Project consists of the removal and replacement of damaged sidewalks on various streets throughout the City of Monterey that have been identified as the responsibility of the City, consistent with Chapter 32, Article 4, of the City Code. It is the seventh in a series of planned sidewalk repair construction contracts funded by Measure S.

The Project was extensively advertised for construction bids and are available for public review in the Office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7). On January 17, 2023, the City received six (6) bids. Upon review of the proposal from ASG Builders, the City determined that the bidder failed to submit a bid bond within five days as required by the Project Specifications and was therefore found non-responsive. Therefore, the lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $1,446,085.00.

Construction costs were significantly higher than estimated due to the current economic climate, with inflation, construction materials, and labor shortages contributing to higher costs. In the past 2½ years, construction costs have risen by 20% overall, with sharper increases in concrete and drainage structures in particular.

Precision Grade, Inc. has successfully completed projects within the City of Monterey. Staff is confident in the contractor’s ability to perform the work successfully.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or his designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Rejecting all non-responsive bids;

3. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Awarding a construction contract for the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $1,446,085.00;

5. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

6. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

JR/fm
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Tabulation
e: Precision Grade, Inc.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 21 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMONT OF $1,446,085.00 TO PRECISION GRADE, INC. FOR THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552) ***CIP***
WHEREAS, on the 17th day of January 2023, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received six (6) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (“Project”); WHEREAS, Precision Grade, Inc. of San Juan Bautista, CA, Granite Rock Company of Watsonville, CA, The Don Chapin Company of Salinas, CA, Monterey Peninsula Engineers of Marina, CA, FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. of Livermore, CA, submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHERAS, ASG Builders of Mountain View, CA submitted a non-responsive bid for the Project;
WHEREAS, the basis of award for the Project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, Precision Grade, Inc. submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $1,446,085.00;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account 35C1552 to complete the work; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project involves the removal and replacement of curb ramps, storm sewer pipes, manhole and catch basins on the northwest and southwest corners of Pearl and Figueroa Streets as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. The project also includes the excavation of three new tree wells on El Dorado Street, Cass Street, and Carmello Street. All work is within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions founds at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 22 2 Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.

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

1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 7 (“Project”) which are available in the Office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and grants the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Rejects all non-responsive bids;

3. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

4. Awards a construction contract for the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Precision Grade, Inc., in the amount of $1,446,085.00;

5. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Project plans and specifications; and,

6. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 23 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 24 City of Monterey
Public Works
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: January 17, 2023 at 2:00 pm
Report Generated: Thursday, February 9, 2023

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Precision Grade Inc $1,446,085.00
Granite Rock Company $1,542,544.00
The Don Chapin Company $1,551,600.00
Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
$1,716,365.00
FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.
$2,014,180.60

BID SCHEDULE
FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

Page 2 ends

FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.

Granite Rock Company Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
Precision Grade Inc The Don Chapin Company
Selecte
d
Line
Ite
m
Description Quantit
y
Unit of
Measur
e
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total X 2 Storm Water
Compliance
1 LS $6,700.00 $6,700.00 $11,500.00 $11,500.00 $63,000.00 $63,000.00 $10,100.00 $10,100.00 $16,000.0 0 $16,000.00
X 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $155,873.0
0 $155,873.00 $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $165,000.0
0 $165,000.00 $34,500.00 $34,500.00 $83,000.0
0 $83,000.00
X 4 Construction
Surveying
1 LS $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $22,500.0 0 $22,500.00
X 5 Concrete Curb
and Gutter
750 LF $100.00 $75,000.00 $85.00 $63,750.00 $116.00 $87,000.00 $106.00 $79,500.00 $110.00 $82,500.00 X 6 Concrete
Sidewalk
30000 SF $31.00 $930,000.00 $22.50 $675,000.00 $17.00 $510,000.00 $21.00 $630,000.00 $23.50 $705,000.00 X 7 Concrete
Sidewalk,
Colored
750 SF $16.00 $12,000.00 $34.50 $25,875.00 $28.00 $21,000.00 $23.00 $17,250.00 $26.00 $19,500.00 X 8 Brick Sidewalk 2000 SF $65.00 $130,000.00 $73.00 $146,000.00 $91.00 $182,000.00 $33.00 $66,000.00 $95.00 $190,000.00 X 9 Pervious
Rubber Surface
2750 SF $41.00 $112,750.00 $26.50 $72,875.00 $75.00 $206,250.00 $39.00 $107,250.00 $52.00 $143,000.00 X 10 Concrete Curb
Ramp
1500 SF $60.00 $90,000.00 $32.00 $48,000.00 $82.00 $123,000.00 $27.00 $40,500.00 $36.00 $54,000.00 X 11 Detectable
Warning
Surface
(Federal
Yellow)
150 SF $33.00 $4,950.00 $30.00 $4,500.00 $37.00 $5,550.00 $38.00 $5,700.00 $40.00 $6,000.00 Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 26

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

Page 3 ends

FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.

Granite Rock Company Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
Precision Grade Inc The Don Chapin Company
Selecte
d
Line
Ite
m
Description Quantit
y
Unit of
Measur
e
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total X 12 Concrete
Sidewalk
Crossing
1500 SF $30.00 $45,000.00 $42.50 $63,750.00 $32.00 $48,000.00 $32.00 $48,000.00 $40.00 $60,000.00 X 13 Concrete
Retaining Curb
(6" to 18" Tall)
50 LF $60.00 $3,000.00 $52.00 $2,600.00 $39.00 $1,950.00 $99.00 $4,950.00 $80.00 $4,000.00 X 14 Hot Mix
Asphalt,
Conform(6”
thk, Type A,
½”)
7000 SF $22.00 $154,000.00 $29.00 $203,000.00 $18.00 $126,000.00 $21.00 $147,000.00 $8.00 $56,000.00 X 15 Storm Drain
Manhole
1 EA $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $13,100.00 $13,100.00 $10,500.0 0 $10,500.00
X 16 Curb Drain
Inlet
3 EA $5,900.00 $17,700.00 $5,200.00 $15,600.00 $14,000.00 $42,000.00 $7,100.00 $21,300.00 $7,550.00 $22,650.00 X 17 Adjust Water
Valve to Grade
2 EA $400.00 $800.00 $526.00 $1,052.00 $630.00 $1,260.00 $416.00 $832.00 $250.00 $500.00 X 18 Adjust Historic
Tile to Grade
4 EA $300.00 $1,200.00 $255.00 $1,020.00 $170.00 $680.00 $309.00 $1,236.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 X 19 3" Storm Drain 25 LF $135.00 $3,375.00 $71.00 $1,775.00 $185.00 $4,625.00 $92.00 $2,300.00 $120.00 $3,000.00 X 20 6" Storm Drain 25 LF $143.00 $3,575.00 $131.00 $3,275.00 $154.00 $3,850.00 $169.00 $4,225.00 $120.00 $3,000.00 X 21 15" Storm
Drain
80 LF $356.57 $28,525.60 $205.00 $16,400.00 $120.00 $9,600.00 $182.00 $14,560.00 $160.00 $12,800.00 X 22 Modify Roof
Downspouts
1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,285.00 $1,285.00 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 $661.00 $661.00 $650.00 $650.00 Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 27

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, PHASE 7 (35C1552)

Page 4 ends

FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.

!"!#$%&#'(') *$!')+$,*%$(+$,'#)(') "-.!#$/'% "0',12&1 3$)!#$!$"12" 4567869:;<

=>')'#12$23%3 1 3$)?&@23%$#A" BCDCEFCGEHCI&'"J1K'%'(@'# 0LGMCGEHCI&'"J1K1)&1#K000!( N$" 'JO&'"J1K'%'(@'# 00!( PQ3JR)"'12'J&'"J1K1)&1#K000!( P#3%3)+R)"'12'J&'"J1K1)&1#K000!( STTUVWXYZW[\XY[]^V_[`[_a[\X #$!$"12" 3" $b,')J$#!#$!$"12""&@(3 'J3)#'"!$)"' $ '!#$/'% #$!$"12c3'd'#
+#''(') "
%%'! 'J
#$!$"12c3'd'#
+#''(')
%%'! 'J eV]fghfifgjkfjSl

bK$&1,'#'%'3,'J!#$!$"12"'m '#)122KK$&%1)&"' '@& $)@'2$d $(1)&122K1JJ '(* n JJ#$!$"12
op
q
$(!1#'#$!$"12" r3"s&123b3'J
>Q&32J'#" '!3J'+$21(3 "'!3J't1"+@&32J'#"*%$(
--
0u.- 1)0

p&@(3 'J vQc1)+&1#J
$)" #&% 3$)
)%* #3)& %3"$) '%2& '#t,%u3)%*)'

.
u00 1)00
p&@(3 'J >#1)3 '$%A
$(!1)K c3%A3w1#%3"%$ '" 3(1 3)+t+#1)3 '#$%A*%$(
.0-

.u.00 1)0

p&@(3 'J
$) '#'K')3)"&21)+3)''#3)+ '23)'
3(1 & ' '23)'t(!'000*%$(
-
u 1)0
.
p&@(3 'J #'%3"3$)>#1J'
)% >1@#3'211K1 1%%$&) 3)+t!#'%3"3$)+#1J'*%$( 1)0
p&@(3 'J '$)
1!3)
$(!1)K 'bb
1)'2K /(1)'2KtJ$)%1!3)*%$( 1)0

xHEHMF 5Cyz{| }{yHE~H:y{xMFF{yGEHC
'"&"3$" 1) 0

v1 3(1
$(3)3 1) 0-.

%$ Q$d') 1)00

'+1)Q'%A(1) 1)0

313)"1$ 1)0

v'23%31
3)+ 1)00

%%'! 'JQK
%%'! 'J

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 29 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared By: Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director SUBJECT: 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Amending Administrative Provisions of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance that do not Require Voter Approval (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance amending administrative provisions of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance that do not require voter approval.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code section 35-22.1 authorizes Chapter 35, Article 3 to be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the people except as required by law, and except for tax increases as that term is defined in Government Code section 53750, and these amendments do not require a vote of the people.

The changes to the administrative section of the ordinance seek to improve the administration the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) program by clarifying existing requirements and procedures contained within the code.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

While this ordinance relates to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), the City’s single largest source of revenue, the changes to the ordinance are related to the administration of the City’s TOT Program. There are no fiscal implications that are anticipated to arise from this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 30 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 City Council could choose not to pass this ordinance, therefore making no amendments to the administrative provisions of the TOT Ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

Monterey’s single largest revenue source is the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which is 100% paid by guests of hotels and other lodging facilities. The current TOT rate is 12%, of which 16% is dedicated to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and 84% is used to fund essential City services such as the police, fire, library, recreation programs, parks, forestry maintenance, disaster preparedness, and more.

Monterey City Code Chapter 35, Article 3, governs the City’s administration and collection of the TOT. The article covers a range of subjects including, but not limited to, the levying of the tax, authorized exemptions from the tax, reporting and remitting of tax collections by operators, penalties and interest, the appeals process, and record keeping. The proposed amendments seek to clarify various sections of this article in order to effectively administer and collect TOT.

Among these proposed amendments is the clarification on the reporting and remittance of collections which outlines the records that need to be maintained by the hotel operators. This current amendment changes the number of years hotel operators shall maintain records; increasing the period from three (3) to four (4) years. The only way that cities are able to obtain the needed information regarding TOT is by the ordinance’s recordkeeping requirement. The proposed amendments will provide additional assurance that records are available for inspection to the City, and the City’s audit partner, in the duties of administering the TOT program.

Additionally, the proposed amendments clarify that in order to ensure the timely receipt of taxpayer funds, the amount of any taxes in dispute must be deposited with the City prior to an administrative appeal. The changes also add clarity for staff, as well as payors and operators, regarding the steps that must be followed to file a claim for a refund of overpaid taxes.

RTK/ss
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 31 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

UPDATING ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

ORDINANCE THAT DO NOT REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, 100% of transient occupancy tax is paid by guests of hotels or other lodging facilities. The current rate of transient occupancy tax is 12%, of which 16% is dedicated to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and 84% funds essential City services such as the library, senior and youth recreation programs, police, fire, parks, forestry maintenance, disaster preparedness and more;
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 35-22.2 authorizes Chapter 35, Article 3 to be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the people except as required by law, and except for tax increases as that term is defined in Government Code section 53750, and these amendments do not require a vote of the people; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments clarify that in order to ensure the timely receipt of taxpayer funds the amount of any taxes in dispute must be deposited with the City prior to an administrative appeal, the length of time that records must be kept for auditing purposes is extended from three years to four years to match the statute of limitations, and wording has been updated to be consistent throughout the ordinance; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 15(a) is hereby amended to read Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 32 2 as follows:
“a. Each operator of a visitor accommodation facility shall, on or before the 15th day of each month, remit the full amount of taxes collected for the previous month with a completed return form provided by the City. Returns are timely if received on or before the 15th or if postmarked by the 15th. In the event that the due date falls on Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the due date will become the first working day following the Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Failure of the City to provide a return form does not excuse the operator from the obligation to timely remit the tax pursuant to this article.” SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 18 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 35-18. Appeals.

Any operator aggrieved by a decision of the Finance Director with respect to Section 35-16(c) (Fraud), Section 35-16(f) (Audit Deficiency), and Section 35-17 (Failure to collect and report tax), may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Board by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Attorney’s Office within 15 calendar days of the service of the determination of tax due. All other decisions of the Finance Director are final. The Clerk of the Board shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the City shall give notice in writing by serving it personally, by email, or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to such operator at the last known place of address. At the hearing, the operator and the Finance Director shall have an opportunity to explain their case and introduce evidence. Formal rules of evidence do not apply in proceedings under this section and the Board may consider any evidence or information deemed relevant and reasonably reliable. The decision of the Appeals Hearing Board shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. If the Board upholds the appeal, or a portion thereof, within 30 days of the Board’s decision the City shall refund the deposited amount of the tax, interest or penalty as specified in the decision.” SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 19 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 35-19. Records to be kept.

It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the City of any tax imposed by this article to keep and preserve, for a period of four years not including the present calendar year, all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax the operator may have been liable for the collection of and payment to the City. The Finance Director and authorized agents shall have the right to inspect such records at all reasonable times. The records maintained by the operator under this section shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. A written report that includes daily records of all of the following:

1. Name of person occupying the room;

2. Number or other identifier of the room occupied;

3. Room rate;

4. Amount charged, if any, for the occupancy;

5. Amount of transient occupancy tax collected; and
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 33

6. Method of payment.
b. A written record of each occupancy for which an exemption is claimed, including the name of the person occupying the room, date(s) of occupancy, reason(s) for the exemption, and the exemption claim form required under Section 35-12.

All records which may be necessary to inspect shall be kept within the City or shall be produced within 10 working days of written notice at the business location within the City.

In the event that records are not produced upon request, or, such records are not reasonably able to be audited, tax, interest, and penalties will be levied based upon the average room rate and occupancies for similar properties within the City during the audit period. Further, and without limitation, any operator who does not produce records following written notice as set forth herein shall pay, as a civil penalty, in addition to any tax, penalty or interest, the sum of $100.00 per day for each business day the records are not produced for audit.

Further, the City may issue a subpoena pursuant to Government Code Section 37104, et seq., as may be amended, or utilize any other lawful means to access and inspect the records of an operator who refuses to make such records available for inspection.” SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 20 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 35-20. Refunds.
a. Claim Required. Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid, paid more than once, or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City under this article, the amount may be refunded as provided in subsections (b) and (c) below; provided, that a claim in writing is filed in accordance with Section 1-

8.2 stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded and within a period of one year from the date of the claimed overpayment. b. Claim by Operator. An operator may claim a refund, or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid more than once, or erroneously or illegally collected or received, when it is established in a manner prescribed by the Finance Director that the person from whom the tax has been collected was not a transient; provided, however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to the payor or credited to rent subsequently payable by the payor to the operator. c. Claim by Payor. A payor may obtain a refund of taxes overpaid, paid more than once, or erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection (a) above, but only when the tax was paid by the payor directly to the City, or when the payor having paid the tax to the operator, establishes to the satisfaction of the Finance Director that the payor has been unable to obtain a refund from the operator who collected the tax.”
SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 21 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 34 4 “Sec. 35-21. Condition Precedent for Administrative, Legal, or Equitable Claims.

No person may commence or maintain any proceeding, or assert any administrative, legal or equitable claim of any kind, whether affirmatively or by defense, against the City challenging or disputing in any way the imposition, assessment or collection of any tax, interest, or penalty imposed under this Article, unless the person first deposits with the City the full amount of any tax, interest or penalty imposed or assessed or otherwise challenged or claimed to be in dispute. Only after payment of the full amount of any tax, including interest and any penalties assessed or imposed, claimed to be illegal or otherwise improper, may a person maintain an action to recover the tax and other amounts paid and in dispute, with interest, in such manner as provided by law.”
SECTION 8: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Section 20 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 35-22. Collection by court action.
a. Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this Article shall be deemed a debt owed by the transient to the City.
b. Failure of an operator to collect tax required to be paid by a transient shall not excuse the operator from the operator’s obligation under this Article. Any such tax collected by an operator that has not been paid to the City shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the City. Any tax required to be paid by any transient that is not collected by the operator is deemed a debt owed by the operator to the City. c. Any person owing money to the City under the provisions of this Article shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City of Monterey for the recovery of such amount. d. If any amount required to be paid to the City under this Article is not paid when due, the Finance Director may, within four years after the amount is due, file an action to collect any unpaid amount and seek a judgment to enforce collection of the debt. All lawful means of judgment collection shall be available to the Director of Finance, including but not limited to a lien on real property.”
SECTION 9: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 35 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 36 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan (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 intending to modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) District Plan by ending the term on June 30, 2023.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed modification would end the current MCTID Management District Plan (MDP) on June 30, 2023. The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to allow the existing district to expire and the renewed district (approved by the City Council on February 21, 2023) to subsequently function beginning July 1, 2023.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No immediate fiscal impact. 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 current MCTID be expired on June 30, 2023 and the renewed district function beginning July 1, 2023. By having the renewed district begin on July 1, 2023 instead of December 31, 2023, the MCTID would generate $2,461,477 more revenue.

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: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 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 adopt this resolution. Staff does not recommend this option, since the MCTID has requested this change to the MDP.

DISCUSSION:

The MCTID is a benefit assessment district designed to fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for MCTID lodging businesses. The current MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmelby-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.

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

On February 21, 2023, the Monterey City Council adopted a resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewed the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID). This renewed district, among other actions, increased the assessment amount lodging properties would be assessed.

The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows for the Owners’ Association to request the City to modify the MDP. The MCTID Owners’ Association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), has provided a written request to the City Council to modify the MCTID to authorize the term of the current district to be ended early. A copy of the request letter is included as Attachment 2. The proposed modification would end the current MCTID on June 30, 2023 instead of its current expiration date of December 31, 2023. The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to allow the existing district to expire and the renewed district to subsequently function beginning July 1, 2023.

MCTID Management District Plan Modification Process
March 7, 2023 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING
Upon the written request by the MCTID, the Council may adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification to the MCTID MDP. The MCTID provided a written request for the proposed modification to the Council dated February 14, 2023. Receipt of this written request allows the Council to initiate proceedings for MCTID MDP modification at the March 7, 2023 meeting.

March 24, 2023 NOTICE
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 requires the City to publish the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least seven (7) days before the public hearing Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 and mail a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each business owner affected by the proposed modification at least ten (10) days before the public hearing.

April 4, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION OF MODIFICATION The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed MCTID MDP modifications. If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to modify the MCTID MDP, the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Modification.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Request Letter to Modify from the Owners’ Association

3. Modified Management District Plan
c: City Attorney
MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

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

INTENTION TO MODIFY THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID) MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
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 City of Monterey renewed the MCTID with a new Management District Plan (“MDP”) on February 21, 2023 that is effective July 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows cities to modify the MDP at the request of the owners’ association; and
WHEREAS, the MCTID owners’ association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (“MCCVB”) has requested modification of the MDP; 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 City Council declares its intention to modify the MCTID MDP.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 40 2 3. The proposed modification of the MCTID MDP will amend the term to expire on June 30, 2023.

4. . The time and place for a public hearing on modification of the MCTID MDP are set for 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on April 4, 2023 at City of Monterey Council Chambers, at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940.

5. 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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 41 ATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 42 2019-2023

MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
October 22,
2018January 25,
2023
February 2, 2023
Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 43

CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................2 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................4 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................6 IV. BUDGET AND SERVICES.............................................................................................................8 A. Annual Service Plan ........................................................................................................8 B. Annual Budget...............................................................................................................10 C. California Constitutional Compliance ............................................................................11 D. Assessment....................................................................................................................12 E. Penalties and Interest.....................................................................................................13 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...............................................................14 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................15 A. Owners’ Association......................................................................................................15 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance ...........................................15 C. Annual Report ...............................................................................................................15 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................27 APPENDIX 3 – TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY..............................................................................39 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 44 MCTID Management District Plan 2
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 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 proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding group sales and services and marketing communications programs 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.

Location: The proposed MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside. The proposed MCTID has been 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 generating room night sales. Group sales and services and marketing communications programs will generate overnight tourism and market Monterey County as a tourist, meeting and event destination, thereby generating room night sales for assessed businesses.

Budget: The total MCTID annual budget for the initial year of its four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $4,307,000. This budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales and the assessment rates do, over the MCTID’s term.

Cost: The annual assessment rate in Zone 1 is $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. The annual assessment rate in Zone 2 is $2.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments will 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.

During the MCTID’s four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term, the assessment rate may be increased by the MCCVB’s TID Committee to a maximum of $3.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and $3.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 2.

The maximum assessment increase in any year shall be $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 45 MCTID Management District Plan 3
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Collection: The cities and County will 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 take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.

Duration: The proposed MCTID will have a four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year life, beginning January 1, 2019 through December 31June 30, 2023. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of MCTID formation, 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 Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau will serve as the MCTID’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the Monterey City Council.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 46 MCTID Management District Plan 4
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
II. BACKGROUND
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, one hundred (100) California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – 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 TBID. 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 $250 million for local
destination marketing. With
competitors raising their
budgets, and increasing rivalry
for visitor dollars, it is
important that Monterey
County lodging businesses
invest in stable, lodgingspecific marketing and sales
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 generate room night sales. Lodging business owners within the TID pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that generate room night sales.

In California, 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.

There are many benefits to TIDs:
• Funds must be spent on programs that provide a specific benefit 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. 1 2 4
6 9
12 19
25 29 32
38 46
61 64
70 75
88 95 99 100
0 20
40 60
80 100
19891995200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017 Number of Districts Operating in California
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 47 MCTID Management District Plan 5
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Monterey County TID Background
In 2017, the MCCVB engaged Tourism Economics to analyze market share and the return on investment of the publicly funded TID. In addition to this analysis, the report reviews the performance of Monterey County’s tourism sector, the role of the MCCVB in attracting visitors to the area, the economic rationale for tourism promotion, and case studies of changes in destination marketing organization (DMO) funding. The full report is included in Appendix 3, key highlights include:

Monterey County’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance Visitors to Monterey County spent $2.7 billion in 2015. This spending directly generates (i.e. not including indirect and induced effects) 24,390 jobs, $1.1 billion in income, and $240 million in state and local taxes. 10% of all jobs and 5% of all income in Monterey County is directly attributable to tourism.

MCCVB Performance
A study of the MCCVBs media campaigns showed that 38% of individuals that recall seeing media produced by the MCCVB reported that they intend to visit in the future.

Competitive Analysis of Funding
An analysis of public DMO funding in comparison to the size of similar and competing destinations indicates that the MCCVB is considerably underfunded. While the MCCVB receives only slightly less total public funding than its average competitor, the MCCVB represents a much larger tourism sector than its typical competitor. Analysis also revealed that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of

0.7%, is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.

Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy
On a cumulative basis, from 2018-2022, the study forecasts that the Monterey County TID will contribute $518 million in visitor spending. This spending in turn delivers a total of $36 million in state and local tax revenue. Additionally, 782,000 total room nights and $174 million in room revenue result from the TID. To put this into perspective, a medium-sized hotel (100 rooms) with a destination average ADR ($222) gains 1,600 rooms and $360,000 in room revenue.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 48 MCTID Management District Plan 6
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
III. BOUNDARY
The MCTID will include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, 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. 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.

Full service lodging business means: an upscale, upper upscale, or luxury lodging business with a wide variety of onsite amenities, such as restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas.

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.

The boundary, as shown in the map below, currently includes 257 lodging businesses. A complete listing of lodging businesses within the proposed MCTID can be found in Appendix 2.

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

Zone 1: Includes the unincorporated area of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, 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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 49 MCTID Management District Plan 7
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 50 MCTID Management District Plan 8
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
IV. BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds will 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 sales and services and marketing communications programs available only to assessed lodging businesses.

A service plan budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed lodging businesses. A detailed annual budget will be developed and approved by MCCVB. The table below illustrates the initial annual budget allocations. The total initial budget is $4,307,000.

Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same in subsequent years. However, with the exception of the Zone 2 budget category, the TID Committee shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total budget per year. Any changes to the budget category allocations shall be included in the annual report to the City. A description of the proposed programs for the initial year of operation is below. The same programs 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 budget category includes all costs related to providing that service, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). For example, the marketing communications 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 MCCVB administration and operations portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories, as appropriate in accordance with GAAP. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the MCCVB on an as-needed basis.

Group Sales &
Services,
$1,777,754 , 41%
Marketing
Communications,
$1,777,754 , 41%
Salinas Visitor
Services, $130,000
, 3%
MCCVB
Administration &
Operations,
$578,422 , 14%
City/County
Administration Fee,
$43,070 , 1%
Initial Annual Budget - $4,307,000
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 51 MCTID Management District Plan 9
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Group Sales & Services
The group sales and services program will develop business leads for meetings and events that convert to room nights for assessed businesses. The group sales and services 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 programs:
• 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 makes visitors’ 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.

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 programs:
• 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;
• 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.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 52 MCTID Management District Plan 10
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Salinas Visitor Services
The Salinas visitor services portion of the budget shall be utilized for funding visitor services programs 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 budget shall be the amount collected from the additional assessment in Zone 2.

MCCVB Administration and Operations
The MCCVB administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized by the MCCVB for administrative staffing costs, office costs, advocacy, 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.

B. Annual Budget
The total four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year program budget is projected at approximately $4,307,000 annually, or $29,101,666$25,529,609 through June 30, 2023 if the maximum assessment rate increases are adopted. This amount is expected to fluctuate as occupancy rates increase at assessed businesses and if the assessment rate is increased. If the maximum annual assessment rate increases are adopted by the TID Committee, the annual budget will increase as estimated in the table below.

The assessment rate may or may not increase starting in 2020, the increase may be implemented beginning in 2020 or in later years at the discretion of the TID Committee. The following table demonstrates the estimated maximum budget, based on existing lodging businesses, with the assumption that the assessment rate will be increased in both Zones by $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in 2020, 2021, and 2022 and by $0.10 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.05 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in 2023, as it is a required disclosure, it is not the anticipated course of action. Any new lodging businesses that commence business within the MCTID during the four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term shall be assessed using the same methodology listed in Section IV (D).

Additionally, a three percent (3%) annual increase in the total budget is shown in both tables, to account for estimated increased room occupancy as a result of MCTID efforts. This three percent (3%) annual increase is a conservative estimate based on the effects of similarly sized TID budgets.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 17, Packet Page 53 MCTID Management District Plan 11
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Estimated Annual Budget If Maximum Assessment Rates Are Adopted Year Group Sales
& Services
Marketing
Communications
Visitor
Services
(Zone 2
Only)
MCCVB
Administration
& Operations
City/County
Administration
Fee
Total
2019 $1,777,754 $1,777,754 $130,000 $578,422 $43,070 $4,307,000 2020 $2,091,805 $2,091,805 $152,965 $680,604 $50,679 $5,067,858 2021 $2,422,575 $2,422,575 $177,153 $788,225 $58,692 $5,869,220 2022 $2,771,049 $2,771,049 $202,636 $901,607 $67,135 $6,713,475 2023
$1,474,400
2,948,799
$1,474,400
2,948,799
$107,817
215,634
$479,721
959,441
$35,721
71,441
$3,572,057
7,144,114
Total
$10,537,581
12,011,981
$10,537,581
12,011,981
$770,571
878,388
$3,428,578
3,908,299
$255,296
291,017
$25,529,609
29,101,666
Estimated Annual Budget If Maximum Assessment Rates Are Not Adopted Year
Group
Sales &
Services
Marketing
Communications
Visitor
Services
(Zone 2 Only)
MCCVB
Administration
& Operations
City/County
Administration
Fee
Total
2019 $1,777,754 $1,777,754 $130,000 $578,422 $43,070 $4,307,000 2020 $1,831,087 $1,831,087 $133,900 $595,775 $44,362 $4,436,210 2021 $1,886,019 $1,886,019 $137,917 $613,648 $45,693 $4,569,296 2022 $1,942,600 $1,942,600 $142,055 $632,057 $47,064 $4,706,375 2023
$1,000,439
2,000,878
$1,000,439
2,000,878
$73,158
146,316
$325,510
651,019
$24,238
48,476
$2,423,784
4,847,566
Total
$8,437,898
9,438,337
$8,437,898
9,438,337
$617,030
690,188
$2,745,411
3,070,921
$204,426
228,664
$20,442,664
22,866,448
The two tables above were calculated based on the following methodology. The initial year’s budget was determined based on actual collections in the prior year. The amounts collected from each category of assessed business were increased annually by the applicable percentage increase for each business category’s assessment rate. The increased amounts for each business category were added together and then increased by an additional three percent (3%) to account for the estimated increased occupancy as a result of MCTID efforts.

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 City of Monterey 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 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal App. 4th 230 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 18, Packet Page 54 MCTID Management District Plan 12
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed lodging 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 lodging businesses within the District. The programs described in this Plan are specifically targeted to generate room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the District, and are narrowly tailored. MCTID funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of generated room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in MCTID programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The programs paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses.

The assessment imposed by this District 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 the generation of room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with MCTID programs promoting lodging businesses paying the district assessment. The MCTID programs will be designed to generate room night sales at assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the MCTID programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the MCCVB administration and operations services also provide the specific benefit of generated room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.

Although the District, 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 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
District services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein.

Excluding Zone 2 funds managed by the City of Salinas, funds will be managed by the MCCVB, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City of Monterey. Lodging businesses that do not pay the MCTID assessment will not be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from 2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 19, Packet Page 55 MCTID Management District Plan 13
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
district-funded programs, be featured in advertising campaigns, or benefit from other district-funded services.

D. Assessment
The annual assessment rate in Zone 1 is $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. The annual assessment rate in Zone 2 is $2.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments will 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.

2. The maximum assessment increase in any year shall be $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Any assessment rate increase shall not increase the amount of the assessment in Zone 2 allocated to the Salinas visitor services budget category. It is not the intent of the TID Committee to raise the assessment rate. However, if the TID Committee finds it necessary to increase the assessment rate in order to ensure competitive funding, the TID Committee has the authority to increase the assessment rate. Any assessment rate increase must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) votes of the full membership of the TID Committee.

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. The assessment shall be disclosed as the “MCTID 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 purposes, 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.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 20, Packet Page 56 MCTID Management District Plan 14
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023

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 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 will be implemented beginning January 1 , 2019 and will continue four (4) years and six (6) months for five (5) years through December 31June 30, 2023. The cities and County will 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 take 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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 21, Packet Page 57 MCTID Management District Plan 15
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 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. The Monterey City Council has determined that the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) will serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board shall create a TID Committee 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. Except as noted below, the TID Committee shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the City of Salinas shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of funds raised by the extra $0.50 full and limited service assessment 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 pursuant to this part.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 22, Packet Page 58 MCTID Management District Plan 16
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2018 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2017 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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 23, Packet Page 59 MCTID Management District Plan 17
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 24, Packet Page 60 MCTID Management District Plan 18
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 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 (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 25, Packet Page 61 MCTID Management District Plan 19
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District”

“Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”

“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”

“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”

“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit”

“Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
36616. “Tenant”

“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

ARTICLE 3. Prior Law
36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions

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

CHAPTER 2. Establishment
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district

A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council

A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 26, Packet Page 62 MCTID Management District Plan 20
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district

(a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.

The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan

The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 27, Packet Page 63 MCTID Management District Plan 21
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k) (1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district.
(m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment

(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such 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.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 28, Packet Page 64 MCTID Management District Plan 22
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
(c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners.
36624. Changes to proposed assessments

At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation

(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36626. Resolution establishing district

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 29, Packet Page 65 MCTID Management District Plan 23
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
If the city council, following the public hearing, desires to establish the proposed property and business improvement district, and the city council has not made changes pursuant to Section 36624, or has made changes that do not substantially change the proposed assessment, the city council shall adopt a resolution establishing the district. The resolution shall contain all of the information specified in Section 36625. 36627. Notice and assessment diagram

Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625 or Section 36626, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses

The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners

The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories

All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district

If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3. Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments

The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property

(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 30, Packet Page 66 MCTID Management District Plan 24
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
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 any action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36626. Any appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services

The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan

The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention

(a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps

Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627.

CHAPTER 3.5. Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments

(a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 31, Packet Page 67 MCTID Management District Plan 25
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
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
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 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 32, Packet Page 68 MCTID Management District Plan 26
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
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 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 33, Packet Page 69 MCTID Management District Plan 27
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Adams Motel 2086 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Adobe Inn Dolores St & 8th Ave
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Aloha Motel 235 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Americas Best Value
Presidents Inn on Munras 1150 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Andril Cottages 569 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Anton Inn 1095 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Arbor Inn 1058 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Asilomar Conference
Center 800 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove, CA Full Service
Barlocker's Rustiling Oaks
Ranch 25252 Limekiln Rd. Salinas, CA 93908 Limited Service Bay Park Hotel 1425 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Bayside Inn 2055 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Beachcomber Inn 1996 Sunset Dr Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Bernardus Lodge 415 Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service Best 5 Motel Salinas 1010 Fairview Ave Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Best Value Stage Coach
Lodge 1111 10th St Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service
Best Value Surf Inn 1200 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Beach
Dunes Inn 3290 Dunes Dr. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Best Western Carmel Bay
View Inn Junipero btwn 5th & 6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Best Western Carmel's
Townhouse Lodge
N.W. Corner San Carlos &
Fifth Ave.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Best Western DeAnza Inn 2141 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Magic
Carpet Lodge 1875 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 34, Packet Page 70 MCTID Management District Plan 28
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Best Western Monarch
Resort 1111 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Best Western Monterey
Inn 825 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service
Best Western Park Crest
Motel 1100 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Plus
Victorian Inn 487 Foam St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Salinas
Monterey Hotel 175 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Best Western Salinas
Valley Inn & Suites 187 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Best Western The Inn &
Suites Pacific Grove 660 Dennett Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Bide-A-Wee Inn &
Cottages 221 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Big Sur Campground Inc. 47000 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Big Sur Lodge Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park Big Sur, Ca 93920-0190 Full Service Big Sur River Inn Hwy 1 at Pheneger Creek Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Blue Sky Lodge 10 Flight Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Borg's Oceanfront Motel 635 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove Ca 93950 Limited Service Briarwood Inn San Carlos btwn 4th & 5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Budget Inn Salinas 219 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Butterfly Grove Inn 1073 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Cabana Holiday Cabins 8710 Prunedale North Rd. Prunedale, CA 93907 Limited Service California Inn 736 N. Main St Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Candle Bay Inn 2118 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Candlelight Inn (Inns by
the Sea)
San Carlos between 4th &
5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Cannery Row Inn 200 Foam St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Capitol Motel 2110 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 35, Packet Page 71 MCTID Management District Plan 29
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Captain's Inn at Moss
Landing Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 Limited Service Carmel Cottage Inn
San Antonio and (Box
5805), Eighth St
Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Country Inn Dolores St. & 3rd Ave.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Fireplace Inn San Carlos & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Forest Lodge
Ocean Ave at Torres & Mt.

View
Carmel-By-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Garden Court Inn 4th & Torres
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Green Lantern Inn Casanova at 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Inn and Suites N.E. 5th & Junipero
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Lodge San Carlos & 5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Mission Inn 3665 Rio Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Oaks Inn 5th & Mission St.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Resort Inn Carpenter & 2nd Ave.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel River Inn Hwy 1 @ Oliver Road Carmel, CA 93922 Limited Service Carmel Valley Lodge
Carmel Valley Rd. at Ford
Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service
Carmel Valley Manor 8545 Carmel Valley Road Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Valley Ranch 1 Old Ranch Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Wayfarer Inn 4th Ave. at Mission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carriage House Inn (Inns
by the Sea) Junipero btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Casa de Carmel Inn Monte Verde & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Casa Linda Motel 1109 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Casa Munras, A Larkspur
Hotel 700 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service
Casa Palmero Pebble
Beach 1518 Cypress Dr. Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 36, Packet Page 72 MCTID Management District Plan 30
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Casa Verde Inn 2113 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Castroville Motel 11656 Merritt St. Castroville, CA 95012 Limited Service Centrella Inn 612 Central Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Ciudad Del Rey Motel 50620 Mesa Verde Rd King City, CA 93930 Limited Service Coachman's Inn San Carlos btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Colonial Terrace Inn
San Antonio btwn 12th &
13th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Colton Inn 707 Pacific St.. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Carmel Hill 1252 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Carmel-bythe-Sea Ocean Ave. & Torres St.Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 Limited Service
Comfort Inn - Monterey
Bay 2050 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Monterey
Peninsula Airport 1200 Olmsted Rd Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Munras
Avenue 1262 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn & Suites -
Marina 140 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Comfort Inn &
Suites/Quality Inn Salinas 181 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Contenta Inn 20 Via Contenta Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Continental Motel 1165 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Country Inn 126 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Courtyard by Marriott
Salinas Monterey 17225 El Rancho Way Salinas, CA 93907 Full Service Cypress Inn Lincoln & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Days Inn 1226 De La Torre St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Days Inn of Monterey 1288 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service De Tierra Vineyards 503 Corral De Tierra Rd Salinas, CA 93908-8950 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 37, Packet Page 73 MCTID Management District Plan 31
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Deer Haven Inn & Suites 740 Crocker Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 48865 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Del Monte Pines Motel 1298 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Discovery Inn 1106 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Downtown Monterey -
San Carlos Days Inn 850 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Econo Lodge - Salinas 180 S. Sanborn Rd. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Econo Lodge Bay Breeze 2049 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Econo Lodge Monterey
Fairgrounds 2042 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Economy Inn Salinas 214 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Economy Inn Seaside 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Edgemere Cottages
San Antonio btwn 13th St.
and Santa Lucia
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
El Adobe Inn 936 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service El Castell Motel 2102 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service El Dorado Motel 1351 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service El Llano Motel 861 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service El Rey Motel 443 West Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service El Sombrero Motel 210 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Embassy Suites Hotel &
Conference Center 1441 Canyon Del Rey Seaside, CA 93955 Full Service Esalen Institute 55000 Hwy One Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Fernwood Resort
(Hotel/Motel) 47200 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Fireside Lodge-Monterey 1131 10th St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Gateway Lodge Motel 1909 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 38, Packet Page 74 MCTID Management District Plan 32
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Good Nite Inn 545 Work St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Gorda Springs Resort Hwy 1 Gorda, CA 93920 Limited Service Gosby House Inn 643 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Green Gables Inn 301 Ocean View Blvd. Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Hacienda Guest Lodge PO Box 631 Jolon, CA 93928 Limited Service Hampton Inn & Suites
Salinas 523 Work St Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service
Happy Landing Inn
Monte Verde btwn 5th &
6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hidden Valley Inn
(Country Garden Inns) 102 W. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Highlands Inn, Hyatt
Vacation Club 120 Highlands Dr. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Hilton Garden Inn
Monterey 1000 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Hofsas House San Carlos & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Holiday Inn Express -
Cannery Row Hotel 443 Wave St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Holiday Inn Express -
Monterey Bay 1400 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Holiday Inn Express &
Suites - Marina 189 Seaside Cir. Marina, CA 93955 Limited Service Holman Ranch 60 Holman Rd Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Horizon Inn/Ocean View
Lodge Junipero & 3rd
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hotel 1110 1110 Del Monte Ave Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Hotel Abrego 755 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Hotel Carmel 4th & San Carlos
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hotel Pacific (Inns of
Monterey) 300 Pacific St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Howard Johnson Inn -
Salinas 131 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service
Howard Johnson Inn
Marina at Monterey Bay 416 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 39, Packet Page 75 MCTID Management District Plan 33
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Hyatt Regency Monterey
Resort & Spa 1 Old Golf Course Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service IHG Army Hotels Buildings
366 & 367 Presido Of Monterey Monterey, CA 93944 Limited Service Inn at The Pinnacles
32025 Stonewall Canyon
Rd Soledad, CA 93960 Limited Service
Inns of California Salinas 555 Airport Blvd. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Intercontinental The
Clement Monterey 750 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Knights Inn Carmel Hill
Lodge 1374 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service La Playa Hotel 8th & Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
La Quinta Inn Monterey 2401 Del Monte Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Laguna Lodge 430 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Lake San Antonio Resort
(Hotel/Motel) 74255 San Antonio Rd. Bradley, CA 93426 Limited Service Lamp Lighter Inn Ocean & Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
L'Auberge Carmel Monte Verde & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Laurel Inn & Conference
Center 801 W. Laurel Dr. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Lighthouse Lodge & Suites 1249 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Lincoln Green Inn 26200 Carmelo Street
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921-2747 Limited Service
Lobos Lodge
Ocean Ave. & Monte
Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Lone Oak Lodge 2221 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Los Laureles Lodge 313 W. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service Lovers Point Inn 625 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Lucia Lodge 62400 Hwy 1 Lucia, CA 93920 Limited Service Mariposa Inn 1386 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Martine Inn 255 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 40, Packet Page 76 MCTID Management District Plan 34
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Merritt House Inn 386 Pacific St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Mission Ranch Resort 26270 Dolores St. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Monte Verde Inn
Monte Verde & Ocean
Ave.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Monterey Bay Inn (Inns of
Monterey) 242 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Bay Lodge 55 Camino Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Bay Travelodge 2030 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Beach Dunes
Inn 3280 Dunes Dr. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service
Monterey Downtown
Travelodge 675 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Fireplace Inn 2362 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Hostel 778 Hawthorne St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Marriott Hotel 350 Calle Principal Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Monterey Oceanside Inn 2030 Del Monte Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Peninsula Inn 1101 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Monterey Plaza Hotel &
Spa 400 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service
Monterey Tides 2600 Sand Dunes Dr. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Motel 6 - Marina 100 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Motel 6 - Monterey 2124 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Motel 6 - Monterey
Downtown 1240 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Motel 6 - Salinas #639 1257 De La Torre St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Motel 6 - Salinas North
#1370 140 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service
Motel 6 (Artichoke Inn) 10341 Merritt St. Castroville, CA 95012 Limited Service Munras Lodge 1010 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Normandy Inn Ocean Ave & Monte Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 41, Packet Page 77 MCTID Management District Plan 35
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Old Marina Inn 3110 Del Monte Blvd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Old Monterey Inn 500 Martin St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Old St Angela Inn 321 Central Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Pacific Best Inn 1141 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Pacific Gardens Inn 701 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Pacific Inn Monterey 2332 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Padre Oaks Motel 1278 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service PAL Rest Easy LLC 11580 Great Oaks Way Jolon, CA 93928 Limited Service Paraiso Hot Springs Resort 34358 Paraiso Springs Rd Soledad, CA 93960 Limited Service Parkfield Inn
70410 Parkfield Coalinga
Rd. Parkfield, CA 93451 Limited Service
Pelican Inn Monterey 1182 Cass St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Pine Inn
Ocean Ave. & Monte
Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Portola Hotel and Spa at
Monterey Bay 2 Portola Plaza Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Post Ranch Inn 47900 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Prunedale Motor Lodge 1017 El Camino Real N
Prunedale, CA 93907-
3359 Limited Service
Quail Lodge 8205 Valley Greens Dr. Carmel Valley, CA 93923 Full Service Quality Inn - Monterey
Fairgrounds 2075 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Quality Inn Salinas 144 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Ramada Inn - Marina 323 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Ramada Limited 2058 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Red Roof Inn and Suites 2227 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Residence Inn by Marriott 17215 El Rancho Way Salinas, CA 93907 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 42, Packet Page 78 MCTID Management District Plan 36
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Rex Motel 305 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Ripplewood Resort Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service
Riverside Campgrounds
and Cabins Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service
Rodeway Inn Monterey 2041 Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Rosedale Inn 775 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Royal Hotel/Cortes Hotel 201 E. Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Salinas Inn 1030 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Salinas Valley Motel 2100 North Main St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Sanctuary Beach Resort 3295 Dunes Drive Marina, Ca 93933 Full Service Sandcastle Inn 1011 Autocenter Pkwy. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Sandpiper Inn-by-the-Sea 2408 Bay View Ave. Carmel, CA 93923 Limited Service Sea Breeze Inn & Cottages
(Monterey Peninsula Inns) 1100 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Sea Lamp Inn 2201 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Sea View Inn
Camino Real btwn 11th &
12th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Seaside Inn 1986 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Seven Gables Inn 555 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Spindrift Inn 652 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service SpringHill Suites The
Dunes on Monterey Bay 215 10th St Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Star Motel 1161 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Stargazer Inn and Suites 1046 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Steinbeck Lodge 109 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Stonepine Estate Resort 150 E. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 43, Packet Page 79 MCTID Management District Plan 37
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Sunset House 2 SE Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Sunset Inn 133 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Super 8 - Fremont 2120 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Super 8 - Munras 1300 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Sure Stay Inn by Best
Western 1893 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Svendsgaard's Inn (Inns by
the Sea) 4th & San Carlos
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Tally Ho Inn Monte Verde & 6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Tassajara Zen Mountain
Center 39171 Tassajara Rd.

Tassajara Hot Springs, CA
93924 Limited Service
The Bunkhouse 34750 Fort Romie Rd Soledad, CA 93960-9672 Limited Service The Getaway Ocean & Junipero
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
The Glen Oaks 47080 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service The Hideaway Junipero btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
The Holly Farm 9200 Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Limited Service The Homestead Lincoln at 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93923 Limited Service
The Inn at Spanish Bay 2700 17 Mile Drive Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service The Jabberwock 598 Laine St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service The Lodge at Pebble
Beach 1700 17 Mile Dr. Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service The Monterey Hotel 406 Alvarado St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service The Olympia Lodge 1140 Lighthouse Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service The Tradewinds at Carmel Mission & 3rd
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Thunderbird Motel 1933 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 44, Packet Page 80 MCTID Management District Plan 38
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Tickle Pink Inn 155 Highland Dr.

Carmel Highlands, CA
93923 Limited Service
Travel Inn Salinas 425 Monterey St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Traveler's Hotel 16 1/2 East Gabilan St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Treebones Resort 71895 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Vagabond Inn Salinas 131 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Vagabond's House Inn Dolores & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Vendange Carmel Inn &
Suites 24815 Carpenter St.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Ventana Inn & Spa Highway 1 South Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Villa Franca Inn 900 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Vision Quest Safari Bed &
Breakfast 400 River Rd. Salinas, CA 93908 Limited Service Wagon Wheel Motel 1217 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Wave Street Inn 571 Wave St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Wayside Inn (Inns by the
Sea) 7th & Mission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Western Skylodge Motel 6 South Wood St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Wilkies Inn, The 1038 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Willow Lodge 719 South Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 45, Packet Page 81 MCTID Management District Plan 39
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 3 – TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 46, Packet Page 82 Competitive Analysis of Funding:

Monterey, California
March 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 47, Packet Page 83 Table of Contents
| Tourism Economics 2
Executive Summary 3
1) Monterey’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance 8 2) Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Performance 15 3) Competitive Analysis of Funding 21
4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy 26
Appendix 1: Methodology 36
Appendix 2: The Economic Rationale for Destination Marketing 40 Appendix 3: Case Study Review 52
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 48, Packet Page 84 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 3
Overview
The Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) engaged Tourism Economics (“we”) to analyze market share and the return on investment of the publicly funded TID. In addition to this analysis, our report reviews the performance of Monterey County’s tourism sector, the role of the MCCVB in attracting visitors to the area, the economic rationale for tourism promotion, and case studies of changes in destination marketing organization (DMO) funding. This executive summary follows the structure of the accompanying report, with eight main sections.
1) Monterey County’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance
Visitors to Monterey County spent $2.7 billion in 2015. This spending directly generates (i.e. not including indirect and induced effects) 24,390 jobs, $1.1 billion in income, and $240 million in state and local taxes. 10% of all jobs and 5% of all income in Monterey County is directly attributable to tourism (source: BEA).

Monterey County’s share of the state’s total room demand has increased slightly to 2.21% in 2016 from 2.12% in 2011. While a 0.09 percentage point increase in the share of rooms booked may appear slight, travelers booked 141 million rooms in California in 2016, and therefore a 0.09% increase in share equates to 118,000 more room nights in Monterey County.

2.12% 2.12%

2.15%

2.17%

2.19%

2.21%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2.0%

2.1%

2.2%

2.3%
Monterey County's market share
Source: STR
Percent of California's total room demand
*Central Coast, Central Valley, San Fransisco Bay Area
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 49, Packet Page 85 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 4
2) MCCVB Performance
In 2016, the MCCVB sales team facilitated 87,500 room nights for groups, or 2.8% of all room nights in Monterey County. These bookings generated $74 million in local economic impact.

The MCCVB also manages media campaigns targeted toward the leisure market. Study results demonstrate the campaign’s effectiveness. 38% of individuals that recall seeing media produced by the MCCVB (“Aware”) report that they intend to visit in the future vs only 26% of those not aware of the MCCVB’s advertisements.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 50, Packet Page 86 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 5
3) Competitive Analysis of Funding
An analysis of public DMO funding in comparison to the size of similar and competing destinations indicates that the MCCVB is considerably underfunded. While the MCCVB receives only slightly less total public funding than its average competitor, the MCCVB represents a much larger tourism sector than its typical competitor. On a per hotel room basis, we find that the MCCVB receives only 43% of the funding suggested by its benchmark set.

Analysis reveals that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate (hotel tax rate) of 0.7%, is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.
$2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,254
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$545
$540
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars

0.7%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.3%

2.9%

3.0%

4.0%
Monterey County
Mendocino County
Los Angeles
Orange County
San Diego
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
San Francisco
Average
Pasadena
Palm Springs
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Stockton
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Assessment rates in California TIDs
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 51, Packet Page 87 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 6
4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy
Monterey county relies on the TID to be competitively funded in comparison to competing destinations. The TID comprises 83% of the public funding necessary to compete suggested by our benchmarking analysis.

To analyze the impact of the TID, we create two scenarios, a Non-TID Scenario (or Absence of TID) and a Baseline Scenario in which the TID remains in place. We estimate the fiscal and economic impacts of these two scenarios
In 2020, our Baseline Scenario forecasts MCCVB receiving $7.6 million in public funding. In the Non-TID Scenario, the MCCVB receives $3.2 million in public funding, a decrease of $4.4 million. We estimate that this level of funding would result in $128.9 million of lost visitor spending.

On a cumulative basis, from 2018-2022, we forecast that the TID for Monterey County contributes $518 million in visitor spending. This spending in turn delivers a total of $36 million in state and local tax revenue. Additionally, 782,000 total room nights and $174 million in room revenue result from the TID. To put this into perspective, a medium-sized hotel (100 rooms) with a destination average ADR ($222) gains 1,600 rooms and $360,000 in room revenue.

DMO revenue and visitor spending in two scenarios, 2020 Dollar figure in millions Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.4 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.9 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $7.6 $3.2
Total Funding decrease relative to baseline -- $4.4
Total decrease in marketing spending (90%) -- $4.0
Anticipated total ROI on lost marketing spending -- 32-to-1 Decrease in visitor spending -- $128.9
Total visitor spending $3,067 $2,938
Sources: Tourism Economics
2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022
$2.2
$2.4
$2.6
$2.8
$3.0
$3.2
$3.4 Thousands
losses
cut2 Baseline Scenario Absence of TID Scenario
Visitor spending in two scenarios
*Cool-down years in which the full impact of funding decrease is not realized Source: Tourism Economics Nominal dollars, billions
$518 million in total lost
visitor spending 2018-2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 52, Packet Page 88 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 7
Appendix 1: Methodology
We combine previous research and widely accepted techniques to calculate how increased DMO funding will increase visitor spending and the economic impacts of tourism on the Monterey County economy.

Appendix 2: The economic rationale for destination
marketing
The case for destination marketing is broad and compelling. The need for strong destination marketing is connected to the characteristics of the tourism sector, the dynamics of travel markets, and proven economic returns of effective marketing. Destination marketing plays an integral and indispensable role in the competitiveness of the local tourism economy by addressing three challenges. In addition to addressing key challenges, catalytic impacts make tourism promotion integral to Monterey County’s tourism sector and economy as a whole.

Appendix 3: Case study review
A case study review demonstrates the important role of the destination marketing organization (DMO) on the local tourism economy, and validates the need for competitive destination funding. When destinations such as Colorado and San Diego significantly reduced destination marketing, profound negative impacts on visitation soon followed. Conversely, providing increased levels of funding has been shown to drive tourism growth and positively contribute to regional and national perceptions, such as the case with the “Pure Michigan” campaign.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 53, Packet Page 89 1) Monterey’s Tourism Sector
Overview and Recent Performance
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 54, Packet Page 90 Tourism is a major driver of the
Monterey County economy
| Tourism Economics 9
In 2015, visitors spent $2.7 billion in
Monterey County, generating 24,400 jobs
and $1.1 billion in local income
The following pages detail the
size of Monterey County’s
tourism sector along with trends
in the tourism sector.

Visitors to Monterey County
spent $2.7 billion in 2015. The
majority of this spending accrues
to the accommodations and food
services sectors.

This spending directly generates
(i.e. not including indirect and
induced effects) 24,390 jobs,
$1.1 billion of income, and $240
million in state and local taxes.
10% of all jobs and 5% of all
income in Monterey County is
directly attributable to tourism
(source: BEA).

Monterey County represents
approximately one-third of the
Central Coast region’s tourism
sector and over 2% of the state’s
tourism sector.

Key tourism indicators in Monterey County
Dollar figures are in millions
2015 value
Share of Central
Coast total
Share of
California total
Total visitor spending $2,709 33.5% 2.2%
Accommodations $680 36.2% 2.9%
Food Service $797 36.1% 2.8%
Food Stores $73 27.2% 2.0%
Local Tran. & Gas $203 22.0% 1.2%
Arts, Ent. & Rec. $356 35.7% 2.2%
Retail Sales $491 34.7% 2.9%
Visitor Air Tran. $18 28.6% 0.3%
Other travel spending $91 27.9% 0.9%
Earnings $1,111 39.5% 2.7%
Employment 24,390 30.8% 2.4%
State and local taxes $240 34.8% 1.5%
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 55, Packet Page 91 Visitor spending is distributed
throughout the county
| Tourism Economics 10
While the city of Monterey receives the
most visitor spending, all local communities
benefit from the tourism sector
31% of all spending in Monterey
County, or $845 million, occurs in
the City of Monterey. While the
City of Monterey receives the
most spending, smaller cities like
Marina and Pacific Grove receive
over $100 million annually.

Monterey
$845
31%
Salinas
$354
Carmel 13%
$231
Pacific Grove 9%
$158
6%
Marina
$109
4%
Other cities and
unicoporated
county
$1,011
37%
Visitor spending in Monterey County, 2015
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
Nominal dollars, millions,
and percent of total
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 56, Packet Page 92 The impact of tourism is rapidly
increasing
| Tourism Economics 11
Visitor spending is up 30% in six years
Visitor spending reached $2.7
billion in 2015, up from $2.1
billion in 2009, a 30% increase in
six years. Over the same period,
employment is up 18%, income is
up 31%, and tax revenue is up
27%.
0 10
20 30
40 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0 Thousands Thousands
Spending (left axis)
Earnings (left axis)
Employment (right axis)
Key tourism impacts in Monterey County
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
Nominal dollars, billions Jobs, 000's
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 57, Packet Page 93 Hotel sector KPIs are rising steadily
| Tourism Economics 12
ADR reached $194 and RevPAR reached
$140 in 2016
Hotel sector KPIs (key
performance indicators) have
grown at a steady rate since
2011.
• ADR (average daily rate)
increased to $194 from $158.
• RevPAR (revenue per
available room) increased to
$140 from $96.
• Occupancy rate increased to
72% from 61%.
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$50
$80
$110
$140
$170
$200
ADR (left axis)
RevPAR (left axis)
Occupancy (right axis)
Key hotel metrics in Monterey County
Source: STR
Nominal dollars Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 58, Packet Page 94 Total room demand is growing at a
healthy rate
| Tourism Economics 13
Monterey County has grown at a similar
rate as competing destinations
Room demand in Monterey
County has grown 17% since
2012. This is higher than Santa
Barbara’s growth, and roughly
equivalent to growth in Napa
County and Sonoma County.

This indicates that Monterey
County is growing at a similar
rate as its nearby competitive
destinations.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
100
105
110
115
120
125
130 Napa County, CA
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Monterey County, CA
Growth in hotel room demand, 2012-2016
Source: STR
Index (2012=100)
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 59, Packet Page 95 Monterey County’s share of room
demand in the state has increased
| Tourism Economics 14
The increase may appear slight, but
represents 118,000 additional room nights
Room demand may be the best
measure of change in market
share as it directly reflects the
size of the overnight tourism
market, and overnight tourists
account for the majority of visitor
spending.

Monterey County’s share of the
state’s total room demand has
increased slightly to 2.21% in
2016 from 2.12% in 2011.

While a 0.09 percentage point
increase in the share of rooms
booked may appear small,
travelers booked 141 million
rooms in California in 2016, and
therefore a 0.09% increase in
share equates to 118,000 more
room nights in Monterey County.

All trends examined indicate that
tourism in Monterey County is
experiencing healthy growth.

2.12% 2.12%

2.15%

2.17%

2.19%

2.21%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2.0%

2.1%

2.2%

2.3%
Monterey County's market share
Source: STR
Percent of California's total room demand
*Central Coast, Central Valley, San Fransisco Bay Area
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 60, Packet Page 96 2) MCCVB Performance
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 61, Packet Page 97 The Monterey County Convention &
Visitor Bureau (MCCVB) is an
engine that drives the growth of
Monterey County’s tourism sector
| Tourism Economics 16
The MCCVB utilizes a variety of
complementary channels to encourage
potential travelers to visit and spend the
night in Monterey County
Hosting SeeMonterey.com
Creating online and social media
campaigns
Working with industry professionals
Catering to Group Sales
experiences
 Engineered a major reconfiguration of
the site in 2016 based on stakeholder
feedback
 Created a “Utrip” feature which allows
visitors to create customized itineraries
 Hosted 1.7 million unique visitors in
2016
 Partners with LATimes.com and
SFGate.com to create an online
Monterey content hub that garnered
121,000 story reads
 The Big Blue Live Sweepstakes earned

1.3 billion(!) total media impressions
 Engages over 100k Facebook fans, 18k
Twitter Followers, and 13k Instagram
followers
 Hosted 14 FAM tours with 144 agents
and operators
 Facilitated 87,500 room nights for
groups, or 2.8% of all room nights in
Monterey County
 The MCCVB’s Strategic Client
Services Department works to create
programs that add additional value to
group experiences
 Site inspections allow potential
meeting professionals to see the
hotels and venues
 Microsites and custom maps ensure
that each group’s unique needs and
desires are catered to
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 62, Packet Page 98 Booking large groups and
generating millions of dollars in
economic impact
| Tourism Economics 17
In 2016, the MCCVB sales team facilitated
87,500 room nights and created a total
economic impact of $79 million
The following slides detail the
major impacts that the MCCVB
has on the Monterey County
tourism sector and the Monterey
County brand.

The MCCVB sales team actively
pursues group bookings for
Monterey County hotels.

In 2016, the sales team facilitated
87,500 rooms for group bookings;
this equates to 2.8% of all
Monterey County room nights.

These bookings generated $79
million in local economic impact.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 63, Packet Page 99 Influencing visitors to spend the
night
| Tourism Economics 18
Visitor Services Specialists work to
encourage visitors to lengthen their stays
and spend more money in Monterey
County
The Monterey Visitors Center
serves as a local tourism hub and
encourages inquisitive visitors to
stay in Monterey longer and
spend more money at local
businesses. In 2016, 62% of
visitors served by Visitor Services
Specialists extended their stay as
a result of their interaction.

In addition to influencing visitors
at the official visitors center, the
MCCVB operated satellite
services at 43 local events and
conferences. In 2015-16,
108,000 visitors were assisted by
specialists, these meetings
generated 90,700 incremental
room nights and $29 million in
additional visitor spending.
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0 20
40 60
80 100
120 Thousands
Influenced incremental room nights (left axis)
Economic impact of influenced room nights (rights axis) Visitor services
Source: MCCVB
Room nights generated, 000's Nominal dollars, millions
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 64, Packet Page 100 Promoting Monterey County as a
destination
| Tourism Economics 19
Media campaigns increase perceptions of
Monterey County and make travelers more
likely to visit Monterey County
The MCCVB has partnered with
Strategic Marketing & Research
Inc. (SMARI) to measure the
impact of its advertising
campaigns.

SMARI’s research indicates that
individuals that have seen media
produced by the MCCVB have
more positive association with the
Monterey brand and are more
likely to visit in the future.
38% of individuals that recall
seeing media produced by the
MCCVB (“Aware”) report that
they intend to visit in the future vs
only 26% of those not aware of
the MCCVB’s advertisements.

4.17 4.06

3.4 3.6

3.8 4.0

4.2 4.4 Aware Unaware
Source: SMARI
Positive brand image measure*
38%
26%
Intent to visit
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Aware Unaware
Source: SMARI
Percent intending to visit
Ad campaigns effect on key indicators
*Measures the degree with which survey respondents have positive associations with the Monterey brand ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 65, Packet Page 101 Targeting the international market
| Tourism Economics 20
The MCCVB engages with the rapidly
growing international market to ensure that
the County does not miss out on the
increasingly lucrative segment
► Targeted tour operator promotion
resulting in over 4700 bookings
(average 3-5 room nights each)
over 3 month promo period
► Gained over 50,000 Weibo (China’s
main social media site) followers
► Hosted China-ready training
seminars for hospitality
professionals in Monterey County
► Partnered with Brand USA to
host the Jeni and Olly Show, a
popular Travel Channel show
with an estimated 1.7 million
viewers
► Partnered with San Jose and
Santa Cruz CVBs to launch
Expedia and British Airways
promotions
Conducted Brand USA campaigns
and Visit California media & sales
missions to Mexico
► Campaign delivered social
reach of 8.7MM
► Presented to 240 travel agents;
► Held one-on-one meetings with
10 largest tour operators
► Targeted travelers with an ad
campaign on Expedia Canada
receiving 338,000 impressions
and booked over 2,500 rooms
during the campaign
► Ran a print campaign in Air
Canada's in-flight magazine in
promoting new flights to the
region
Canada
Mexico
The United
Kingdom
China
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 66, Packet Page 102 3) Competitive Analysis of Funding
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 67, Packet Page 103 Funding comparison (1 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 22
The MCCVB receives less funding than five
of its eight competitors.

The following slides will analyze the MCCVB’s level of public funding compared to competing and similar destinations. To analyze the appropriateness of funding for tourism promotion in Monterey County, we analyze a competitive set of eight destination marketing organizations (DMOs). These are the destinations that the MCCVB considers major competitors for the leisure market. This analysis provides key benchmarks in understanding an appropriate level of funding for the MCCVB.

With total public funding (city, county, and assessments) of $6.9 million, the MCCVB receives less funding than five of its eight competitors but slightly more funding than the set average of $6.8 million.
$12.0
$8.4
$8.3
$7.7
$7.0
$6.9
$6.8
$5.0
$4.7
$1.0
Palm Springs
Newport Beach
San Jose
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
Monterey County
Average
Santa Barbara
South Lake Tahoe
Laguna Beach
$0 $5 $10 $15
Total public funding* for competitive
DMOs
*Fiscal year 2015 or 2016, depending on source
data availability
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports
Dollars, millions
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 68, Packet Page 104 Funding comparison (2 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 23
Monterey County has low DMO funding
relative to its hotel inventory
To more fairly compare the
appropriateness of DMO funding
across the competitors, we
evaluate the size of the tourism
sector in these destinations (as
measured by the number of hotel
rooms) compared to the amount
of public funding they receive
(from the city, county, or special
assessment).

Plotting the data reveals that a
number of competing
destinations receive greater
public funding than the MCCVB
despite representing a smaller
tourism sector.

Palm Springs
Monterey
County
San Jose
Newport
Beach
Napa Valley
Santa
Barbara
Sonoma
County
South Lake
Tahoe
Laguna Beach
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 Millions Public funding and destination size
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports
Public funding
Rooms, 000's
DMOs with greater public
funding than the MCCVB
despite representing
fewer hotel rooms
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 69, Packet Page 105 Funding comparison (3 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 24
Monterey County has the second lowest
per room funding of the destinations in its
competitive set
Continuing our analysis, we calculate the amount of public funding per hotel room to benchmark an appropriate level of public funding for the MCCVB. We find that the MCCVB receives only 43% of the funding suggested by this benchmark. Only Santa Barbara receives less funding than Monterey. This analysis demonstrates that the MCCVB is not funded at a competitive level.

To reach the average of its competitive set, the MCCVB would need to receive 130% more funding or approximately $7.8 million in additional public funds.
$2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,258
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$583
$540
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 70, Packet Page 106 The relatively low assessment rate
in Monterey County impacts the
destination’s competitiveness
| Tourism Economics 25
Adjustments to the TID assessment rate
are worth consideration
To benchmark an appropriate assessment rate for the MCCVB , we analyze TID assessments in a number of California TIDs. These TIDs include the MCCVB’s competitive set and additional DMOs that disclosed their assessment rate to Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI) to Monterey’s competitive set (data on the entire competitive set was not available).

Analysis reveals that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of 0.7% (while the assessment is levied on a per room basis, its equals 0.7% of room revenue) is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.

Since the assessment is the primary source of revenue for the MCCVB (and the vast majority of other DMOs on this list), this results in a limited tourism promotion budget for Monterey County.

0.7%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.3%

2.9%

3.0%

4.0%
Monterey County
Mendocino County
Los Angeles
Orange County
San Diego
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
San Francisco
Average
Pasadena
Palm Springs
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Stockton
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Assessment rates in California TIDs
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 71, Packet Page 107 4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey
County’s Economy
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 72, Packet Page 108 The TID makes Monterey more
competitive
| Tourism Economics 27
ADR is below the average competitive
destination, and the benefits of DMO
funding far exceed any benefit of room cost
reduction
The following slides detail the potential impact of MCCVB’s work without benefit of the TID in Monterey County.

While the analysis in section 3 demonstrated that the MCCVB is underfunded, the TID comprises a significant portion of the funding for the MCCVB, and makes the destination more competitive.

This is important for the MCCVB and the tourism sector of Monterey County as the TID must be re-approved by the City Council on an annual basis.

Economically, absence 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 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 one caveat is that the market ADR remains competitive. Analysis shows that ADR in Monterey County is below average for its competitive set, so customers are not ‘priced out’ of Monterey County.

The absence of tourism promotion funding would in all likelihood far exceed any possible negative effect of higher room costs. We also note that while Monterey County’s ADR has increased 23% since 2011, total room demand has increased 17%. This indicates that price sensitivity does not seem to be a major factor for visitors. In sum, we believe that the absence of the TID would not have an
appreciable positive effect on room demand in Monterey County. $325
$306
$231
$211
$203
$194
$189
$180
$161
$159
$155
$120
Laguna Beach
Napa County
San Francisco
Newport Beach
Average
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
San Jose-Santa Cruz
Sonoma County
Palm Springs
San Diego
South Lake Tahoe
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
ADR in competitive destinations
Source: STR Dollars
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 73, Packet Page 109 Scenario Development (1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 28
The TID is a critical component of Monterey
County’s tourism promotion
competitiveness
To analyze the impact of the TID, we create two scenarios, an Absence of TID Scenario and a Baseline Scenario in which the TID remains in place. We estimate the fiscal and economic impacts of these two scenarios
To provide an example of the fiscal impact for the MCCVB, we examine fiscal year 2017’s forecasted revenue. If the TID did not exist, the MCCVB would lose $4.2 million in public funding. This is equal to 59% of its total revenue or 62% of its total public funding.

Without the TID, Monterey would be severely underfunded in comparison to competing destinations. Without the TID, Monterey would receive only $214 of public funding per hotel room, or 17% of the public funding amount suggested by our benchmarking analysis. $2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,258
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$583
$540
$214
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
Monterey w/o TID
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars
Two Scenarios example, fiscal year 2017
Dollar figure in millions
Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.2 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.6 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $2.9 $3.2
Source: MCCVB
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 74, Packet Page 110 Scenario Development (2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 29
Without TID, Monterey County could lose
$129 million in visitor spending
We provide additional details on the two scenarios in fiscal year 2020, as this is the first year without a “cool-down” effect (i.e. while immediate effects would be felt, the full effect of a funding decrease will not be felt in the first two years of budget cuts as lags exists between taxes being collected, distributed, media spending being curtailed, consumers making travel plans, and visitors actually traveling).

In 2020, our Baseline Scenario forecasts MCCVB receiving $7.6 million in public funding. In the Absence of TID Scenario, the MCCVB receives $3.2 million in public funding, a decrease of $4.4 million. We assume 90% of this funding would have been spent on marketing efforts (or $4.0 million). Based on a meta-analysis of ROI and conversion studies performed on DMO marketing efforts, we conservatively estimate a 32-to-1 ROI on this lost marketing spending (see Appendix 1 for additional details on methodology). This results in $128.9 million of lost visitor spending.

This lost spending is split into five visitor spending categories and then input into an economic model of the Monterey County economy created in the IMPLAN modeling software. The model calculates the direct impact of this lost spending (the impact from the initial visitor spending), as well as the indirect (supply-chain) effects, and induced (income) effects. The model reports the impact on Monterey County sales, income, employment, and taxes.

DMO revenue and visitor spending in two scenarios, 2020 Dollar figure in millions Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.4 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.9 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $7.6 $3.2
Total Funding decrease relative to baseline -- $4.4
Total decrease in marketing spending (90%) -- $4.0
Anticipated total ROI on lost marketing spending -- 32-to-1 Decrease in visitor spending -- $128.9
Total visitor spending $3,067 $2,938
Sources: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 75, Packet Page 111 Benefits of TID – five year forecast
| Tourism Economics 30
Over the next five years, the TID will result
in an additional $518 million in visitor
spending, and $36 million in state and local
tax revenue
On a cumulative basis, from
2018-2022, we forecast that
eliminating the TID would cost
Monterey County $518 million in
less visitor spending. This lost
spending costs a total of $36
million in state and local tax
revenue.

Additionally, 782,000 total room
nights and $174 million in room
revenue would be lost.

Note that all indicators increase
in the Non-TID Scenario,
however the rate of increase is
slower than in the Baseline
Scenario.

Forecast: fiscal years 2017-2021
Dollar amounts in millions of nominal dollars 2018-2022 2018-2022 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022 Total Annual average
Baseline Scenario
Total MCCVB funding $7.1 $7.3 $7.4 $7.6 $7.8 $8.0 $38 $7.6 Visitor spending $2,774 $2,869 $2,966 $3,067 $3,171 $3,279 $15,352 $3,070.4 Room demand, 000's 3,181 3,245 3,310 3,376 3,444 3,513 16,888 3,378 Room revenue $637 $672 $709 $749 $790 $834 $3,754 $750.8 State and local taxes $251 $259 $268 $277 $287 $296 $1,387 $277.5 Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
Total MCCVB funding -- $4.2 $4.3 $4.4 $4.4 $4.5 $22 $4.4 Visitor spending -- $41.0 $83.5 $128.9 $131.3 $133.7 $518 $103.7 Room demand, 000's -- 68.5 133.8 198.0 193.3 188.8 782 156 Room revenue -- $14.4 $28.8 $43.6 $43.5 $43.5 $174 $34.8 State and local taxes -- $2.9 $5.9 $9.1 $9.2 $9.4 $36 $7.3 Absence of TID Scenario
Total MCCVB funding $7.1 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.4 $16 $3.3 Visitor spending $2,774 $2,828 $2,883 $2,938 $3,040 $3,145 $14,834 $2,966.8 Room demand, 000's 3,181 3,176 3,176 3,178 3,251 3,325 16,106 3,221 Room revenue $637 $658 $680 $705 $747 $790 $3,580 $716.0 State and local taxes $251 $256 $262 $268 $277 $287 $1,351 $270.2 *"Cool-down" years in which the reduction in impact of reduced funding is not fully realized Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 76, Packet Page 112 Benefits of TID – visualization
| Tourism Economics 31
In the Non-TID scenario, visitor spending
still grows but at a diminished rate; losses
in visitor spending total $518 million over 5
years
2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022
$2.2
$2.4
$2.6
$2.8
$3.0
$3.2
$3.4 Thousands
losses
cut2
Baseline Scenario
Absence of TID Scenario
Visitor spending in two scenarios
*Cool-down years in which the full impact of funding decrease is not realized Source: Tourism Economics
Nominal dollars, billions
$518 million in total lost
visitor spending 2018-2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 77, Packet Page 113 Benefits of TID – 2020 details
| Tourism Economics 32
In the Non-TID Scenario, $4.4m in lost TID funding results in $128.9m in lost spending in Monterey County, which in turn costs:
• $176.9m in total business sales;
• $50.5m in total income;
• 1,042 total jobs; and
• $9.1m in state and local taxes.
201 jobs are lost in industries not typically thought of as in the tourism sector.

Losses in Absence of TID Scenario - FY 2020
Dollar amounts in 2020 dollars, millions
Decrease in DMO funding $4.4
Impacts on Monterey County
Lost visitor spending $128.9
Total economic output $176.9
Direct expenditures $128.9
Indirect and induced output $48.1
Total income $50.5
Direct income $33.9
Indirect and induced income $16.6
Total jobs 1,042
Direct jobs 685
Indirect and induced jobs 357
State tax revenue $3.4
Sales $1.8
Personal income $0.1
Corporate $0.2
Excise, fees, and other taxes $1.4
Local government tax revenue $5.6
Sales $0.6
Lodging tax $4.2
Excise, fees, and other taxes $0.8
Key Ratios
Business sales lost per $1 of funding decrease $39.90
Jobs lost per $1,000,000 of funding decrease 235
Income lost per $1 of funding decrease $11.40
State and local taxes lost per $1 of funding decrease $2.00 Source: Tourism Economics
Recreation
153
Retail trade
89 Lodging
260 Food and
beverages
271
Transportation
in destination
67 Other
201
Lost jobs in Absence of TID Scenario
Jobs
Source: RACVB Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 78, Packet Page 114 Benefits of TID – 2020 conservative
estimate on hotel impact
| Tourism Economics 33
Occupancy rates could drop 4% and hotels
could see a substantial decline in room
revenue
The loss of visitors and visitor
spending would have major
effects on the local hotel sector.

We created two estimates of the
possible impact.

In our conservative estimate of
potential losses, ADR still grows
at the same rate in both
scenarios, reaching $222 in
2020. Even with this assumption,
the loss of visitors and visitor
spending would have a major
impact on local hotels.
• A small hotel (50 rooms) with
a below average ADR ($166)
could lose 800 rooms and
$130,000 in room revenue.
• A medium sized hotel (100
rooms) with a destination
average ADR ($222) could
lose 1,600 rooms and
$360,000 in room revenue.
• A large hotel (200 rooms) with
an above average ADR ($333)
could lose 3,300 rooms and
$1,100,000 in room revenue.

Examples
Examples
Examples Hotel KPIs in two scenarios - alternative estimate, 2020 Dollar figures are nominal
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,376,000 $748,600 75% $222 $167 Baseline Scenario
50 room economy 13,300 $2,210 73% $166 $121
100 room midscale 27,500 $6,100 75% $222 $167
200 room upscale 55,900 $18,590 77% $333 $255
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,277,100 $693,100 73% $211 $150 Absence of TID Scenario
50 room economy 13,100 $2,100 72% $159 $115
100 room midscale 26,700 $5,600 73% $211 $153
200 room upscale 53,700 $17,000 74% $317 $233
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 98,900 $55,500 2% $10 $17
Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
50 room economy 200 $110 1% $8 $6
100 room midscale 800 $500 2% $10 $14
200 room upscale 2,200 $1,590 3% $15 $22
Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 79, Packet Page 115 Benefits of TID – 2020 alternative
estimate on hotel impact
| Tourism Economics 34
If ADR does not grow at its forecasted rate,
the revenue impact on hotels could be even
greater
In our alternative estimate, hotels
react to falling occupancy rates
by reducing ADR. In this
estimate, ADR still increases
from its present level, but at only
half the speed as the Baseline
Scenario. The reduced rates do
have a positive effect on
occupancy and lost room nights
are cut in half.
• A small hotel (50 rooms) with
a below average ADR ($159)
could lose 200 rooms and
$110,000 in room revenue.
• A medium sized hotel (100
rooms) with a destination
average ADR ($211) could
lose 800 rooms and $500,000
in room revenue.
• A large hotel (200 rooms) with
an above average ADR ($317)
could lose 2,200 rooms and
$1,590,000 in room revenue.

Examples
Examples
Examples Hotel KPIs in two scenarios - conservative estimate 2020 Dollar figures are nominal
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,376,000 $748,600 75% $222 $167 50 room economy 13,300 $2,210 73% $166 $121
100 room midscale 27,500 $6,100 75% $222 $167
200 room upscale 55,900 $18,590 77% $333 $255
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,178,000 $705,000 71% $222 $157 50 room economy 12,500 $2,080 69% $166 $114
100 room midscale 25,900 $5,740 71% $222 $157
200 room upscale 52,600 $17,490 72% $333 $240
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 198,000 $43,600 4% $0 $10
50 room economy 800 $130 4% $0 $7
100 room midscale 1,600 $360 4% $0 $10
200 room upscale 3,300 $1,100 4% $0 $15
Source: Tourism Economics
Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
Baseline Scenario
Absence of TID Scenario
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 80, Packet Page 116 Report summary
| Tourism Economics 35
 Visitors spending reached $2.7b in Monterey County
in 2015
 24,400 local jobs are directly generated by tourism
 Market share analysis indicates that Monterey
County is gaining a larger share of the state’s and
region’s overnight travel market
 Media campaigns increase perceptions of Monterey
County and make travelers more likely to visit
 In 2016, the sales team facilitated 87,500 room
nights. These bookings generated $74m in local
economic impact.
 The MCCVB operates in the international market
Tourism is a major driver of
Monterey's economy 1
 In 2020, $4.4m in lost TID funding could results in
$128.9m in lost spending which in turn costs:
• $50.5m in total income;
• 1,042 total jobs;
• $9.1m in state and local taxes; and
• $44m in room revenue.

The absence of a TID would result in
significant economic and fiscal losses 5
 A number of local competitors receive higher funding
than the MCCVB despite representing fewer hotels
 Monterey would need to receive $8.8m in additional
public funding to reach its benchmark average
 Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of 0.7% is
well below the average rate of 2.3%
The MCCVB is underfunded in
comparison to local competitors 4
The MCCVB drives visitors to
Monterey County 2
 From 2013-2017, the increased assessment rate
raised visitor spending by $220 million.
 This spending generated a total of $16 million in tax revenue, 403,000 total room nights, and $76 million
in room revenue would be lost.

The 2012 assessment increase
boosted growth in the tourism sector 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 81, Packet Page 117 Appendix 1) Methodology
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 82, Packet Page 118 Methodology
| Tourism Economics 37
Gains Due to TID Assessment Increase
To calculate potential loss in the No Assessment Increase Scenarios, we first estimate the impact on visitor spending by examining a number of sources detailing the impact of DMO funding cuts and increases on visitor spending.

SMARI estimates an ROI on the MCCVB’s marketing campaigns of over 200-to-1 using a proprietary survey and derives marketing exposure to a DMA (Designated Market Area) to gauge incremental marketing campaign effectiveness. Our metaanalysis of the ROI of tourism promotion which suggests that every dollar spent on tourism advertising for metro and regional DMOs typically generates $51 in visitor spending (see following slides). We choose to rely heavily on the meta analysis in order to 1) remain conservative in case these higher ROIs cannot be maintained with additional funding, 2) reflect that the MCCVB advertises to a wider audience than the DMA measured by SMARI, and 3) remain conservative in case the MCCVB is not able to commit a high percentage of its budget to incremental marketing.

Given uncertain future economic conditions and the possibility of diminishing marginal returns on additional marketing investment, we assume an ROI of 40-to-1 on the first million dollars of lost DMO funding and a 30-to-1 ROI on additional lost funding. Additional spending is calculated by multiplying the decrease in DMO marketing (assumed to be 90% of the decrease in funding) in the two scenarios by the ROIs described above.

The Baseline Scenario forecast is based on a combination of historical data on Monterey County and the Tourism Economics / STR forecast of the nearby San Francisco-San Mateo market. The Absence of TID Scenario forecast is calculated by subtracting the estimated losses from the Baseline Scenario Forecast.

To spread visitor spending through a number of sectors, we used SMARIs estimates of visitor spending in Monterey County (note that the raw dollar figures are not used, only the percent spending across the different categories). We then input lost visitor spending into an economic model of the Monterey County economy created in IMPLAN. The model calculates the direct impact of this lost spending (the impact from the initial visitor spending), as well as the indirect (supply-chain) effects, and induced (income) effects. The model reports the losses on sales, income, employment, and taxes.

How visitor spending flows through the economy
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 83, Packet Page 119 Destination promotion ROI in other
markets (1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 38
Many state and local 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 DMO. 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.

We summarized the estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from these studies in the table on the following page.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 84, Packet Page 120 Destination promotion ROI in other
markets (2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 39
Estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spend from the set of studies we analyzed is summarized in the adjacent table, supporting the following observations:
• The results range from as low as $12 for an analysis conducted for Syracuse, NY to as high as $326 for the average of several analyses conducted for California.
• Overall, we observe that recent marketing campaigns by destination marketing organizations at the metro/regional level have generated approximately $51 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 DMO 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 DMO 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).

Monterey County’s Visitor spending per dollar in 2015 was $397. Region Timing Visitor spending
per ad dollar
States
California Average 2009 to 2013 $326
Arizona Average 2007, '11, '12, '15 $221
Georgia Average 2011 and 2012 $211
Colorado 2012 $200
Florida 2011 $177
Maryland 2012 $160
Wyoming Average 2012, '13, '14 $156
Kentucky 2014 $151
Missouri 2013 $131
North Dakota Average 2010, '12, '14 $101
Utah Average 2010, '11, '13 $83
New Mexico 2013 to 2015 $72
Virginia 2006 $71
Michigan Average 2006 to 2014 $69
Large metros and regions
Philadelphia, PA 2009/10 $100
Kansas City, MO 2013 $65
Washington, DC 2013 $27
San Diego, CA 2013 $19
Smaller metros and regions
Branson, MO 2012 $79
Springfield, MO 2011 $61
Finger Lakes Wine Country, NY 2012 $44
Syracuse, NY 2008 $12
Average of states $152
Average of larger metros and regions $53
Average of smaller metros and regions $49
Marketing ROI matrix
Sources: Local studies compiled by Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 85, Packet Page 121 Appendix 2: The Economic Rationale
for Destination Marketing
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 86, Packet Page 122 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 41
Destination marketing plays an integral and
indispensable role in the competitiveness of
the local tourism economy by addressing its
unique challenges
Destination marketing plays an integral and indispensable role in the competitiveness of the local visitor economy by addressing three challenges.

Challenge #1: The visitor economy is fragmented
The visitor economy is diverse with benefits accruing across various industries (e.g. hotels, restaurants, retail stores, transportation, performance venues and other attractions), and in many cases, these establishments are operated as small businesses that lack the capacity to conduct certain types of marketing. Moreover, certain benefits accrue across the economy rather to just an individual business.

Because a visitor’s spending is spread across businesses, any single business may not capture sufficient share of a visitor’s spending to justify marketing to attract visitors to a destination. For example, an individual hotel could market the attractiveness of a destination, but it would only benefit from those additional visitors who not only choose the destination, but also choose that particular hotel; and the hotel would only benefit directly from the visitor’s spending at the hotel. In other words, at the level of an individual business, the returns on independent marketing to attract visitors to a destination can be less compelling. However, when viewed at the level of the destination, there is a more direct connection. The destination captures a substantial dollar amount per visitor, and in aggregate there are compelling returns on effective destination marketing.

Solution: destination promotion provides the scale and
strategic vision supporting a wide array of individual
businesses
Destination promotion organizations also play a role furthering the strategic potential of the visitor economy. Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) can take a long term view of the development of the destination and pursue tactics to help develop a visitor economy that better fits the goals of local residents and businesses. For example, many destinations have a mix of peak, shoulder, and low season periods. DMOs take steps to build shoulder season and low season demand and help fill slower days of the week, supporting a more stable base of employment and helping ongoing operations achieve a “break even” level of profitability. Similarly, DMOs can play a role helping to find solutions that balance the development of the visitor economy with the constraints and goals of a given destination, such as fostering the development of geographic areas with greater capacity for growth.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 87, Packet Page 123 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 42
The fundamental motivation driving a visit is
not usually the offerings of a single
business—instead it is the destination
Challenge #2: The primary motivator of a trip is usually the experience of a destination, extending beyond the
offerings marketed by a single business
The fundamental motivation driving a visit to a given destination is frequently not the offerings of a single business—instead it is the destination, including a range of attractions and the overall experience of a place. This experience is comprised of a visitor’s interaction with, and patronage of, numerous businesses and local experiences: hotels and other accommodations; restaurants; shopping and galleries; conferences; performances and other events; family activities; sports and other recreation; and cultural sites and attractions.

Marketing efforts that focus on only one sub-sector of the visitor market, such as communicating the offering of a specific hotel or other business, do not also adequately address the core motivation for potential visitors.

Solution: destination promotion articulates the brand
message that is consistent with consumer motivations
Through coordinated destination promotion, the destination is represented collectively, driving demand for all segments of the visitor economy. Stand-alone marketing efforts would almost certainly be less effective than a collective destination marketing campaign.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 88, Packet Page 124 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 43
The scale of collaborative destination
marketing is more effective than what
individual businesses could accomplish
Challenge #3: Effective marketing requires scale to reach potential visitors across multiple markets
Effective destination marketing requires significant and consistent funding with the aim of gaining a sufficient “share of voice” to be heard and make an impact. Whether in the form of advertising or public relation efforts scale produces efficiencies that maximize the share of funding that goes to actual marketing and advertising, drives down per unit advertising costs, and enables higher impact, and more specialized efforts. As a result, the larger scale of collaborative destination marketing is more effective than what individual businesses could accomplish. Simply put, the whole of destination marketing is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Solution: destination promotion pools resources to
provide the economies of scale and marketing
infrastructure required to generate impact
One of the benefits of coordinated marketing facilitated by a DMO is the ability to have a stable organization and funding base to support destination marketing. As a result, DMOs are able to efficiently leverage the brand, infrastructure and relationships that have been built over time.

For example, DMOs:
 Conduct marketing that leverages a base level of awareness of the destination than has already been established with some target customers, allowing annual marketing spend to be more effective at activating and reinforcing key messages;
 Use existing infrastructure, such as websites and publications, that are updated on a recurring basis;
 Employ a staff with established relationships with local tourismsector businesses and marketing service providers; and,  Support market research, such as visitor profile studies, that help individual businesses better target market opportunities, but which would likely not be economical for individual businesses to conduct independently.

Through these economic factors, destination promotion helps expand the visitor economy in ways that are consistent with local priorities, building the types of opportunities that are a critical part of economic development.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 89, Packet Page 125 Travel has proven its resilience
| Tourism Economics 44
As incomes rise, consumer spending on
travel has grown at an even faster rate and
employment in the travel economy has led
growth during the recent economic
recovery
Across the US, favorable tail
winds have supported above
average growth in the visitor
economy. As income levels rise,
consumers are dedicating a
greater share of spending to
travel and tourism. For example,
in the span of slightly more than a
generation, per capita consumer
spending on hotel stays in the US
has increased 200% since 1980,
even as per capita GDP – as a
measure of income levels – has
increased only 75%.

Travel has proven its resilience,
with a strong recovery from the
most recent economic downturn.

As the visitor economy has
recovered, it has contributed job
growth since the end of the
recession at a faster rate than the
US average. As of March 2016,
employment in key sectors of the
visitor economy was 11.3%
ahead of its June 2009 level,
compared to a 9.7% gain for the
broader economy.
95 100
105
110
115
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Visitor economy employment trends
Compared to total nonfarm employment
Index (June 2009=100)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Tourism Economics
Visitor
economy
Total nonfarm
employment
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 90, Packet Page 126 The visitor economy represents an
export, drawing new dollars into the
local economy
| Tourism Economics 45
Nationally, hospitality and tourism has
outperformed the aggregate of all other
traded cluster export sectors since 1998,
with employment expanding more than

12.2% while all others grew only 2.1%
The visitor economy represents a
valuable locally-produced export
for many regional economies.

The resulting visitor spending
supports jobs, incomes, tax
revenues and local business
sales that represent part of the
region’s economic base, critically
important in providing demand for
local supporting sectors. In this
sense, whether referred to as an
“export” or a set of “traded” goods
and services, the visitor economy
plays an important role in the
“base” economy of many regions.

As developed through research
by Michael Porter, the term
“traded cluster” refers to
“geographic concentrations of
interconnected companies and
institutions in a particular field”
that sell products and services
across regions.
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
Traded cluster employment gains over time (US)
Index, cumulative percentage points of employment growth since 1998 Hospitality and
tourism traded
clusters
All other traded
clusters in
aggregate
+ 12.2%
+ 2.1%
Source: US Cluster Mapping Project; Census Bureau; Tourism Economics ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 91, Packet Page 127 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (1 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 46
Destination promotion supports the visitor
economy, but it also acts as a catalyst of
broader economic development
In recent research1, Tourism Economics / Oxford Economics identified four primary channels through which destination promotion drives broader economic development and growth.
1) Attracting strategic events
By securing meetings and conventions, DMOs attract the very prospects that economic development agencies target. Not only do these events create valuable exposure among business decision makers, they create direct opportunities for economic development agencies to deepen connections with attendees.
“Economic clusters and conventions have become synergistic” Tom Clark
Metro Denver Economic
Development Corporation
2) Raising the destination profile
Destination promotion builds awareness, familiarity, and relationships in commercial, institutional and individual networks that are critical in attracting investment.
“We are learning a lot from Visit California by how they brand California and how to take their model and apply it to economic development.”
Brook Taylor
Deputy Director
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) 3) Building transport networks
By developing the visitor economy, destination promotion supports transportation infrastructure, providing greater accessibility and supply logistics that are important in attracting investment in other sectors. “Air service is profoundly important to corporate
investment and location decisions... This is one of
tourism’s most significant contributions since the
levels of air service at New Orleans far exceed what
local demand could support.”
Stephen Moret
Secretary
Louisiana Economic Development
4) Raising the quality of life
Visitor spending helps support a broader and higher quality set of local amenities than an area could otherwise sustain. The cultural, entertainment, culinary, and retail attractions that visitors support make a place more attractive to investors.
“Traveler attractions are the same reason that CEOs
choose a place.”
Jeff Malehorn
President & CEO, World Business Chicago
1Oxford Economics (2014, November) “Destination Promotion: An Engine of Economic Development: How destination promotion drives economic development.” Produced in connection with Destination & Travel Foundation.

Link to http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/engine
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 92, Packet Page 128 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (2 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 47
Conventions and trade shows can help
target economic development on key
industries
Channel of impact: By securing meetings, conventions and trade shows for local facilities, DMOs attract the very prospects that economic development organizations target. Not only do such visits create valuable exposure among business decision makers, they create direct opportunities for economic
development organizations to deepen connections with
attendees.

DMOs are typically on the front lines of selling their destinations to meeting and event planners. These conventions and trade shows often attract the very prospects that economic development organizations (EDOs) target. As Steve Moore, CEO of the Greater Phoenix CVB states, “Our EDO doesn’t have to fly to DC or China.

The low hanging fruit is coming here for events.” EDOs, such as Cleveland’s Department of Economic Development, regularly host special events, tours, and receptions for attendees of key events. Our research, including discussions with both DMOs and EDOs, yielded many such examples of this channel at work. But the discussions also pointed to the further opportunities that exist in many areas for collaborative targeting.

Today’s knowledge-based and innovation-driven economies benefit from face-to-face connections, and relationships. In this context, industry conventions position an economy to acquire knowledge, innovate, and grow. Knowledge-based workers benefit from greater potential to access and encounter specialized knowledge and sustain social connections, and connections to other markets provide access to a wider base of suppliers and access to new production techniques.

This makes existing firms more productive, serves to help attract additional investment, and fuels innovation.

Oxford Economics conducted a national survey of 300 business travelers in 2012 and asked them to score the impact of conferences and conventions across a number of potential benefits. Nearly 80% of respondents rated “industry insights” as an area of high impact, scoring this benefit as a four or five on a one-to-five scale. Industry insights were cited more consistently as a high impact return on conferences and conventions than any other potential benefit. 0 10 20 30 40 50
Popular
Worry Free
Entertainment
Affordable
Exciting
Adult Atmosphere
Family Destination
Sightseeing
Unique
Sports & Recreation
Aware
Unaware
Marketing positively influences perceptions of a region Pure Michigan 2014 campaign impact on perceptions of Michigan as a national tourism destination Percent who strongly agree
Source: Longwoods International (2015, July) "Destination Marketing and Economic Development: Creating a Singular Place Brand"
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 93, Packet Page 129 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (3 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 48
Destination marketing contributes to a “halo
effect” as advertising campaigns positively
impact perceptions of a region
Channel of impact: Destination promotion builds awareness, familiarity, and relationships in commercial networks
(institutional, companies, individuals) that are critical in attracting investment. Similarly, destination promotion raises the destination profile among potential new residents, supporting skilled workforce growth that is critical to economic
development.

Destination promotion activities support understanding of a destination’s distinct positioning and raise awareness of the destination. Most importantly, by increasing visits, destination promotion activities provide firsthand experience with a destination, resulting in familiarity with a destination that is critically important for economic development. These three components – building a brand, raising awareness, and increasing familiarity – make up the effect which we’ve labeled “raising the destination profile.” As is emphasized in the following sections, these inter-related concepts have the collective impact of supporting economic development efforts to attract investment and build a skilled workforce.

For example, Lake Erie Shores and Island’s 2014 tourism marketing campaign boosted perceptions of the area as a good place to start a career. Among those who were aware of the advertising, 43.2% strongly agreed with the statement that the area was a good place to start a career, representing a 173% increase relative to the 15.8% who strongly agreed among those unaware of the advertising1. 0 20 40 60 80
...start a career
...start a business
...attend college
...retire
...purchase a vacation
home
...live
Aware
Unaware
Marketing influences perceptions on key decision criteria Lake Erie Shores and Islands 2014 campaign impact on the region's economic development image Percent who strongly agree
Note: Percentages indicate the increase in "ad aware" respondents who strongly agree relative to "unaware".

Source: Longwoods International (2015, July) "Destination Marketing and Economic Development: Creating a Singular Place Brand"
+173%
+157%
+107%
+161%
+147%
+128%
"A good place to..."
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 94, Packet Page 130 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (4 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 49
Tourism supports building enhanced
transportation networks and connecting to
new markets
Channel of impact: By developing the visitor economy,
destination promotion supports development of transportation infrastructure, providing greater accessibility and supply logistics that are, in turn, important in attracting investment in other sectors.

Connectivity to other cities, historically by canal and railways, and more recently by road and air, has been long appreciated for its importance to economic growth. Indeed, face-to-face interactions are as important as ever.

How can a region best support the expansion of its transportation infrastructure, including airports? While public investment certainly has a role, as leading cities have long recognized, airlines ultimately choose to expand service to markets that demonstrate passenger demand. Destination promotion efforts build inbound travel volumes that support expanded service, with greater frequency of connections to a greater number of destinations. Inbound business, leisure and group segments each play a role providing the base of demand that supports airlift. Indeed airline cost structures are such that a route with insufficient inbound leisure demand, and therefore lulls in travel around holidays and off-peak periods, is less profitable, or even unprofitable.

As a result, successful destinations experience greater levels of air service. For example, roughly half of all passenger demand for Cleveland is generated by visitors, according to OAG bookings data for 2013. Frontier Airlines, a low-cost carrier which recently entered Cleveland, has continued to expand its schedule from the city, building on leisure business but offering direct flights on routes that are key for business travelers, such as Dallas Ft. Worth.

In turn, improved air connectivity becomes a marketing point that supports economic development. So it is not surprising that collaboration between DMOs and economic development
organizations can be successful.

For example: Phoenix touts its connectivity as one of its key economic development assets. This includes extensive service to Mexico and Latin America. Connectivity to Canada is also a major selling point for economic development and exists almost entirely because of the visitor market. Only 20 direct flights to Canada existed six years ago and Phoenix now has over 100 scheduled flights. The Greater Phoenix CVB and the Community and Economic Development office are seeking increased international service. These routes are needed to dually support the convention and investor markets. While air service development is led by the airport, the Community and Economic Development office and the Greater Phoenix CVB support marketing to airlines with market information. Overall, 60% of current Phoenix airlift is supported by visitors.

This impact is hardly rare, and numerous studies (including those listed below) have confirmed a connection between the long-term impacts of improved air transportation and overall economic development.

Jan Brueckner, “Airline Traffic and Urban Economic Development,” Urban Studies 40, no. 8 (July 2003): 1455–69.

Richard K. Green, “Airports and Economic Development,” Real Estate Economics 35, no. 1 (2007): 91–112.

Michael D. Irwin and John D. Kasarda, “Air Passenger Linkages and Employment Growth in US Metropolitan Areas,” American
Sociological Review, 1991, 524–37.

Kenneth Button, Rui Neiva, and Junyang Yuan, “Economic
Development and the Impact of the EU–US Transatlantic Open Skies Air Transport Agreement,” Applied Economics Letters 21, no. 11 (2014): 767–70.

IATA, Measuring the Economic Rate of Return on Investment in the Aviation Industry, Aviation Economic Benefits, July 2007 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 95, Packet Page 131 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (5 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 50
Intelligent tourism development can raise
destinations’ quality of life and attract
investors from other sectors
Channel of impact: The visitor economy that is fueled by destination promotion supports amenities and a quality of life that are integral to attracting investment in other sectors.

Parks and public areas, dining and nightlife in walkable districts, services and transportation along waterfront areas, creative arts and cultural institutions - these are just some of the facilities and services that benefit from the visitor economy but are also valued by residents and—by extension—site locators, investors, and business executives.

Research suggests that this occurs as:
• Visitors provide substantial demand for amenities and generate returns in terms of quality of life improvements for residents, helping raise the quality of life.
• Economic research and real-world business location decisions demonstrate that such amenities and lifestyle characteristics are important in driving economic growth.
• Leading practices in economic development leverage these visitorsupported quality of life assets.

Visitor spending helps support a broader and higher quality set of amenities than an area could otherwise sustain. For many businesses, whether on the smaller scale of a restaurant or on the larger scale of a sports facility or National Park, the difference between breaking even or running at a loss can be thin. As an incremental source of business above and beyond what can be supported locally, visitors provide demand for businesses as well as many not-for-profit institutions, such as museums.

Richard Florida, an urban theorist and author of several popular books, provides an introduction to these concepts, noting that economists and geographers have long looked at the role that the availability of talent has played in the location decisions of firms, but have only more recently turned to the factors that attract talent. Florida writes1:

For important new investment bids, EDOs will coordinate with DMOs for the best possible pitch. Given the importance of destination characteristics in the decisions of investors and site locators, NTOs and DMOs can provide the marketing content and experiences to visitors to strengthen the bid
All of the EDOs frequently collaborate with the DMOs, including the use of collateral and media originally developed by DMOs. For example, the Cleveland Department of Economic Development has an entire section on its website called “Living Here” that focuses on amenities and attractions including arts, culture, and entertainment. 1 Florida, Richard (2005). Cities and the creative class. Routledge. New York.
“A growing stream of research suggests that amenities,
entertainment, and lifestyle considerations are important elements of the ability of cities to attract both firms and people.” The “traditional view offered by economists is that places attract people by matching them to jobs and economic opportunity.

More recent research suggests that places attract people by providing a range of lifestyle amenities.”
“If cities are to remain strong, they must attract workers on the basis of quality of life as well as on the basis of higher wages.” ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 96, Packet Page 132 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (6 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 51
The four channels of catalytic impacts
generate benefits that extend beyond direct
effects of driving visitation
Oxford Economics (2014, November) “Destination Promotion: An Engine of Economic Development: How destination promotion drives economic development.” Produced in connection with Destination & Travel Foundation.

Link to http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/engine
Destination marketing supports economic development through four catalytic channels, extending its impact well beyond the effects of visitor spending. Destination marketing builds transport accessibility, attracts major events that build awareness, raises the quality of life for residents, and raises the profile of a destination among potential investors.

As a result, cities and states that succeed as destinations are more likely to succeed in broader economic terms.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 97, Packet Page 133 Appendix 3: Case Study Review
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 98, Packet Page 134 Case study: Pure Michigan success
(1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 53
Michigan successfully invested in
destination marketing as part of a strategy
to ignite growth.

Budget increases in other US destinations provide case study examples of what has happened when government agencies increase or decrease destination marketing funding. We have summarized several of these case studies in this section, beginning with Michigan and the internationally recognized “Pure Michigan” campaign. While the campaign’s advertisements are visually stunning, less appreciated are the important decisions the state took during a period of economic recession to expand the campaign as an investment in future growth.

Bill Siegel, CEO of Longwoods, recently summarized this success story1. The following highlights key points:
 The “Pure Michigan” campaign had its fledgling start in 2006 as a regional campaign in an environment of relatively low funding. In preceding years, Michigan’s state tourism budget had declined, falling to as little as $7.9 million in FY2005 according to US Travel data. For several years, as the campaign ran in regional markets, research demonstrated that it was building equity in the marketplace, impacting Michigan’s image positively and generating positive financial returns.
 In 2009, with the national economy still in recession, and Michigan’s manufacturing base hit particularly hard, the state legislature saw tourism as a potential growth opportunity, and approved a one-time doubling of the Travel Michigan budget to $28 million. This allowed the state to promote itself nationally for the first time, and “Pure Michigan” was well-suited to the opportunity.
 In its first year, the national campaign dramatically increased unaided awareness of Michigan as a place in the Midwest US “you would really enjoy visiting”. Michigan moved to 2nd place among regional competitors in this metric after the campaign, up from 9th place before the campaign. Three out of ten national travelers were aware of the campaign, and the campaign was recognized by Forbes as among the 10 all-time best travel campaigns, and. 1 Longwoods International (2015) Michigan: 2014 tourism advertising evaluation and image study. $15.7
$6.2
$32.6
$12.4
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Budget Advertising
2006 2014
Michigan state tourism budget
Index (2006=100)
State tourism budget
increase since 2006: 108%
State tourism advertising
increase since 2006: 100%
Source: Longwoods International
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 99, Packet Page 135 Case study: Pure Michigan success
(2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 54
Michigan successfully invested in
destination marketing as part of a strategy
to ignite growth.
 The summer 2009 campaign was estimated to have generated almost two million additional trips to Michigan. As a result, based on a $12.2 million media budget, the campaign is estimated to have generated $588 million of incremental visitor spending and $41.0 million of state taxes, equivalent to $3.36 of state taxes per ad dollar.
 In total from 2006 to 2014, Longwoods estimated that “Pure Michigan” results generated 22.4 million out-of-state trips to Michigan and $6.6 billion of visitor spending at Michigan businesses. This implies a visitor spending return on investment (“ROI”) of $69 based on out-of-state visitors, and a state tax ROI of $4.81.

Michigan built on the initial success by maintaining annual funding slightly ahead of $30 million. From 2006 to 2014, Michigan invested over $95 million in “Pure Michigan” advertising. As a result, “Pure Michigan” has become the singular brand for Michigan, with the state expanding its use across multiple lines of business to promote state objectives, such as economic development.

Longwoods International (2015) Michigan: 2014 tourism advertising evaluation and image study.
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
New visitor spending in Michigan
Annual out-of-state visitor
spending generated by
advertising Michigan state tourism advertising is
estimated to generate $1.2 billion of new
out-of-state visitor spending annually.
$1.2
billion
Source: Longwoods International
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 100, Packet Page 136 Case study: Influence of DMO
content
| Tourism Economics 55
Visitor information supported by TBID
funding consistently influences potential
visitors.

Among respondents who had made an overnight visit to Mendocino County, 25.7% reported that the Visit Mendocino website had been “very influential” in their decision.

Of approximately 160,000 unique website visitors (April 2013 to March 2014), 47.8% made a trip to Mendocino County, of which an estimated

20.2% were influenced to visit by the website.
38% of prospective visitors who received information from Visit Oceanside were influenced by the content and subsequently visited Oceanside.

Among those visitors who were influenced by the visitor information, more than half indicated that they decided to visit an attraction or site that they had not already planned to visit and 17% added additional nights to their stay.

12.2%

16.2%

45.9%

25.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Not at all influential
Not very influential
Somewhat influential
Very influential
Website information influences traveler decisions
Visit Mendocino follow-up survey of website visitors
Percent of respondents
Question: How influential was the Visit Mendocino website in your decision to take an overnight trip to Mendocino County in the past six months? (Follow-up survey to website visitors, among those respondents who had made an overnight trip to Mendocino County.) Source: Strategic Marketing Group "DMO Influence/Conversion Study", on behalf of Visit Mendocino/Mendocino County Lodging Association

4.1%

16.9%

30.8%

42.1%

52.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%
Other changes in your plans
To stay overnight or add nights
To stay a few hours longer than
planned
To visit additional attractions beyond
those originally planned
To visit an attraction not already
planned
Visitor information influences visitors to stay
longer
Visit Oceanside visitor survey
Percent of respondents
Question: Which of the following were you influenced to do in Oceanside based on information you received from Visit Oceanside? (Among visitors to Oceanside whose plans were influenced by CWC or Visit Oceanside information.)
Source: Horizon Consumer Science (2013, May) "Visitor Profile/Economic & Fiscal Impacts study - CY2012", on behalf of Visit Oceanside California
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 101, Packet Page 137 Case study: the creation of Brand
USA boosts tourism arrivals and
spending in the US
| Tourism Economics 56
Brand USA has maintained a strong ROI
and helped revitalize the US as an
international destination
Before 2011, the US did not have
a national tourism organization. A
decade of stagnation of
international travel suggested
that the lack of an organization
that could effectively promote the
US’ global brand was costing the
country billions of dollars in lost
potential visitor expenditures.

Brand USA was created to
reinvigorate the country’s global
brand, and positive effects have
been realized quickly. The
organization has raised the
profile of the US as a destination
and generated almost one million
incremental visitors annually.

Spending by these visitors
generated $457 million in federal
taxes, approximately triple the
organizations total operating
expenses. In 2015, Tourism
Economics estimated an 19:1
ROI on total operating costs.

Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 102, Packet Page 138 Case study: Colorado cuts state
funding
| Tourism Economics 57
Within two years, Colorado lost 30% of its
US visitor market share
Conversely, budget cuts in other destinations provide case study examples of what has happened when destination marketing spending is reduced. The US state of Colorado represents a particularly powerful example of the impact of a dramatic reduction in destination marketing spending:
 Prior to 1993, the Colorado Tourism Board (CTB) had a $12 million marketing budget, funded by a 0.2% tax on most tourism spending.
 Within two years of repealing its tourism funding in 1993, Colorado lost 30% of its US visitor market share, which translated into the equivalent of over $1.4 billion annually in lost revenues. By the late 1990s, this had escalated to $2.4 billion a year.
 After having moved from 14th to 1st position in the states’ summer resorts category, Colorado slipped to 17th in 1994. It also shifted back to being more of a regional drive destination opposed to being a national fly-in venue and attracting fewer international visitors.
 The subsequent establishment of the Colorado Travel & Tourism Authority, which was an attempt to market the state with private sector funding in co-operation with the CTB, failed. This was attributed to the fact that private sector companies had separate priorities.
 The new Colorado Tourism Office opened with a $5 million budget and in 2003, $9 million was approved for tourism promotion. A campaign conducted from October 2003 through December 2004 resulted in 5.3 million incremental visits, representing 17% of total visitation to the state. In 2004, this generated $1.4 billion of additional spending and $89.5 million in state and local taxes.  These estimates are equivalent to an implied visitor spending return-on-investment (ROI) per marketing dollar of $140 (i.e. each dollar change in marketing spending resulted in a change in visitor spending of $140).

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 103, Packet Page 139 Case study: San Diego TMD funding
frozen by litigation
| Tourism Economics 58
San Diego market share declined when
tourism marketing was curtailed in 2013
A series of events in San Diego resulted in a temporary reduction in tourism marketing spending, providing a case study of short-term impacts:
 The San Diego Tourism Marketing District (SDTMD) was
established in 2008 with the support of the lodging sector to provide stable funding for marketing and promotion based on a hotel room assessment. For example, in FY2012, the SDTMD allocated more than $25 million in assessment fees.
 As a result of litigation-related risks, funds intended for the SDTDM were held in limbo through much of calendar year 2013, curtailing its funding to local tourism marketing groups.  The San Diego Tourism Authority (SDTA), the region’s primary destination marketing organization, was one of the groups impacted. SDTA depends largely on SDTDM funding and was forced to cancel its important spring 2013 advertising campaign.

Later, as the funding challenges persisted, SDTA laid off 40% of its staff in July 2013 and prepared to operate a bare-bones operation with only 15% of the funding that it previously received from SDTDM. SDTDM funding to other groups and events
promoting tourism was also curtailed.
 Ultimately, in late-November 2013, the local city council released a portion of the funds previously being withheld and the SDTA restored its advertising in January 2014. As a result, the cutbacks in destination marketing were largely contained in calendar year 2013, and San Diego tourism marketing resumed strongly in 2014.  The impact of the reduced funding was reflected in the performance of the San Diego hotel industry, as room demand leveled off in 2013, and occupancy rates and price levels increased more slowly than in competing markets. Overall, the city’s performance trailed other regional and national destinations that had maintained funding levels and marketing programs.  The graph below shows San Diego’s reduced hotel room demand market share relative to a competitive set (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Anaheim, Phoenix and Seattle) and top 25 US metro markets during the period of reduced funding, and subsequent recovery when marketing was restored.

3.80 3.84

3.88 3.92

3.96 4.00

15.6 15.7

15.8 15.9

16.0 11 12 13 14
Comp set (L)
Top 25 (R)
San Diego room demand market share
San Diego's % of total room nights, relative to...

Sources: STR, Tourism Economics
Defunding of
SDTA
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 104, Packet Page 140 Case Study: Pennsylvania’s cuts
DMO budget while NY increases
spending; predictable results follow
| Tourism Economics 59
Major budget cuts and increases are
followed by corresponding losses and gains
in market share
Pennsylvania’s DMO saw their budget slashed from $36.3 million in 2007 to $7.3 million in 2015. During this time, Pennsylvania has realized sizable declines in its market share relative to competitive states:
 Pennsylvania’s share of overnight marketable leisure trips declined from 17.6% in 2007, to 14.7% in 2014, representing a decline of 16.9% (2.9 percentage points).
 Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s share of day marketable leisure trips declined from 23.2% in 2008 (earliest available data), to 19.4% in 2014, representing a decline of 16.4% (3.8 percentage points).  In 2008, Pennsylvania was the second most popular state in the US measured on the basis of marketable day trips. By 2014, Pennsylvania had declined to fourth.

Pennsylvania’s market share decline is partly attributable to the strong competitive growth of New York State. New York has more than doubled its state tourism budget (from $15.0 million in FY2008- 09 to $37.3 million in FY2014-15), and has shown the largest market share gain among competitive states.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Ohio Virginia
Budget (FY08-09) Trips (2009) Budget (FY14-15) Trips (2014) Market share and budget share
Share of nine-state total
Note: Trips measured on the basis of marketable overnight trips.

Source: Longwoods International; US Travel Association; Tourism Economics New York increased its budget and
gained market share...
...Pennsylvania cut its
budget and reduced its
market share.

Between FY2008-09 and FY2014-15, New York increased its state tourism market budget from $15.0 million to $37.3 million, a 148% increase. This funding helped back the successful “I Love New York” campaign, which was relaunched in 2008. This marketing supported New York’s substantial gain in market share. Between 2009 and 2014, New York’s share of marketable overnight trips in the ninestate region increased 46.1%.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 105, Packet Page 141 About Tourism Economics
| Tourism Economics 60
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of tourism dynamics with rigorous economics in order to answer the most important questions facing destinations, developers, and strategic planners. By combining quantitative methods with industry knowledge, Tourism Economics designs custom market strategies, destination recovery plans, tourism forecasting models, tourism policy analysis, and economic impact studies.

With over four decades of experience of our principal consultants, it is our passion to work as partners with our clients to achieve a destination’s full potential.

Oxford Economics is one of the world’s leading providers of economic analysis, forecasts and consulting advice. Founded in 1981 as a joint venture with Oxford University’s business college, Oxford Economics enjoys a reputation for high quality, quantitative analysis and evidence-based advice. For this, it draws on its own staff of more than 120 professional economists; a dedicated data analysis team; global modeling tools, and a range of partner institutions in Europe, the US and in the United Nations Project Link. Oxford Economics has offices in London, Oxford, Dubai, Philadelphia, and Belfast.

For more information:
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 106, Packet Page 142 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Tonya Hufford, Monterey Conference Center - Operations Supervisor SUBJECT: Amend Resolution 22-086, the FY 22/23 Position Control List by Adding One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Facility Attendant Position and Removing One (1) Vacant FTE Facility Attendant Position (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 to amend Exhibit A to Resolution 22-086, the 2022-23 Position Control List, by adding one (1) FTE Senior Facility Attendant position in the Monterey Conference Center and removing one (1) Vacant FTE Facility Attendant position.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is consistent with City policy to ensure that critical City functions are properly staffed at the Monterey Conference Center. In addition, the position supports the Conference Center operations, which supports Monterey’s economic vitality, one of the City of Monterey’s other value drivers.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no immediate fiscal impacts as sufficient funds are available in the FY 2022/23 budget. Future fully burdened annual costs to add one Senior Facility Attendant position to replace the vacant Facility Attendant position is $21,799 annually.

The top step salary for the (1) FTE Senior Facility Attendant is a base salary of $78,072 plus the annual benefits dollar amount of $61,246 for a total compensation of $139,318 at Top Step.

Funding for the recommended position would come from the General Fund, however, for the remainder of F/Y 2022/23 the costs will be offset by savings from the vacant Facility Attendant position that was budgeted for. The Conference Center contributes $1.7 million in revenues for FY 2022/23 and are expected to meet or exceed pre-pandemic amounts.

Salary shown at Step 5 for the full-time Senior Facility Attendant position:

Semi Monthly Monthly Annually Benefits (%) Total
$3,253 $6,506 $78,072 $61,246 $139,318
Salary shown at Step 5 for the full-time Facility Attendant position:

Semi Monthly Monthly Annually Benefits (%) Total
$2,744 $5,488 $65,856 $51,663 $117,519
Total Funding required will be prorated for the remaining months of the fiscal year.

Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 143 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 choose not to add one Senior Facility Attendant position and delete one vacant Facility Attendant from the FY 22/23 position control list, but that is not recommended for the efficient operations of the Monterey Conference Center, where the current staffing level is not sufficient to facilitate a 7-day-a-week public facility operation.

DISCUSSION:

The goal of the Monterey Conference Center (MCC) is to provide a modern, state-of-the-art meeting facility with world-class service to meet the needs of business-oriented visitors to the City of Monterey. The Conference Center’s operations are an investment in the community through the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax, and other economic benefits that are generated from business visitors, conferences, and events held at the Conference Center.

This Senior Facility Attendant position will have a lead role that sets this position apart from oncall, part-time, and full-time Facility Attendant positions. This role differs in that the Senior Facility Attendant is a customer-facing position who will work with MCC's exclusive and preferred vendors to ensure all contractual conditions are being met before, during, and at the conclusion of each conference. The position would act as a liaison between clients and the MCC operations staff, attend pre-conference meetings with event planners, and will convey changes and updates between AM and PM shifts. The Conference Center is often times open for 16 to 18 hours a day, and this position will serve in the capacity of supervisor on duty when the Operations Supervisor is not on-site. This classification exists in the City’s Full-Time Salary schedule. The position was funded in the Conference Center prior to the 2015 renovation and plays a key role in the facility.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
C: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 144 RESOLUTION NO. __ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12
AMENDING RESOLUTION 22-086, THE FY 22/23 POSITION CONTROL LIST BY ADDING ONE (1) FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) SENIOR FACILITY ATTENDANT POSITION AND REMOVING ONE (1) VACANT FTE FACILITY ATTENDANT POSITION WHEREAS, the City of Monterey would be better served by amending the Position Control List for the Monterey Conference Center by adding one Senior Facility Attendant and removing one Facility Attendant;
WHEREAS, the Facility Attendant has an annual salary of $65,856 with Benefits of $51,663 for a total compensation package of $117,519; WHEREAS, the Senior Facility Attendant has an annual salary of $78,072 with Benefits of $61,246 for a total compensation package of $139,318; WHEREAS, the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. Because the proposed action does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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

1. Amends Exhibit B to Resolution 22-086, the FY 2022/23 Position Control List, as follows:

Department Adopted Amended
Monterey Conference Center
Event Operations 101-6231
Senior Facility Attendant 0 1
Facility Attendant 1 0
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 145 2 ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 146 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Amend and Restate Resolution 22-077, Master Fee Schedule to Adjust Fees for each of the Following Departments: Community Development, Parks and Recreation, City Clerk, Library, Police Department, Finance Department, Public Works Department, Parking Division, and Harbor Division (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Recommended for Continuance to March 21, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council continue this matter to March 21, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Continuing the matter to a future meeting complies with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Calif.

Government Code 54950 et seq.).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs associated with continuing this matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 147 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None considered.

DISCUSSION:

City staff recommends that this matter be continued to March 21, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

CBK
e: BIA|Bay Area, [email protected]
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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 148 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize a Contract with Community Human Services to Pass Through $2.5 Million in State Funding for the Shuman HeartHouse, a Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Community Human Services to pass through $2.5 million in State funding for the Shuman HeartHouse, a Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed emergency homeless shelter complies with the City of Monterey Municipal Code - Emergency Shelter Overlay Zoning District. State law requires cities to develop operational and management criteria to administratively allow emergency homeless shelters versus a discretionary Planning Commission hearing process. The City Council adopted its regulations in 2017. Key operational and management criteria include:

A. The maximum number of beds or persons to be served nightly by an emergency shelter shall be 35.

B. Off-street parking shall be based upon demonstrated need; provided, that parking for an emergency shelter shall not be more than that required for other uses permitted in the underlying district.

C. Projects shall design to and maintain the following maximum light levels and spacing:

Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 149

1. Buildings. Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a minimum 0.5 footcandles and maximum 1.0 footcandles.

2. Primary Building Entry. Not to exceed average maintained illumination levels of a maximum 5.0 footcandles.

3. Parking Lots. Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a maximum of

0.5 footcandles and a 15:1 maximum to minimum uniformity ratio.

4. Service Areas. Ten footcandles maximum.

D. The size of indoor waiting areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of clients. Any spillover onto public right-of-way shall allow at least four feet of unobstructed sidewalk.

E. On-site management shall be provided at all times the facility is in operation.

F. Security shall be provided during the hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

G. The maximum length of stay by a homeless person in an emergency shelter shall be six months.

H. An emergency shelter shall not be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter.

I. No individual or household shall be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City is passing through the $2.5 million from the State of California budget to Shuman Heart House. Since it was a direct allotment, the City does not have any administrative or reporting requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the project consists of re-purposing an existing building for a homeless shelter with only minor modifications consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the building exists today and is being remodeled for a new use consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 150 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project complies with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements that require a 300’ separation between facilities.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project due to its limited scope to repurpose an existing building.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project reutilizes an existing historic building and all changes are isolated to the interior of the building that has been remodeled several times in the past. The project will not have an impact on the exterior of the historic resource.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to enter into an agreement with Community Human Services (“CHS”) regarding use of the funds allocated by the State. However, this is not recommended as the State budget appropriation mandates the purpose to which the funds must be put and an agreement with CHS is an effective mechanism by which the City may ensure that the money is spent on the Shuman HeartHouse.

DISCUSSION
Community Human Services is remodeling existing structures at 600 East Franklin Street to open an emergency homeless shelter called the Shuman HeartHouse. State Senator John Laird was successful in working through the State process to obtain $2.5 million in funding to support the project. The State of California’s Department of Finance indicates this money will need to be deposited with the City and then passed through to CHS for the designated purpose.

This agenda item authorizes the City Manager to enter a contract with CHS to comply with the State request.

Background
The 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report reports that the County of Monterey homeless population has decreased from 2,407 persons in 2009 to 2,047 persons in 2022 (See Table 1). The decline in homelessness was reflected in all the Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 151 jurisdictions’ individual counts as well. The City of Monterey homeless population was reported to have significantly declined between 338 persons in 2017 to 101 persons in 2022, representing a 50% decrease. Seaside and Marina also experienced declining population numbers, 16% and 10%, respectively (See Table 2).

Figure 1
Total Point in Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness in Monterey County Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, Page 10 Figure 2
Homeless Population By Jurisdiction
Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, Page 12 Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 152 After the opening of the Shuman HeartHouse, the City will have 47 beds available for homeless persons. The Shuman HeartHouse will provide 35 beds and the existing Safe Place provides 12 beds (reduced to 8 during Covid) for individuals between the ages of 18-24 years old. Safe Place occupancy ranges between 4-6 persons nightly. Both facilities provide additional services.

According to the CHS website:

When it opens in the summer of 2023, Shuman HeartHouse will accommodate up to 35 individuals, providing much needed temporary housing and meals, and offer a variety of supportive services designed to lead to permanent housing.

Shuman HeartHouse will build on the success of Casa De Noche Buena, CHS’ shelter for women and families in Seaside, where approximately 70% of shelter guests have exited to transitional or permanent housing.

The project has been in the works since the spring of 2021 when local businessman and philanthropist Mark Shuman donated $3 million to CHS to purchase the building at 600 E. Franklin Street in Monterey for a homeless shelter for single women and families with children. “Everybody has a right to a safe place to sleep and a comfortable place to wake up in the morning,” said Shuman. “I know CHS has the experience and know-how to help make this happen. Their proven track record of managing finances and successfully operating various types of facilities is evident to me.” In addition to shelter, Safe Place provides dinner/breakfast, social recreation activities, essentials (clothing, hygiene products, PPE, etc.), access to a washer/dryer, access to computer/internet, counseling, and information and referral to ancillary services and housing (Safe Passage). According to CHS, pets, partners (over age 24), personal stuff, severe mental illness, and no in-and-out privileges all affect shelter utilization.

As mentioned previously, State Senator Laird was instrumental in obtaining this funding to achieve this milestone in homeless services on the Monterey Peninsula.

Analysis
The State of California is requesting that the City directly receive the $2.5 million and then pass through the money to CHS for building renovations, furnishings, and equipment for the Shuman HeartHouse. The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with CHS to pass through the $2.5 million to be used for the State mandated purpose and give the City the right to verify that the money has been spent for the specified purpose. The City has verified with the State that the City has no required reporting requirements for this money. In conclusion, staff request that the Council pass the attached resolution.

Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Community Human Services to Pass Through $2.5 in State Funding for the Shuman HeartHouse, a Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 153 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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 154 RESOLUTION NO. __ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES TO PASS THROUGH $2.5 MILLION IN STATE FUNDING FOR THE SHUMAN HEARTHOUSE, A FUTURE EMERGENCY HOMELESS SHELTER LOCATED AT 600 EAST FRANKLIN STREET WHEREAS, Community Human Services is remodeling existing structures at 600 East Franklin Street to open an emergency homeless shelter called Shuman HeartHouse; WHEREAS, State Senator John Laird was successful in working through the State process to obtain $2.5 in funding to support the project; WHEREAS, the State of California’s Department of Finance indicates this money will need to be deposited with the city and then passed through to Community Human Services; WHEREAS, The 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report reports that the County of Monterey homeless population has decreased from 2,407 persons in 2009 to 2,047 persons in 2022;
WHEREAS, the decline in homelessness was reflected in all Monterey County jurisdictions’ individual counts as well. The City of Monterey homeless population was reported to have significantly declined between 338 persons in 2017 to 101 persons in 2022, representing a 50% decrease. Seaside and Marina also experienced declining population numbers, 16% and 10%, respectively;
WHEREAS, despite these declines in homeless population, there continues to be an unmet need for people experiencing homelessness;
WHEREAS, the Community Human Services Shuman HeartHouse will help bridge that continued gap in services and will build on the success of Casa De Noche Buena, CHS’ shelter for women and families in Seaside where approximately 70% of shelter guests have exited to transition or permanent housing;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the project consists of re-purposing an existing building for a homeless shelter with only minor modifications consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the building exists today and is being remodeled for a new use consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 155 2 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project complies with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements that require a 300’ separation between facilities.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project due to its limited scope to repurpose an existing building.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project reutilizes an existing historic building and all changes are isolated to the interior of the building that has been remodeled several times in the past. The project will not have an impact on the exterior of the historic resource.

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with Community Human Services to receive $2.5 million in State pass-through funding to be used for building renovations, furnishings, and equipment for the Shuman HeartHouse, a future emergency homeless shelter located at 600 East Franklin Street, and give the City the right to verify that the money has been spent for the specified purpose.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 7th day of March, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 156 3 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 157 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared by: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner, and Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Adopt the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution adopting the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The California Environmental Quality Act requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee awarded $300,000 to prepare the construction drawings and environmental document for the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project. The project was further supplemented with $81,334.70 of Measure X funds. In addition, Public Works and Community Development staff time has been spent on this project. Project permits and construction are not yet funded.

However, the certification of the environmental document will help the project become closer to “shovel-ready” so it will most likely rank higher for future grant applications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed project is located in both the cities of Monterey and Seaside. The City of Seaside adopted Resolution 21-38 allowing Monterey to serve as the lead agency for the environmental review, and the City of Seaside is the responsible agency for the project. Both cities will need to certify the environmental document.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required Date: 3/7/2023
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 158 30 day public review period, from December 22, 2022 to January 23, 2023 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City’s website (Attachment 1).

The IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures are discussed in this report (See Analysis Section).

No comment letters were received during the public review period. There is no evidence before the City indicating that the proposed project could cause significant adverse environmental effects which have not already been considered, analyzed, and mitigated in the IS/MND.

Further, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated with the Initial Study. Once adopted by the City Council, a Notice of Determination will be filed according to CEQA requirements.

The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit B to Attachment 1) that will be implemented to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and critical timing of these measures. City staff will complete the last column of the MMRP to verify that the mitigation measure has been completed.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. The City Council could conclude that a mitigation measure in a mitigated negative declaration is infeasible or otherwise undesirable. It may adopt a substitute measure of equal or greater efficacy without recirculating the document if the substitution is considered at a public meeting and the City Council makes a written finding that the measure is of equal or greater efficacy and will not itself cause any potential significant effect on the environment. (City Attorneys’ Dep’t, League of Cal.

Cities, The Municipal Law Handbook (Cont. Ed. Bar 2022, §11.35.)

DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council approved funding to design and prepare the environmental document for the North Fremont Gap Closure project on June 20, 2017 as part of the 2017/18 Neighborhood Improvement Program for $300,000. The Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) committee rescoped the project on April 4, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the City Council approved Resolution 19-057 for NCIP project number 37n1950 for the North Fremont Bike and Pedestrian Improvement from Casanova to Canyon Del Rey (North Side) (CW-7) Project. As such, the project was added to the City’s work program, where it became a Public Works and Engineering project and the Community Development Department initiated environmental review. After receiving community and Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) feedback, the design and environmental efforts were further supplemented with $81,334.70 of Measure X (TAMC’s 2016 Transportation Safety and Investment Plan ballot measure) funds to Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 159 revise the project scope, which included widening the bridge and modifying the foundation of the proposed structure.

The project includes four milestones:

1. Preparation of construction drawings;

2. Environmental review;

3. Permitting;

4. Construction
The City’s Public Works Department has substantially completed construction drawings. In this action, staff requests the City Council consider adopting the environmental document which is the second milestone. Future milestones include obtaining project permits and construction.

Previous Project History
There is currently a gap in the existing sidewalk along the north side of North Fremont Street, between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard (also known as California State Route 218). The gap prevents continuous pedestrian movement in this location, where pedestrians must either cross North Fremont Street to use the sidewalk, use the travel lane, or negotiate an uneven dirt path beyond a metal guardrail. The purpose of the Project is to connect/complete the sidewalk and improve safety by providing a pathway for pedestrian and cyclist connectivity along the north side of North Fremont Street with a Class I multi-use trail.

The gap closure project was previously included as part of the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements project, Federal Aid Project No. ATPL-5086 (034), which included improvements on North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. The previous project included the design of a wall retaining across a small intermittent creek adjacent to the westbound lanes of North Fremont Street. The original wall design was proposed to be a cantilevered retaining wall founded on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and located very close to – and possibly encroaching into - an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

Because the contractor bids were received for the construction of the wall under the previous project, the City opted to postpone awarding a construction contract for the segment between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard in order to study other design alternatives.

As a separate project, the City studied the feasibility and comparative merits of the original retaining wall design and an alternative design using a pre-fabricated truss span. After reviewing both options and assessing cost and environmental issues, the City chose to pursue the truss span design.

Project Description
The proposed project consists of a prefabricated steel truss bridge with concrete abutments at either end. Construction for the Project would begin with excavating to the bottom of abutment footing/pile cap elevation. If in design, CIDH piles are determined to be needed, then a similar CIDH pile construction sequence as described above, would need to take place. Rebar placement for the abutment footing/pile cap, abutment stem, backwall, and wingwall would follow. Forming of abutment components, pouring concrete, and allowing it to cure would then Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 160 take place, proceeded by backfilling operations. Simultaneously, while all the on-site work is being done, the steel truss bridge can be fabricated. The steel truss bridge would be prefabricated off-site and shipped in two or three segments to the site to be assembled and erected into place. To complete bridge construction, the walkway deck would need to be installed. The walkway deck would be a steel grate design to allow water and natural light to pass through. The structure will consist of painted (black) steel, and low-profile lighting is proposed for safety.

The truss would span 130 feet, connecting to improved Class I trail approaches at both ends.

Curb and gutter would be replaced along a portion of the road frontage, and two oak trees would require removal. The resulting project, approximately 500 feet in total length, would connect Casanova Avenue to Laguna Grande Park and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. All work would be performed outside of the riparian/ESHA limits.

Periodic maintenance would be required for the bridge structure. Vegetation would need to be controlled and topped so that it does not overgrow and impact the bridge from below. In addition, occasional repainting of the bridge would be necessary to prolong its lifespan.

Figure 1
Project Location
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 161 Figure 2
Project Design
Analysis
Unless exempted, CEQA requires environmental review of discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. (Public Resources Code section 21080.) If a proposed activity is a project and is not exempt from CEQA, the City ordinarily must prepare an “initial study” to determine whether the project will have a significant effect on the environment. (City Attorneys’ Dep’t., League of Cal. Cities, The Municipal Law Handbook (Cont. Ed. Bar 2022 §11.26.) When the initial study identifies potentially significant impacts, but the revisions made to the project before public review of the negative declaration clearly reduces impacts to a level of insignificance, a mitigated negative declaration is prepared.

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) identifies significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact to less than significant:

Biological Resources:

MM 1 Fencing and Monitoring. Riparian habitat and potential waters of the U.S. and State shall be avoided during construction with protective fencing. A biological monitor will supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that fencing remains intact and work crews are properly avoiding the habitat area. If all riparian areas and waters are avoided, no additional mitigation is necessary.

MM 2 Construction Best Practices. To protect water quality and riparian vegetation during construction, the following measures shall be included on the construction specifications and documents:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 162  Project contractor shall ensure that trenching, excavating, backfilling and other activities that involve substantial soil disturbance adjacent to riparian vegetation and Canyon Del Rey Creek are planned and implemented with a qualified hydrologist, engineer or erosion control specialist, and shall utilize standard erosion control techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation near sensitive areas.  Stationary equipment such as motors, generators, and welders located within 100 feet of the creek shall be stored overnight at staging areas and shall be positioned over drip pans.
 No debris, soil, silt, sand, oil, petroleum products, cement, concrete or washings thereof shall be allowed to enter, or be placed where they may be washed by rainfall or runoff, into riparian areas or Canyon Del Rey Creek.
 All construction debris and associated materials shall be stored in staging areas and shall be removed from the work site upon completion of the project.  Cleaning or refueling of equipment shall take place within turnouts or staging areas at least 50 feet from riparian areas and Canyon Del Rey Creek.  All refueling shall be conducted over plastic bags filled with sawdust or other highly absorbent material. Clean-up materials for spill shall be kept on hand at all times. Any accidental spills of fuel or other contaminants shall be cleaned up immediately.

Cultural Resources:

MM 5 Cultural Awareness Training. Prior to commencing any ground disturbing work at the project site, construction managers and personnel shall participate in cultural and tribal sensitivity training conducted by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of Monterey Planning Division. At minimum, the training shall explain (1) applicable statutes, regulations, and enforcement provisions; (2) the prehistoric and historic environment setting and context, including information regarding the local tribal groups; and (3) what prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during construction.

Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the project area unless they have attended the training. A list of names of all personnel who attended the training shall be submitted to the City of Monterey Planning Division.

MM 6a Discovery of Cultural Resources. During project construction, if any archeological, paleontological, or tribal resources (e.g., evidence of past human habitation or fossils) are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 50 feet of the Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 163 discovery and notify the City of Monterey Planning Division immediately. Cultural and/or tribal cultural resources may include prehistoric archaeological materials such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock, as well as historic materials such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. The project applicant and/or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist, or paleontologist if applicable, to evaluate the finds and, subject to review and approval by the City, develop appropriate treatment measures for the inadvertently discovered resources. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures. (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). The City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining appropriate treatment measures for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native American in nature.

MM 6b Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains or cultural resources associated with a burial (i.e. grave goods) are discovered during construction, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall immediately cease all ground disturbing work on the site and all work within 50 feet of the find and notify the City of Monterey Planning Division and the Monterey County Coroner, according to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission. All involved parties shall follow the procedures in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d) and (e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The Commission will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will be authorized to provide recommendations for management of the Native American human remains and any associated materials or objects (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).

Authorization to resume construction shall only be given by the City after consultation with the most likely descendent and shall include implementation of all appropriate measures to protect any possible burial sites or human remains.

Noise:

MM 7: Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Monterey City Engineer shall ensure that all project plans and specifications stipulate that:
▪ All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers;
▪ Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible;
▪ During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers;
▪ During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors; and
▪ Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction site, as far away from vibration sensitive sites as possible.

MM 8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City’s Building Division shall confirm that vibratory rollers capable of generating vibration levels above 0.2 inches per second PPV shall not be used within 20 feet of adjacent residences. If the contractor can demonstrate that Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 164 vibratory rollers have vibration levels of less than 0.2 inches per second PPV, then they shall be allowed to operate within the 20-foot buffer zone.

MM 9 Native American Monitoring. At least ten (10) business days prior to conducting ground disturbing activities, the City will notify the three tribes, specifically the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People, the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, and the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, who requested to have a Native American monitor on site. Each tribe may designate one monitor to be on site and conduct monitoring during the project. As this is a working construction site, each monitor must sign a release and liability waiver prior to conducting monitoring onsite.

These mitigation measures are incorporated into the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution adoptingthe North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Attachments: 1. Resolution Adopting the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with Exhibit A (North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project) and Exhibit B (Mitigation Monitoring Chart)
e: Fernanda Roveri, City of Monterey
Nisha Patel, Public Works Director, City of Seaside
Dominique Davis, City Clerk, City of Seaside
Dan Meewis, City of Seaside
Dave Fortune, City of Seaside
Heather Adamson, Director of Planning, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Cris Sarabia, California Native Plant Society
Michael Zeller, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association
North Fremont Business Association
Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 165 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ADOPTING THE NORTH FREMONT STREET SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, there is currently a gap in the existing sidewalk along the north side of North Fremont Street, between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard (also known as California State Route CA-218);
WHEREAS, the gap prevents continuous pedestrian movement in this location, where pedestrians must either cross North Fremont Street to use the sidewalk, use the travel lane, or negotiate an uneven dirt path beyond a metal guardrail; WHEREAS, the purpose of the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project is to connect/complete the sidewalk and provide safety improvements to the pathway for pedestrian and cyclist connectivity along the north side of North Fremont Street with a Class I multi-use trail;
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in both the cities of Monterey and Seaside. The City of Seaside adopted Resolution 21-38 allowing Monterey to serve as the lead agency for the environmental review, and the City of Seaside is the responsible agency for the project. Both cities will need to certify the environmental document; WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required 30 day public review period, from December 22, 2022 to January 23, 2023 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City’s website (Exhibit A); WHEREAS, the IS/MND discloses that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; WHEREAS, no comment letters were received during the public review period. There is no evidence before the City indicating that the proposed project could cause significant adverse environmental effects which have not already been considered, analyzed, and mitigated in the IS/MND;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Exhibit B) that will be implemented to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and critical timing of these measures;
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 166 2 WHEREAS, the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program for the North Fremont Street Gap Closure project, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B based on the following Finding:

On March 7, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, took public testimony to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and) exercised its independent judgment in determining that the conclusions reached in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are correct and supported by substantial evidence, and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration complies with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 7th day of March, 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, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 167 North Fremont Street
Casanova to Canyon Del Rey Sidewalk Gap Closure
Environmental Initial Study
Prepared for:

City of Monterey
Public Review Draft
December 2022
Prepared by:

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 168 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction & Purpose ....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study .........................................................................................1

1.2 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................................................1

1.3 Initial Study Public Review and Outreach Process........................................................................1

1.4 Report Organization......................................................................................................................2 Description of Proposed Project.......................................................................................................3

2.1 Project Background, Location, and Setting...................................................................................3 Location.................................................................................................................................................3 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................................................3 Site Conditions and Setting...................................................................................................................3 Project Characteristics..........................................................................................................................4 Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................................6

3.1 Project Information.......................................................................................................................6 Environmental Analysis.....................................................................................................................9

4.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................................9

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................11

4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................13

4.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................17

4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................21

4.6 Energy .........................................................................................................................................23

4.7 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................25

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................28

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................30

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................................................................................33

4.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................36

4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................38

4.13 Noise ...........................................................................................................................................39

4.14 Population and Housing..............................................................................................................42

4.15 Public Services.............................................................................................................................43

4.16 Recreation...................................................................................................................................45

4.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................46

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................48 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 169 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page iii

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................50

4.20 Wildfire........................................................................................................................................52

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................54 Report Preparers.............................................................................................................................56 References ......................................................................................................................................57 List of Tables
Table 1: Project Construction Emissions.....................................................................................................14 List of Figures
Note: All figures are at the end of the document.

Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 4: Jurisdictional Boundaries
Figure 5: Truss Bridge Concept
Figure 6: Site Photographs
Figure 7: Truss Bridge Rendering
Figure 8: Vegetation Communities
Figure 9: Tree Removal
Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Appendix B: Biological Resources Memo
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Report
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 170 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 1

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
This Initial Study has been prepared to determine and identify the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (“Project”) in the City of Monterey. This study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.).

As a bicycle/pedestrian facility designed to bridge an existing sidewalk gap and enhance bicycle and pedestrian connections at the boundary of the cities of Monterey and Seaside, the Project is expected to provide certain benefits in terms of non-motorized mobility and safety. As such, the scope of this Initial Study focuses on the physical environmental effects of constructing a short bridge structure adjacent to North Fremont Street on the edge of Laguna Grande Park. Primary issues studied are biology, cultural resources, and water quality; however, the Initial Study addresses all area of the standard checklist within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b) (1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Based on the criteria above, the City of Monterey (City) is the lead agency for the proposed project.

The conclusions herein are based on CEQA standards, professional judgement, field review and available public documents. This Initial Study constitutes substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of an EIR is not required prior to approval of the project by the City and provides the required documentation under CEQA.

1.2 Summary of Findings
The project would have beneficial impacts, less than significant impacts, or no impacts in all analysis categories except as identified below. Beneficial impacts of the project include improved recreational opportunities, network connectivity, improved pedestrian safety, and opportunities for non-motorized transportation.

Environmental issues that could have effects requiring mitigation include biological resources (protection and avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) and tribal and cultural resources (protection of inadvertently discovered resources).

1.3 Initial Study Public Review and Outreach Process
This Project has been previously addressed as part of the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements project, Federal Aid Project No. ATPL-5086 (034), which included improvements on North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. The City held multiple public information meetings about the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 171 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 2
and Safety Improvements project, including the sidewalk gap component, at North Fremont Business District meetings in June 2015, March 2016, August 2016, May 2017, and March 2019; Transportation Agency for Monterey County Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee meetings in November 2015 and March 2017; Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association meetings in October 2016 and June 2018; and a North Fremont Open House in May 2018. City staff and consultants have also provided project information to responsible agencies regarding the environmental review process.

The Initial Study will be available for public review for no less than 30 days: the period of public review will initiate on December 22, 2022, and comments will be received through January 23, 2023. At the close of public review, the City will consider public comments on the environmental document prior to making a decision on the Project.

1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.

Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.

Section 4.0 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist.

Section 5.0 – Report Preparers.

Section 6.0 – Report References. This section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 172 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 3

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 Project Background, Location, and Setting
Location
The North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (Project) is located in the cities of Monterey and Seaside, California, and crosses the boundary line of Monterey and Seaside. The project limits extend along the north edge of North Fremont Street between Canyon Del Rey Boulevard on the east and Casanova Avenue on the west. See Figure 1. The Project is located within the California Coastal Zone.

Background and Purpose
There is currently a gap in the existing sidewalk along the north side of North Fremont Street, between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard (also known as California State Route CA-218). The gap prevents continuous and safe pedestrian movement in this location, where pedestrians must either cross North Fremont Street to use the sidewalk, use the travel lane, or negotiate an uneven dirt path beyond a metal guardrail. The purpose of the Project is to connect/complete the sidewalk and provide a safe pathway for pedestrian and cyclist connectivity along the north side of North Fremont Street with a Class I multi-use trail. See Figure

2. The gap closure was previously addressed as part of the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements project, Federal Aid Project No. ATPL-5086 (034), which included improvements on North Fremont Street between Casa Verde Way and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. The previous project included the design of a wall retaining the proposed embankment for sidewalk continuation, across a small intermittent creek, adjacent to the westbound lanes of North Fremont Street. The original wall design was proposed to be a cantilevered retaining wall founded on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and located very close to – and possibly encroaching into - an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

Because of the contractor bids received for the construction of the wall under the previous project, the City opted to postpone awarding construction for the segment between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard in order to study other design alternatives. As a separate project, the City studied the feasibility and comparative merits of the original retaining wall design and an alternative design using a pre-fabricated truss span. After reviewing both options and assessing cost and environmental issues, the City chose to pursue the truss span design.

Site Conditions and Setting
North Fremont Street transitions from a four-lane street to a five-lane street at the intersection with Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. Southwest of the intersection, North Fremont has two Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 173 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 4
eastbound lanes and a left-turn lane separated by a raised median from the two westbound lanes. North Fremont Street traverses Canyon Del Rey (a northwest-southeast trending canyon), spanning over a partially culvertized intermittent creek. The creek located at the base of the canyon and flowing northwesterly towards Laguna Grande.

The site has limited sidewalk access for cyclists and pedestrians as the sidewalk extending from the west side of Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, along North Fremont Street, dead-ends approximately 160 feet southwest from the western corner of the North Fremont Street/Canyon Del Rey Boulevard intersection. Sidewalk and other improvements along the north side of North Fremont Street, extending from Casa Verde Way to approximately 30 feet northeast of the intersection with Casanova Avenue, have recently been completed as part of a previous project mentioned earlier. Current sidewalk discontinuity – the “gap” - is approximately 500 feet.

The existing project site on North Fremont Street between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard consists of a sloped terrain with an approximate maximum elevation difference of 30 feet from the top of the roadway to the base of the canyon within the ESHA. As previously mentioned, the ESHA exists downslope Canyon Del Rey and downslope from North Fremont Street’s northern edge. North Fremont Street appears to have been built by bridging over an existing intermittent creek with a culvert, and filling Canyon Del Rey. Similarly, south of North Fremont Street, the canyon is thought to have been filled and the creek culvertized, to develop the land for what is now an existing Safeway retail center. A Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) power substation is located west of the canyon, with a driveway extending north from North Fremont Street. See Figure 3. Just east of the sidewalk gap, approximately 30 feet from the end of sidewalk is a bus stop made up of a concrete slab extending beyond the sidewalk and bus stop sign.

The Project is located where City of Monterey, City of Seaside, and Caltrans ROW interface. See Figure 4. The Project spans outside of City of Monterey ROW into City of Seaside ROW. In addition, the project affects parcel APN 013-142-005 owned by the City of Seaside within the City of Monterey. The Project will be located outside of Caltrans ROW.

Project Characteristics
The Project consists of a prefabricated steel truss bridge with concrete abutments at either end.

See Figure 5. Construction for the Project would begin with excavating to the bottom of abutment footing/pile cap elevation. If in design, CIDH pile are determined to be needed, then a similar CIDH pile construction sequence as described above, would need to take place. Rebar placement for the abutment footing/pile cap, abutment stem, backwall, and wingwall would follow. Forming of abutment components, pouring concrete, and allowing it to cure would then take place, proceeded by backfilling operations. Simultaneously, while all the on-site work is being done, the steel truss bridge can be fabricated. The steel truss bridge would be prefabricated off-site and shipped in two or three segments to the site, to be assembled and erected into place.

To complete bridge construction, the walkway deck would need to be installed. The walkway Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 174 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 5
deck would be a steel grate design to allow water and natural light to pass through. The structure will consist of painted (black) steel, and low-profile lighting is proposed for safety.

The truss would span 130 feet, connecting to improved Class I trail approaches at both ends. Curb and gutter would be replaced along a portion of the road frontage, and two oak trees would require removal. The resulting project, approximately 500 feet in total length, would connect Casanova Avenue to Laguna Grande Park and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. All work would be performed outside of the riparian/ESHA limits.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 175 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 6

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

3.1 Project Information

1. Project title:

North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

3. Contact person and phone number:

Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner, (831) 646-3885

4. Project location:

East edge of north side of North Fremont Street, between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Blvd (SR 218) Portions of APN 013-142-004; 013-142-005; 011-381-006; and public right of way in the cities of Monterey and Seaside

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Same as above

6. General plan designation:

City of Monterey: Parks and Open Space; City of Seaside: Parks and Open Space

7. Zoning:

City of Monterey: Open Space (OS); City of Seaside: Open Space and Recreation (OSR)

8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Construction of an approximately 130’ prefabricated bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect an existing gap in the sidewalk along North Fremont Street on the border of the City of Seaside and City of Monterey. The project involves limited ground disturbance and fill for the span’s abutments, curb and gutter improvements, paved sidewalk/trail approaches on each side of the span, and removal of up to four existing oak trees.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:

Active roadway (North Fremont Street), PG&E substation, Canyon Del Rey Boulevard; single family residence; Laguna Grande Park

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
City of Seaside

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 176 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 7
A notification of consultation opportunity was emailed on February 8, 2022, to all tribes listed by the Native American Heritage Commission as tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. Three tribes responded with comments or requests for consultation, and resulting mitigation measures MM 5, MM 6a-b, and MM 9 were included to address stated concerns. Consultations were initiated on February 8, 2022, and concluded on December 16, 2022. Additional information is contained within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. ▣ ▣
▣
▣
▣
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 20, Packet Page 177 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 21, Packet Page 178 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 9

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
a) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
b) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
X
c) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The Project is located along a heavily traveled roadway (North Fremont Street) with no nearby scenic vistas. There are no elevated, publicly accessible vantage points toward the site that would be considered scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than significant impact. North Fremont Street is not a state scenic highway, and there are no historic buildings or rock outcroppings on or adjacent to the immediate Project area. The only potentially scenic resource in the immediate vicinity of the Project are the trees and brush associated with the oak woodland and riparian habitat adjacent to North Fremont Street.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 22, Packet Page 179 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 10
The construction of the truss bridge will require minor grading for abutments and will require the removal of up to four oak trees within the project alignment (see Section 4.4, Biology). The bridge will also span the existing Canyon Del Rey drainage channel, over a stand of riparian vegetation. However, the introduction of the bridge structure will not substantially alter or damage these resources from a visual or aesthetic perspective. The truss bridge is a pedestrian and bicycle facility designed to be compatible with park and open space settings.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than significant impact. The Project is located on the interface of an urban environment and public park/undeveloped land near the intersection of two major thoroughfares, North Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. Photographs of the site from these public viewpoints (roadways) are shown in Figure 6. An additional vantage point is shown from the Laguna Grande Court neighborhood, where a parcel owned by the City of Seaside is fenced and gated from public access. Two private single-family homes accessed from a shared driveway off Laguna Grande Court are the closest structures to the project location and have the clearest, albeit private, view of the Project location.

Based on the existing visual character of the sight and relatively low quality of public views and viewing experience in this location, implementation of the Project will not significantly degrade the existing condition. Figure 7 shows a before and after visualization of the site after implementation. The most prominent visual feature, a bicycle/pedestrian truss span designed to complement the park setting, will be consistent with the existing setting and could be considered a visual enhancement to the immediate area.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The truss bridge and access points would have low intensity lighting for nighttime safety. However, this light source will not be substantial, create glare, or affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 23, Packet Page 180 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 11

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 24, Packet Page 181 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 12
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. The Project location is an urban area along an existing roadway. The strip of right of way affected by the Project is not classified as farmland, has no forest land value, would not conflict with agricultural zoning, nor result in other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 25, Packet Page 182 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 13

4.3 Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. The Air Quality Plan focuses on reduction of ozone levels within the NCCAB. As identified by the MBARD, emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides [NOX]) that conflict with the population projections on which the Air Quality Plan is based, are not accommodated in the Air Quality Plan for ozone and would have a significant cumulative impact unless offset.

The proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of a new trail connection. The Project would not generate additional population, add additional traffic, or add jobs or housing.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the Air Quality Plan. MBARD guidance for analysis of air quality impacts of planning documents consists of assessing consistency with the Air Quality Plan. This analysis is presented below and indicates no impact for ozone and ozone precursors, such as NOX.

In addition, the proposed Project’s construction and operation emissions would not exceed MBARD thresholds as noted below. The NCCAB is currently in non-attainment for State ozone and PM10 standards which represents an existing cumulatively significant impact within the NCCAB. Ozone precursors include reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX. The Project would not exceed quantitative thresholds for either of these ozone precursors. Similarly, PM10 thresholds also would not be exceeded Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 26, Packet Page 183 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 14
for construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than significant impact. Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include ozoneprecursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and temporary.

The regional construction emissions associated with development of the proposed Project were calculated using Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)’s Road Construction Emissions Model (Version 9.0.0). For the purposes of the air quality analysis, site disturbance would be approximately 0.2 acres and construction is estimated to be approximately eight months. Total earthwork would include approximately 500 cubic yard (cy) of total fill and 90 cy of total cut including excavation. This would result in approximately 410 cy of import. Typical construction detail equipment includes cement and mortar mixers, graders, scrapers, rollers, pavers, tractors, loaders, and air compressors. The MBARD employs only one quantitative threshold in connection with the abovereferenced criteria air pollutants to determine construction-related air quality impacts: it uses a threshold of 82 lbs/day of PM10 for determining significance of construction-related emissions. Table 1:

Project Construction Emissions, shows construction emission.

Table 1: Project Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
2021 9.91 113.65 71.52 0.18 6.49 4.48
Threshold --- --- --- --- 82 ---
Exceed Threshold NA NA NA NA No NA
Source: SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model v. 9.0.0 and Appendix A

1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in CalEEMod and as typically required by the MBARD (Basic Control Measures). The mitigation includes the following: replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment.

As shown in Table 1, construction of the proposed Project would result in a maximum of 6.49 lbs/day of PM10, which is below the MBARD threshold of 82 lbs/day of PM10. Further, the proposed Project would be required to comply with MBARD’s dust control rules. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Long-term operational emissions are typically attributed to vehicle trips (mobile emissions), the use of natural gas (energy source emissions), and consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment (area source emissions). Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a new trail connection. The Project would not generate additional population, add additional traffic, Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 27, Packet Page 184 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 15
add stationary sources, or add jobs or housing. Therefore, operational emissions are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The Project will result in no mobile source emissions. Temporary emissions form construction equipment and construction methods will be limited in scope. The nearest homes, in the Casanova neighborhood, will not experience substantial concentrations during work hours.

Under CEQA, residences, schools, daycare centers, and healthcare facilities, such as hospitals, or retirement and nursing homes, are considered sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is located approximately 25 feet north of the site. The proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of a new trail connection. The Project would not generate additional population, add additional traffic, or add jobs or housing. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic-related pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors.

Further, the dust and equipment exhaust emissions during construction would be minimal and would be controlled by compliance with MBARD Rule 400 (Visible Emissions). Rule 400 limits discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, prohibited.

Construction and Operation Period Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. The health risk associated with high concentrations of diesel exhaust PM10 from construction equipment has a carcinogenic and chronic effect, but no short-term acute effect is currently recognized. The Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to temporary health hazards associated with TACs due to the operation of construction equipment. However, concentrations of mobile source diesel particulate matter would only be present during temporary construction activities, and as previously shown in Table 1, PM10 emissions associated with construction activities would be well below the 82 lbs/day threshold established by MBARD. Furthermore, the Project operation emissions were negligible; therefore, no operational TAC impacts would occur. Compliance with MBARD recommended dust control measures would further reduce PM10 emissions. The health risk associated with construction emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. Construction activities associated with the Project may generate detectable odors from heavy duty equipment (i.e., diesel exhaust), as well as from architectural coatings and asphalt offgassing. Any construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon Project completion. The nature of the Project as a trail gap closure would not result in other odors that would affect people in the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 28, Packet Page 185 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 16
Standard Conditions and Requirements
AQ SC-1: MBARD Rule 400 – Visible Emissions. Project applicants shall not discharge of visible air pollutant emissions into the atmosphere from any emission source for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour, as observed using an appropriate test method, is prohibited.

AQ SC-2: MBARD Fugitive Dust Control. Although the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance for PM10, MBARD recommends the use of the following Best Management Practices for the control of short-term construction generated emissions in any event:
▪ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
▪ Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph). ▪ Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). ▪ Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area.
▪ Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2'0" of freeboard. ▪ Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. ▪ Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. ▪ Cover inactive storage piles.
▪ Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks. ▪ Pave all roads on construction sites. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
▪ Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). ▪ Limit the area under construction at any one time.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 29, Packet Page 186 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 17

4.4 Biological Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 30, Packet Page 187 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 18
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant impact. The project is located on the edge of Laguna Grande Park. Some portions of the park have high biological value; however, the portion immediately adjacent to North Fremont Street is highly disturbed and regularly maintained. 1 Much of this area is denuded or sparsely vegetated with weedy plant species. The remainder of the area consists of degraded riparian and oak woodland communities and a horticultural garden planted with native and non-native plants, shrubs and trees. See Figure 8, Vegetation Communities.

Canyon Del Rey Creek runs through the project site and supports a highly degraded riparian corridor.

The riparian area within the project site has been significantly disturbed as a result of adjacent development, stormwater infrastructure maintenance, and on-going management efforts specific to homeless encampments. Riparian vegetation comprises about 0.37 acres near the project site.

The oak woodland community near the project site is dominated by coast live oak trees and acacia trees, with an understory of blackberry and English ivy. The Acacia, a non-native species, has recently invaded the oak woodland community and is co-dominant with coast live oak. Approximately 1.3 acres of oak woodland was documented near the project site; however, this community is north of and not affected by the project’s impact area.

The horticultural garden near the project site (located at the corner of North Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard is planted with species such as coast live oak, sage, and two buckwheat species.

These buckwheat species are the host plants of the federally Endangered Smith’s blue butterfly (SBB).

However, these buckwheat plants were planted in an urban landscape and are isolated from other populations of suitable habitat for SBB. Additionally, the nearest occurrence of SBB is nearly on mile from this population (CDFW, 2019), and dispersal data from capture-recapture studies indicate that most adults have a home range of no more than a few acres. As such, SBB is unlikely to utilize the nearby buckwheat population. The project’s limits of construction will also avoid this population.

No other special status species were identified within the project site or are expected to occur within the site due to lack of suitable habitat and the urbanized and degraded nature of the site. For these reasons, the project will not significantly degrade habitat that supports such species and impacts would be less than significant based on CEQA thresholds.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project could result in impacts to riparian habitat, waters of the U.S. and/or state. The project area lies within the California Coastal Zone (Coastal zone), including portions of the Seaside Coastal Zone’s Laguna Grande Subarea and the Monterey Coastal Zone. Currently, the City of Seaside has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) while the City of 1 Denise Duffy & Associates, August 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 31, Packet Page 188 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 19
Monterey’s LCP is currently undergoing a comprehensive update. The LCPs from both agencies address coastal resources, including the protection of biological and wetland resources.

Riparian habitat is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the Lake and Streamed Alteration Program and is also potentially and Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) where it occurs within the Coastal Zone. Oak woodland habitat is also potentially EHSA under the Seaside Land Use Plan and is protected under both cities’ tree removal ordinances.

Canyon Del Rey Creek is potentially a water of the U.S. and/or waters of the state, which are regulated under the Clean Water Act by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), respectively. Within the Coastal Zone, waters of the U.S. and state are also potentially ESHA. No wetlands were identified within the project site.

Although the project design avoids the riparian habitat and Canyon Del Rey Creek, the following mitigation measure will ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect these resources during construction.

MM 2 Construction Best Practices. To protect water quality and riparian vegetation during construction, the following measures shall be included on the construction specifications and documents:
• Project contractor shall ensure that trenching, excavating, backfilling and other activities that involve substantial soil disturbance adjacent to riparian vegetation and Canyon Del Rey Creek are planned and implemented with a qualified hydrologist, engineer or erosion control specialist, and shall utilize standard erosion control techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation near sensitive areas. • Stationary equipment such as motors, generators, and welders located within 100 feet of the creek shall be stored overnight at staging areas and shall be positioned over drip pans.
• No debris, soil, silt, sand, oil, petroleum products, cement, concrete or washings thereof shall be allowed to enter, or be placed where they may be washed by rainfall or runoff, into riparian areas or Canyon Del Rey Creek. • All construction debris and associated materials shall be stored in staging areas and shall be removed from the work site upon completion of the project. • Cleaning or refueling of equipment shall take place within turnouts or staging areas at least 50 feet from riparian areas and Canyon Del Rey Creek. • All refueling shall be conducted over plastic bags filled with sawdust or other highly absorbent material. Clean-up materials for spill shall be kept on hand at all times.

Any accidental spills of fuel or other contaminants shall be cleaned up immediately.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 32, Packet Page 189 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 20
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological? Less than significant impact. Canyon Del Rey Creek is a potential water of the U.S. and is addressed under b) above. No other wetlands were identified in the project area. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project could interfere with the movement of migratory wildlife (avian) species during construction, but would not interfere with native terrestrial species or wildlife corridors. Individual oak trees that would be removed for the project are close to the roadway, isolated specimens, and not within denser oak woodland habitat nearby. Nonetheless, these trees could provide foraging and roosting opportunities for migratory birds. To ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided, the project shall implement the following mitigation measure. Trees to be removed are shown in Figure 9.

MM 3 Preconstruction Bird Surveys. The applicant shall schedule all on-site tree removal and grading to occur between August 31th and March 1st of any given year to avoid the Central Coast bird nesting season. If this schedule is not practical, the project sponsor shall fund the engagement of a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys no more than two weeks prior to removal of trees and grading. If no active bird nests are observed, no additional measures are required. If nesting birds are observed, the biologist will establish a buffer zone where no tree removal or grading will occur until the biologist confirms that all chicks have fledged. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project will require the removal of up to four mature live oak trees, located in the City of Monterey and City of Seaside. Removal of oak trees is regulated by the ordinances of both cities.

MM 4 Tree Replacement. Prior to removal of oak trees, the lead agency shall follow the tree removal permit process of both Monterey and Seaside. Upon completion of construction, final site work shall include oak tree replacement at a 1:1 ratio, or as specified by local tree ordinances.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not subject to any such adopted plans. While the City of Seaside LCP and Implementation Plan identifies a 50-foot setback of development from ESHA areas, this requirement does not apply if such a setback is infeasible, and/or if “development” is a public recreational facility such as trail. Both of these exemptions apply.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 33, Packet Page 190 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 21

4.5 Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
No impact. A Phase I Archaeological Survey was conducted for the North Fremont Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Project (Archaeological Consulting, December 2014). The area containing the “sidewalk gap” was part of that project, and therefore was reviewed by this assessment. The 2014 assessment concluded that no historical resources were present and site conditions have not substantially changed.

As a result, there would be no impact or substantial adverse change to a historical resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Phase I Archaeological Survey concluded that the project area of potential effect (APE) contains no evidence of significant cultural resources, and that the project should not be delayed for archaeological resources (see also Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, associated mitigation measure MM 9). Although no historical or archaeological resources were located on the project site, the region in which the site is located is known to have been occupied by native peoples. Additionally, because the possibility of previously unidentified (buried) cultural resources can be found during any earth disturbance, the following standard mitigation measures have been included:

MM 5 Cultural Awareness Training. Prior to commencing any ground disturbing work at the project site, construction managers and personnel shall participate in cultural and tribal Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 34, Packet Page 191 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 22
sensitivity training conducted by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of Monterey Planning Division. At minimum, the training shall explain (1) applicable statutes, regulations, and enforcement provisions; (2) the prehistoric and historic environment setting and context, including information regarding the local tribal groups; and (3) what prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during construction. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the project area unless they have attended the training. A list of names of all personnel who attended the training shall be submitted to the City of Monterey Planning Division.

MM 6a Discovery of Cultural Resources. During project construction, if any archeological, paleontological, or tribal resources (e.g., evidence of past human habitation or fossils) are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 50 feet of the discovery and notify the City of Monterey Planning Division immediately. Cultural and/or tribal cultural resources may include prehistoric archaeological materials such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock, as well as historic materials such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. The project applicant and/or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist, or paleontologist if applicable, to evaluate the finds and, subject to review and approval by the City, develop appropriate treatment measures for the inadvertently discovered resources. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures. (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). The City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining appropriate treatment measures for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native American in nature.

If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission. All involved parties shall follow the procedures in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d) and (e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The Commission will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will be authorized to provide recommendations for management of the Native American human remains and any associated materials or objects (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). Authorization to resume construction shall only be given by the City after consultation with the most likely descendent and shall include implementation of all appropriate measures to protect any possible burial sites or human remains.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 35, Packet Page 192 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 23

4.6 Energy

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant impact. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the Project area. The proposed Project would enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, and increase connectivity and mobility. The Project would result in a nominal increase in electricity and natural gas demand. This nominal increase represents an insignificant percent increase compared to overall demand in PG&E’s service area. Therefore, projected electrical and natural gas demand would not significantly impact PG&E’s level of service.

During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment.

Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not be significant.

During operations, energy consumption associated with the sidewalk gap closure would be nominal.

Furthermore, the Project site and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 36, Packet Page 193 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 24
the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact. The Project is an infrastructure improvement that would utilize almost no energy, except what may be required for low intensity safety lighting. The Project would not generate any new automobile traffic or require energy use. Additionally, as discussed further in Threshold 4.8 (b), the proposed Project would be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan measures as well as the overall goals of the Monterey Climate Action Plan (2016). AMBAG’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of EOs 5-03-05 and B-30-15. The levels of fuel consumption and GHG partly result from the region’s reliance on petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as the average fuel efficiency of vehicles. The Project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed Project is a trail connection, which would not generate new trips in the Project area, thus reducing congestion and energy consumption. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the MTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with AMBAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets (and thus reduce energy consumption) outlined in the 2040 MTP/SCS. Potential impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 37, Packet Page 194 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 25

4.7 Geology and Soils

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 38, Packet Page 195 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 26

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No impact. According to readily available fault zone mapping, the Project location is not subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. The Project is an infrastructure facility that is not occupied. Although the structure (and surroundings) could be subject to seismic ground shaking during an earthquake, the Project will not directly or indirectly cause adverse effects (such as injury or death) due to shaking. The structure will need to be designed to current structural codes to address the potential for ground shaking and structure stability.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. According to a geotechnical evaluation conducted for North Fremont improvements (North Fremont Street Improvements, Monterey, CA, Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO, November 2016), local soils in the vicinity of the Project consist of non-engineered fill associated with the filling of Canyon Del Rey when the area was developed. However, based on the exploration findings, ENGEO found the probability of seismic hazards, such as ground failure, liquefaction and lateral spreading, to be low. ENGEO also provides the opinion that the proposed improvements will not be affected by expansive soils.
iv. Landslides?
Less than significant impact. While the project will span a hillside below, its abutments will be engineered and anchored. The presence of a bridge structure in this location will not cause potential significant adverse effects to people or property.
v. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 39, Packet Page 196 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 27
Less than significant impact. The Project will require 500 cy of total fill and 90 cy of total cut including excavation (approximately 410 cy of import) of material for surface grading and structure footings.

Construction and water quality best practices as required by existing codes and regulations will limit erosion on the relatively small construction footprint of the project. Design features such as footing placement away from slopes and footing depths will minimize erosion during and following construction.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, construction and water quality best practices as required by existing codes and regulations will limit erosion on the relatively small construction footprint of the project. All abutments will be engineered and anchored. Design features such as footing placement away from slopes and footing depths will minimize erosion during and following construction. Also, since the Project is not on agricultural lands, loss of topsoil at the site is less of a concern.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact. See a) iii above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. See a) iii above.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The Project will not generate or dispose of wastewater. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact. According to ENGEO, the local soils are primarily non-engineered fill material. There are no rock outcroppings or geologic features that will be disturbed or destroyed by the construction footprint, and thus the risk of impact is considered less than significant.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 40, Packet Page 197 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 28

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. Similar to the findings under Air Quality, the Project will have no operational impacts. Construction impacts will be of short duration and will not directly or indirectly trigger any greenhouse gas emission thresholds.

Construction GHG emissions were estimated using Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)’s Road Construction Emissions Model (Version 9.0.0). For the purpose of this environmental analysis, Project construction is expected to occur over an approximately eight-month period. Construction activities would include land clearing, grading, drainage/utilities, and paving.

Although neither the City of Monterey nor the MBARD has adopted GHG emission significance thresholds, the Project’s estimated GHG emissions (about 821.10 MT/ CO2e year) are well below the significance threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e per year used in neighboring air districts and the 2,000 MT of CO2e/year threshold that had been under consideration by the MBARD. Further, annual construction would total 27.4 MTCO2e per year when amortized over a project lifetime of 30 years. The proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be below the 2,000 MTCO2e/year threshold currently being considered by MBARD, therefore impacts would be less than significant. Construction GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a new trail connection. The Project would not generate additional population, add additional traffic, add stationary sources, or add jobs or housing.

Operationally, the Project would have no GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operational GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 41, Packet Page 198 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 29
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact. The Project would provide an important bicycle and pedestrian connection not only to the adjacent sidewalks but also to the future FORTAG trail nearby. Encouraging nonmotorized transportation and enhancing opportunities for access to trail networks is consistent with the Coastal Act, local city circulation plans, and MBARD polices. The proposed Project would comply with all MBARD applicable rules and regulations during construction and would not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated in AB 32; a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 as noted in SB 32; and, an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 as stated in EO S-3-05. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 42, Packet Page 199 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 30

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 43, Packet Page 200 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 31

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact. The sidewalk gap closure project will result in the incidental use of hazardous materials (such as fuels for construction equipment) to construct the truss bridge and abutments. However, the construction and installation of this structure will not result in significant risk due to the transport of hazardous materials and will not result in the disposal or routine use of such materials. As a static bridge structure, the project will no create upset conditions or risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. The project will not emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances, and is not located within one-quarter mile of a school (Google Maps, 2019). d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. A search of the Envirostor database concluded that the Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The Project is located within two miles of Monterey Regional Airport; however, it is a bridge structure and pathway that will not result in people working or residing in the area that could create a safety hazard.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 44, Packet Page 201 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 32
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The project is a bridge structure and pathway that could not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would likely provide increased safety and pedestrian mobility off of the roadway if there were a local emergency.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. The Project is located at the south edge of Laguna Grande Park. The land area immediately adjacent to the truss bridge and pathway is currently undeveloped, consisting of grassland and sparse oak woodland. It is possible for these grasslands and park lands could be subject to wildland fire. The project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death; however, the truss bridge structure itself, once constructed, could sustain losses in such a fire. This risk reflects the existing environmental condition, and the project would not cause any significant impacts upon construction.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 45, Packet Page 202 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 33

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

X
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? X
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
X
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 46, Packet Page 203 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 34

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than significant impact. The project will require a small area of ground disturbance for construction of abutments, and approximately 5,560 square feet of additional impervious surface at each bridge approach where it connects to the existing sidewalk system and the new bridge. The quantity of surface area is above the threshold for stormwater treatment, however the project is exempt from the stormwater permit per section B.1.b.ii since stormwater flows from the new impervious areas will drain to a landscaped area on North Fremont, and project construction will require a range of typical BMPs to prevent impacts to surface water quality consisting of inlet protection, hydroseeding disturbed slopes, fiber rolls, and silt fences to protect sensitive areas. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No impact. The Project will result in no water demand and therefore will not decrease groundwater supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant impact. As noted above, project construction will require some earth moving and excavation for the bridge abutments and connection. However, the Project will be required to incorporate several BMPs into the project plans and implement those measures during construction, as already required by the City’s stringent stormwater measures. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than significant impact. The Project will result in an incidental increase in impervious surface that will be controlled by storm drain infrastructure constructed as part of the larger North Fremont roadway Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 47, Packet Page 204 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 35
improvements. Changes to the rate and amount of surface runoff will be negligible, and certainly will not increase to the point of causing flooding.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than significant impact. Existing storm drain facilities have been constructed in the immediate vicinity of the bridge project. As a bicycle and pedestrian bridge, the Project will not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff or exceed the capacity of exiting storm drain systems. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. The nearest drainage is Canyon Del Rey, directly below the proposed span, which receives flows from upstream through a culvert under North Fremont Boulevard. The Project will span this existing facility and will not impede or redirect existing flows in any way. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No impact. The site is not in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone, and any inundation – if it occurred – would not release pollutants from the project.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. As identified above, the Project will be subject to the city’s stringent water quality control measures during construction, and will have no effect on groundwater resources.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 48, Packet Page 205 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 36

4.11 Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No impact. As a trail and truss structure intended to bridge an existing gap in connectivity, the Project will not physically divide the community and in fact should result in beneficial impacts by providing a safe route for non-motorized travel between the Casanova neighborhood and nearby commercial areas.

Completing the Project and connecting the sidewalk gap in this location is consistent with the circulation elements of both the City of Seaside and City of Monterey general plans, as the Project will improve safety and connectivity. Recognizing the policies of the City of Seaside Local Coastal Program for the Laguna Grande sub area, the project has identified and avoids the small area of potential coastal Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) below the truss bridge. Consistent with LCP policy and provisions of the Coastal Act, environmental conditions have been verified on the ground to determine the location and quality of resources, and those resources have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible through project design (NCR-CZ 1.2.B).

The Seaside LCP contains specific policies for the Laguna Grande Area relative to protection of visual resources, vegetation management, water quality management, and public access and recreation. The Project is wholly consistent with public access and recreation policies (PAR-LG 1.1.A, B, and C), which seek to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to existing recreational and open space areas within the Coastal Zone. Visual resource policies (NCR-LG 2.1.A and B) address “building height” and bulk, viewshed improvements around the park, and call for local “gateway guidelines” along the Fremont Corridor adjacent to Laguna Grande Park. As a pathway and truss bridge, the Project will be consistent with these policies. The Project will serve as a visually inviting structure that calls attention to pathways Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 49, Packet Page 206 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 37
and recreational opportunities, and may also serve as a visual “gateway” feature for southern end of the park. The project will also provide residents a better connection to the regional FORTAG trail system.

The City of Monterey is currently preparing a comprehensive update to its Local Coastal Program. Until that plan is completed and adopted, projects within the City’s coastal zone are regulated by the existing (1980s) LCP as periodically amended, and the California Coastal Act. As a project that avoids environmentally sensitive areas, will not affect water quality, provides enhanced coastal access and will not affect visual resources, the Project is consistent with the City’s LCP and Coastal Act. The Project will have no impact with the relevant provisions of these plans.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 50, Packet Page 207 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 38

4.12 Mineral Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Project location and nature of the improvements will result in no impacts with respect to mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources located within the area of ground disturbance.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 51, Packet Page 208 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 39

4.13 Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Project would involve construction activities which would be temporary and have a short duration resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. Construction would begin in early-2021 and last approximately eight months, with the noisiest construction phases (earth moving and construction of abutments) estimated at four months or less. Construction activities would require the use of graders, scrapers, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, dozers, air compressors and other typical equipment. At a distance of 25 feet, construction noise levels would range between 82 dBA and 94 dBA2. The loudest equipment at 94 dBA at 25 feet would be a crane and jack hammer. Additionally, the crane would be used for only an estimated two days to place the bridge. The remaining construction equipment is an average of 88 dBA at 25 feet. Construction activities would be temporary and would not produce excessive levels of noise with implementation of standard conditions and measures (i.e., replacing construction machinery to be 2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 52, Packet Page 209 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 40
equipped with properly operating noise attenuation devices, designating haul routes away from sensitive receptors, and locating staging areas away from receptors).

The City prohibits construction noise between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday to Friday, and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Saturday and 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. Sunday. The permitted hours of construction recognize that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Adherence to the City’s allowable hours of construction would ensure construction noise would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 which requires best practices, such as placing construction equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors and using mufflers, would reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses to a less than significant level.

Operationally, the Project would include a trail and therefore would not generate new vehicle trips.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a traffic-related noise increase, thus, potential impacts associated with mobile source noise would be less than significant. Additionally, the Project would not introduce new stationary noise sources into the area. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required for operation of the bridge. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedure and type of construction equipment used. The effect on buildings located near a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver buildings. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations (i.e., 0.20 inch/second). Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. Based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at approximately 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site is approximately 25 feet north of the Project site. Vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive residential uses (25 feet) would range between 0.003 and 0.21 inches per second PPV for non-pile driving equipment. The maximum vibration from construction equipment would be the vibratory roller at 0.21 inches per PPV at 25 feet. This would exceed the 0.20 inches per second PPV threshold from the FTA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8 would require vibratory rollers to operate more than 20 feet from structures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 8, vibration from construction activities experiences at the nearest adjacent building would be reduced below the

0.2 inches per second PPV threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operations of the trail would not generate groundborne vibration that could be felt at surrounding uses.

The Project would not involve railroads or heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration during construction or operations. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 53, Packet Page 210 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 41
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. The Monterey Regional Airport is located approximately 0.4 miles south of the proposed Project site. The Project is located outside the 65, 70 and 75 dBA CNEL contours for aircraft activities associated with Airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be exposed to aircraft overflight noise that exceeds the City’s exterior noise exposure thresholds. There are no private airstrips within the Project site vicinity, thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures
MM 7: Prior to the initiation of construction, the City of Monterey City Engineer shall ensure that all project plans and specifications stipulate that:
▪ All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers;
▪ Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible;
▪ During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers; ▪ During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors; and
▪ Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction site, as far away from vibration sensitive sites as possible.

MM 8: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City’s Building Division shall confirm that vibratory rollers capable of generating vibration levels above 0.2 inches per second PPV shall not be used within 20 feet of adjacent residences. If the contractor can demonstrate that vibratory rollers have vibration levels of less than 0.2 inches per second PPV, then they shall be allowed to operate within the 20-foot buffer zone.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 54, Packet Page 211 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 42

4.14 Population and Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. The Project is an infrastructure improvement that will not result in population growth or displace existing housing.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 55, Packet Page 212 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 43

4.15 Public Services

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 56, Packet Page 213 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 44
No impact. The Project is an infrastructure improvement that will not generate additional demand or affect performance standards for fire protection, police protection, schools or other public facilities.

Even though the pathway and truss bridge are adjacent to Laguna Grande Park, the Project will not result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities elsewhere. For these reasons, the Project will have no environmental effect on existing public services.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 57, Packet Page 214 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 45

4.16 Recreation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than significant impact. The Project would not generate additional population near existing parks and recreational facilities such as Laguna Grande Park. An increase in people is typically what causes increased use and deterioration of existing facilities. Connecting the sidewalk gap in this location may allow pedestrians or cyclists to more easily access the park, but any increase in usage would be incidental and less than significant.

The Project is a trail segment and truss bridge which may be used for recreational purposes. The physical effects of constructing the project are addressed throughout this Initial Study.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 58, Packet Page 215 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 46

4.17 Transportation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No impact. One of the primary objectives of the Project is to provide a safe pathway for cyclists and pedestrians to travel along the north side of North Fremont Street. Safe, non-motorized travel along a dedicated pathway in this location is consistent City of Monterey and City of Seaside planning documents, including the respective circulation elements of each jurisdiction’s general plans. As such, the Project will have no significant environmental impacts with respect to program or plan conflicts. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 addresses new requirements for analyzing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Subdivision (b)(2) notes that transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. That is the case for this Project.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 59, Packet Page 216 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 47
Less than significant impact. One of the primary objectives of the Project is to improve safety along North Fremont by providing a safe pathway for pedestrians and cyclists. The Project will not alter the geometry or operation of North Fremont Street along the right of way and will remove existing dangerous conditions caused by pedestrians and cyclists who currently traverse the “gap” in an unsafe manner immediately adjacent to travel lanes. The pathway will cross in front of the entrance to the PG&E substantiation; however, this driveway is not regularly used and does not pose a significant safety hazard to users of the Project.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The pathway and truss bridge structure will not require emergency access, and actually may provide enhanced access along North Fremont to emergency responders in the event of a local emergency.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 60, Packet Page 217 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 48

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe?
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 61, Packet Page 218 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 49
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Also see Section 4.5 of this Initial Study (Cultural Resources). The 2014 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey that included the project site resulted in negative findings for archaeological or cultural resources, including tribal resources. However, the City recognizes the potential to uncover buried or previously unidentified resources, and mitigation measures MM 5 and MM 6a-b are in place if such resources are discovered during construction.

Outreach to tribes was conducted in 2014 because the sidewalk gap project was part of a larger package of North Fremont Street roadway improvements that underwent separate CEQA review.

Representatives from several tribes were contacted and informed of the project (Archaeological Consultants, 2014, Appendix C). These tribes included the Amah Mutsun Tribe, Aman Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Esselen Nation, Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Indian Canyon Band of Coastanoan, and the Ohlone Coastanoan Esselen Nation.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, outreach to tribes was initiated on February 8, 2022, and concluded on December 16, 2022, exclusively for the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project, as described in this Initial Study. A notification of consultation opportunity was emailed on February 8, 2022, to all tribes listed by the Native American Heritage Commission as tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project. Three tribes (Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People, Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, and Esselen Tribe of Monterey County) responded with comments or requests for consultation, and resulting mitigation measures MM 5, MM 6a-b, and MM 9 were included to address stated concerns. The tribal representatives requested information on any findings during construction, recommended that construction crews be trained in cultural sensitivity, and that a Native American Monitor be present within the project site during ground disturbing activities. These requests are reflected in mitigation measures MM 5 and MM 6a-b (see Section

4.5, Cultural Resources), in addition to MM 9, detailed below, which addresses the presence of a Native American Monitor. With implementation of MM 5, 6a-b, and 9, impacts will be less than significant.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 62, Packet Page 219 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 50

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 63, Packet Page 220 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 51
Less than significant impact. Construction of the Project along the edge of right of way on North Fremont involves minor relocation and configuration of drainage facilities associated with the pathway (see Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Project will have no impact on electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications systems. The PG&E substation is immediately adjacent to the site but will not be affected by the Project.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact. The Project will not require a water supply or generate wastewater. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. The Project will result in small amounts of solid construction waste but will not create a permanent waste stream. This temporary and limited amount of construction waste will not exceed standards, local infrastructure, or negatively impact solid waste reduction goals and regulations. The solid waste from construction activities will be properly disposed of according to current law.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 64, Packet Page 221 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 52

4.20 Wildfire

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 65, Packet Page 222 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 53
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No impact. The Project, a pathway and truss bridge structure, is not located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire severity zone. The Project does not create a source of fire, or exacerbate wildfire risk.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 66, Packet Page 223 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 54

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As addressed under Biological Resources, the City acknowledges that the project is immediately adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 67, Packet Page 224 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 55
area (ESHA) consisting of a riparian drainage in the coastal zone. However, the Project as designed and mitigated will avoid direct or indirect effects to this area, and therefore will not affect habitat values for fish, wildlife or endangered plant species. As addressed under Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project as mitigated will have a less than significant impact on California historic or prehistoric resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact. The Project is a unique bridge facility. The incremental effects as described in this Initial Study are largely site specific and will not combine with the effects of other projects to create cumulatively considerable effects. Other nearby or related projects could include the North Fremont Street roadway improvements that have recently been constructed, and the FORTAG regional trail that will be near the project along Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. These projects provide some level of cumulative benefit as they provide opportunities for non-motorized travel. In terms of construction, construction timelines are not concurrent with these projects, limiting the potential to combine to create a cumulatively considerable effect.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact. As evidenced within this initial study, the Project has little potential to cause adverse effects on human beings from environmental concerns such as air quality, noise or exposure to geologic or hazardous materials risks. The nature of the Project will not generate a new or permanent population that will be exposed to environmental concerns, and the Project will actually improve safety along this portion of North Fremont Street.

Laguna Grande Park, immediately adjacent to the Project, is intermittently occupied by homeless individuals or groups, some of whom camp near the project area. Construction activity in this immediate area could potentially affect encampments or cause some homeless individuals or groups to relocate due to the presence of construction workers and equipment. However, any such activity or interface would not be expected to result in adverse effects to this population, and camping in the park is prohibited.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 68, Packet Page 225 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 56

REPORT PREPARERS
Lead Agency
City of Monterey
Andrea Renny, P.E., P.T.O.E., Public Works Director
Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner
Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
Consultants
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
Frederik Venter, P.E., Vice President/Traffic Engineer
Tad Stearn, CEQA Project Manager
Ace Malisos, Technical Manager
Sophia Lai, Environmental Analyst
Noemi Wyss, Environmental Analyst
Denise Duffy & Associates
Josh Harwayne, Consulting Biologist
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 69, Packet Page 226 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
City of Monterey Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Page 57

REFERENCES
Archaeological Consulting. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the North Fremont Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Project. December 2014.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2020. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed on April 14, 2020.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. Envirostor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Denise Duffy & Associates, Biological Resources Memorandum for North Fremont Street. April 2020.

ENGEO. North Fremont Street Improvements, Monterey, CA, Geotechnical Exploration. November 2016.

City of Monterey. General Plan. 2016.

City of Monterey. Municipal Code.

City of Seaside. General Plan. 2003.

City of Seaside. General Plan EIR. 2004.

City of Seaside. Local Coastal Program. 2013.

City of Seaside. Municipal Code.

Google. 2019. Google Maps.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 70, Packet Page 227 Not to scale
North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Source: Google Earth, 2020Figure 1: Project LocaƟ on
North Fremont Street
Kolb Avenue
Fremont
Cassanova Avenue
English Avenue
Ramona Avenue
Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
Boulevard
Hannon Avenue
Dela Vina Avenue
Casa Verde Way
Fairground Road
Airport Road
Sequoia Avenue Project Area
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 71, Packet Page 228 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Figure 2: Site PlanSource: Kimley-Horn, 2020
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 72, Packet Page 229 Not to scale
North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Source: Google Earth, 2020
Figure 3: Surrounding Land Uses
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 73, Packet Page 230 Not to scale
North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020Figure 4: JurisdicƟ onal Boundaries

MONTEREY CITY LIMITS

SEASIDE CITY LIMITS

CALTRANS
LIMITS
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 74, Packet Page 231 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Figure 5: Truss Bridge Concept
Note: Bridge shown in image colored for graphic purposes. Actual bridge steel may be painted black. Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020; Short Span Steel Bridge Alliance, 2012 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 75, Packet Page 232 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Figure 6: Site PhotographsSource: Kimley-Horn, 2020
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 76, Packet Page 233 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Before
AŌ er
Note: Bridge shown in image colored for graphic purposes. Actual bridge steel may be painted black.

Figure 7: Truss Bridge Rendering
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 77, Packet Page 234 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on
Source: Denise Duff y & Associates, Inc., 2019
Figure 8: VegetaƟ on CommuniƟ es
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 78, Packet Page 235 North Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
IniƟ al Study/MiƟ gated NegaƟ ve DeclaraƟ on Not to scale Trees to be removed
Legend

FREMONT BLVD
CANYON DEL REY BLVD/SR-218
Figure 9: Trees to be Removed
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 79, Packet Page 236 Appendix A
CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Outputs Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 80, Packet Page 237 Welcome to the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0 User Instructions
This spreadsheet system contains the following individual worksheets:
1 This worksheet of User Instructions
2 Updates
3 Emission Estimates
4 Data Entry
5 Non-default Off-road Equipment
6 EMFAC2017
7 On-road Mitigation EF
8 OFFROAD Convert
9 Off-road Tier 4 EF
10 OFFROAD HP & LF
11 OFFROAD EF
12 x-ref
The Emission Estimates worksheet calculates a project's emissions in pounds per day (and tons) by project phase and tons over the entire construction period.

The worksheet can be used to estimate emissions for both vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust. The methodology used to estimate fugitive dust emissions is a simplified methodology involving estimates of the maximum area (acreage) of land disturbed daily. Detailed fugitive dust emission estimates associated with individual materials handling operations and/or activity/vehicle types cannot be conducted with this version of the model.

The Emission Estimates worksheet cannot be modified directly, it is a protected worksheet. It can only be modified indirectly by entering information for the project in selected areas of the Data Entry worksheet.

Even though all or portions of several worksheets are protected, the individual formulas used in the calculations can be seen by the user.

The Data Entry worksheet includes several areas that can be modified by the user.

User instructions in the Data Entry worksheet are highlighted in red.

On the Data Entry worksheet, the user has two options for entering project data: required data and optional data. Required data is entered in the data input section (yellow cells). That required data is then used by the worksheet to calculate default values for the project.

The user can override the default values (blue cells) calculated for a project and is encouraged to do so if project specific information is available. Due to the difficulty in developing reliable default values for road construction projects, the user is encouraged to enter as much site specific information as is available for the project being analyzed.

The Data Entry Worksheet also includes a button that allows the user to clear previously entered data. This button is found just at the top of and to the right of the data entry portion of the worksheet.

When projects are discontinuous, the user must make adjustments to the spreadsheet manually, since the program cannot be setup to anticipate unexpected project delays. #VALUE! <- This error message may occur during use of the spreadsheets. This occurs whenever the user enters a non numeric value, including a space character, into a cell that is used to calculate a numeric value.

Consequently, to erase values entered into the spreadsheets, use the delete key instead of the space bar! http://www.airquality.org http://www.ramboll.com/
Karen Huss John Grant
[email protected] [email protected]
916/874-4881 415/899-0706
The last seven of these worksheets - EMFAC2017, On-road Mitigation EF, OFFROAD Convert, Off-road Tier 4 EF, OFFROAD HP & LP, OFFROAD EF and x-ref - cannot be modified by the user.

They are protected worksheets.

Note: Information in this worksheet is based on conversations with knowledgeable individuals at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. EPA, and private industry involved in road construction. Also, the 26th edition of Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book (1999) was used in the development of this spreadsheet. This spreadsheet was prepared by Jones & Stokes, TIAX LLC and Ramboll Environ with the financial support and direction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 81, Packet Page 238 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Updates Log
Changes from previous version of Road Construction Emissions Model (Version 8.1.0 to 9.0.0) (updated by SMAQMD 04/22/18 with assistance from Ramboll) 1) Project length changed to include calendar years 2014 through 2040.

2) On-road vehicle emission factors have been updated to EMFAC2017 version 1.0.2. 3) Off-road emission rates updated to include calendar years 2014 through 2040. 4) Average Offroad HP by Equipment Type updated to be consistent with CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) 5) Modified 'Data Entry' tab to calculate NOx start emissions form heavy duty trucks in "soil hauling", "asphalt hauling" and "water truck" section (Version 7.1.5 to 8.1.0) (updated by SMAQMD 05/09/16 with assistance from Ramboll ENVIRON US Corporation) 1) Project length changed to include calendar years 2014 through 2025.

2) Added a new project type: Type 4: Other Linear Project Type. Note that there are no default vehicle or equipment activities available for the Project Type 4.

3) Emissions estimates were extended to include SOx, CH4, N2O and CO2e. 4) Updated off-road equipment emission factors and default average horsepower by equipment type to be consistent with CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2).

5) On-road vehicle emission factors have been updated to EMFAC2014. 6) Revised pollutant order for consistency throughout the calculator. 7) Added flexibility for users to specify a non-default number of working days per month. 8) Modified soil hauling import and export quantity and haul truck capacity data requests to allow users to specify soil hauling activity by phase.

9) Soil hauling emissions are now estimated separately for each construction phase. 10) Added a new feature to allow users to provide asphalt hauling quantities by phase in the "Data Entry" tab. 11) New component added where the user can specify construction start date and duration by phase. 12) The maximum daily emissions calculation was modified to sum emissions from overlapping construction phases. 13) Water truck activity can be specified and emissions estimated for the paving phase. 14) Mitigation options were added for on-road vehicles and off-road equipment. Emissions calculations include the effects of mitigations if a mitigation option is selected by the user. 16) New table of total project emissions with units of tons/phase was added in the "Emission Estimates" tab. 17) Removed table of daily emissions in metric units from the "Emission Estimates" tab. 18) Removed unnecessary data from all tabs.
(Version 7.1.4 to 7.1.5) (updated by SMAQMD 12/11/13 with assistance from ENVIRON Corporation) 1) Grubbing and Land Clearing Phase calculation of active months in 2007, 2017, 2019 fixed. 2) Soil Hauling Emissions calculation to select override if it exists for round trips/day. 3) Worker Commute Emissions calculation of starting and hot soak emissions; drainage phase PM10 emission rate. (Version 6.3.2 to Version 7.1.0, 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3 & 7.1.4) (updated by SMAQMD 8/2/13) 1) EMFAC2011 emission factors added (previous EMFAC versions dropped). 2) OFFROAD2011 emission factors added (and fixed error). 3) OFFROAD2007 for categories not in OFFROAD2011 (and fixed error) 4) Project length changed to include calendar years 2009 through 2025. 5) Average Offroad HP by Equipment Type calculation updated and corrected 6) Load Factor Adjustment deactivated (default load factors already incorporated in ARB's calculation of emission factors) 7) Crawler Tractor equipment added to model
8) Air Compressors ROG & Default Excavators calculation on Data Entry sheet corrected. 9) Default equipment list updated
10) Corrections to Worker Commute Emissions calculations 15) Model allows user to estimate emissions from non-default off-road equipment for all phases and for all project types. Non-default off-road equipment specification must be included by equipment type for horsepower, number of equipment, load factor, hours of operation and emission factors in the "Non-default Off-road Equipment" tab. 4) Water Truck Emissions calculation to select number of months for Grubbing and Land Clearing Phase; maximum acreage/day after 2025.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 82, Packet Page 239 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.14 9.93 12.30 2.42 0.52 1.90 0.86 0.47 0.40 0.02 2,125.50 0.58 0.05 2,153.83 Grading/Excavation 9.91 71.52 113.65 6.49 4.59 1.90 4.48 4.09 0.40 0.18 18,059.41 4.72 0.59 18,352.16 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.85 33.66 39.59 3.73 1.83 1.90 2.07 1.68 0.40 0.07 6,519.29 1.44 0.09 6,582.53 Paving 1.29 13.51 13.49 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.03 2,776.03 0.57 0.15 2,833.55 Maximum (pounds/day) 9.91 71.52 113.65 6.49 4.59 1.90 4.48 4.09 0.40 0.18 18,059.41 4.72 0.59 18,352.16 Total (tons/construction project) 0.49 3.82 5.51 0.37 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.21 0.03 0.01 891.83 0.22 0.03 905.09 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2021
Project Length (months) -> 8
Total Project Area (acres) -> 0
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 0 0 0 200 40
Grading/Excavation 410 0 630 0 1,120 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0 0 0 720 40
Paving 0 100 0 150 320 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.70 0.01 0.00 17.19 Grading/Excavation 0.35 2.52 4.00 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.01 0.01 635.69 0.17 0.02 586.04 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.12 1.04 1.22 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.00 200.79 0.04 0.00 183.93 Paving 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 36.64 0.01 0.00 33.93 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.35 2.52 4.00 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.01 0.01 635.69 0.17 0.02 586.04 Total (tons/construction project) 0.49 3.82 5.51 0.37 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.21 0.03 0.01 891.83 0.22 0.03 821.10 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Daily VMT (miles/day)
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

N. Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 83, Packet Page 240 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name N. Fremont Sidewalk Gap Closure
Construction Start Year 2021 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway

2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane

4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 8.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.11 miles
Total Project Area 0.19 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.19 acres
Water Trucks Used? 1 1. Yes

2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3
) (assume 20 if
unknown) Import Volume (yd3
/day) Export Volume (yd3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grading/Excavation 20.00 410.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Paving
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grading/Excavation
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Paving 20.00 100.00
Mitigation Options
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer

Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional.

No Mitigation
Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation).

Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/P ages/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
3 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

Soil
Asphalt
No Mitigation
All Tier 4 Equipment
(for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
1 To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

Data Entry Worksheet 4
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 84, Packet Page 241 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.

Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default
Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.80 1/1/2021
Grading/Excavation 3.20 1/26/2021
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.80 5/4/2021
Paving 1.20 7/29/2021
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 21 630.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.59 1.58 9.18 0.30 0.20 0.02 2,583.08 0.03 0.41 2,704.76 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.02 0.06 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.00 90.92 0.00 0.01 95.21 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.02 0.06 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.00 90.92 0.00 0.01 95.21 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 5 150.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.14 0.38 2.19 0.07 0.05 0.01 615.02 0.01 0.10 643.99 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 0.00 0.00 8.50 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 0.00 0.00 8.50 8 Data Entry Worksheet 5
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 85, Packet Page 242 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 20 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 5 10 200.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 28 56 1,120.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 18 36 720.00 No. of employees: Paving 8 16 320.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Paving (grams/mile) 0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Paving (grams/trip) 1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.55 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 151.43 0.00 0.00 152.80 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.34 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.20 3.08 0.28 0.11 0.05 0.01 848.01 0.02 0.02 855.69 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.85 0.00 0.00 30.12 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.13 1.98 0.18 0.07 0.03 0.01 545.15 0.01 0.02 550.09 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.79 0.00 0.00 16.94 Pounds per day - Paving 0.06 0.88 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00 242.29 0.01 0.01 244.48 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 3.23 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 51.17 0.00 0.00 51.63 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Paving 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile) 0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.02 0.01 0.00 164.00 0.00 0.03 171.73 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.51 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.02 0.01 0.00 164.00 0.00 0.03 171.73 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.77 0.00 0.00 6.04 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.02 0.01 0.00 164.00 0.00 0.03 171.73 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.05 0.00 0.00 5.29 Pounds per day - Paving 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.02 0.01 0.00 164.00 0.00 0.03 171.73 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.00 2.27 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.43 0.00 0.00 15.11 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.19 1.90 0.02 0.40 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.19 1.90 0.07 0.40 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.19 1.90 0.06 0.40 0.01 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 6
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 86, Packet Page 243 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.55 2.44 6.97 0.26 0.24 0.01 760.36 0.25 0.01 768.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.46 6.54 4.31 0.21 0.19 0.01 1,000.38 0.32 0.01 1,011.17 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 1.07 9.28 11.63 0.49 0.45 0.02 1,810.06 0.57 0.02 1,829.30 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.93 0.01 0.00 16.10 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Data Entry Worksheet 7
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 87, Packet Page 244 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.41 1.98 4.85 0.20 0.18 0.01 558.74 0.18 0.01 564.76 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 1.10 4.87 13.94 0.52 0.48 0.02 1,520.73 0.49 0.01 1,537.12 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.92 13.09 8.61 0.42 0.38 0.02 2,000.77 0.65 0.02 2,022.34 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.91 3.53 11.85 0.38 0.35 0.01 1,283.37 0.42 0.01 1,297.19 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.57 5.64 5.77 0.35 0.32 0.01 762.27 0.25 0.01 770.48 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 1.03 4.80 11.59 0.39 0.36 0.02 1,815.68 0.59 0.02 1,835.29 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 3.72 28.02 42.81 1.67 1.53 0.06 5,871.65 1.90 0.05 5,934.95 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.37 4.52 3.79 0.22 0.21 0.01 601.80 0.19 0.01 608.28 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 9.09 66.75 103.57 4.16 3.83 0.15 14,464.32 4.67 0.13 14,619.98 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.32 2.35 3.65 0.15 0.13 0.01 509.14 0.16 0.00 514.62 Mitigation Option
N/A
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Data Entry Worksheet 8
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 88, Packet Page 245 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.29 2.42 2.04 0.13 0.13 0.00 375.26 0.03 0.00 376.75 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.41 1.98 4.85 0.20 0.18 0.01 558.74 0.18 0.01 564.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.36 3.68 3.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.23

1.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.45 1.77 5.92 0.19 0.17 0.01 641.68 0.21 0.01 648.60 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.38 3.74 3.21 0.18 0.18 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.28 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.12 2.29 1.61 0.06 0.06 0.00 333.77 0.11 0.00 337.37 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.93 7.00 10.70 0.42 0.38 0.02 1,467.91 0.47 0.01 1,483.74 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.08 1.39 1.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 200.20 0.06 0.00 202.36 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.56 6.78 5.69 0.34 0.31 0.01 902.70 0.29 0.01 912.42 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 3.68 31.58 38.80 1.73 1.64 0.06 5,810.13 1.43 0.05 5,860.71 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.11 0.97 1.20 0.05 0.05 0.00 178.95 0.04 0.00 180.51 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 9
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 89, Packet Page 246 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.25 2.90 2.60 0.13 0.12 0.00 455.06 0.15 0.00 459.97 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.19 2.54 1.94 0.10 0.09 0.00 394.46 0.13 0.00 398.71 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.19 1.88 1.92 0.12 0.11 0.00 254.09 0.08 0.00 256.83 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.37 4.52 3.79 0.22 0.21 0.01 601.80 0.19 0.01 608.28 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 1.06 12.15 10.61 0.58 0.53 0.02 1,754.72 0.56 0.02 1,773.35 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 23.16 0.01 0.00 23.41 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.46 3.56 5.08 0.21 0.20 0.01 727.19 0.22 0.01 734.64 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 90, Packet Page 247 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 4/6/2020 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

User Override of Default Values User Override of Default Values Equipment Horsepower Horsepower Hours/day Hours/day
Aerial Lifts 63 8
Air Compressors 78 8
Bore/Drill Rigs 221 8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 8
Cranes 231 8
Crawler Tractors 212 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 8
Excavators 158 8
Forklifts 89 8
Generator Sets 84 8
Graders 187 8
Off-Highway Tractors 124 8
Off-Highway Trucks 402 8
Other Construction Equipment 172 8
Other General Industrial Equipment 88 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 168 8
Pavers 130 8
Paving Equipment 132 8
Plate Compactors 8 8
Pressure Washers 13 8
Pumps 84 8
Rollers 80 8
Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 8
Rubber Tired Loaders 203 8
Scrapers 367 8
Signal Boards 6 8
Skid Steer Loaders 65 8
Surfacing Equipment 263 8
Sweepers/Scrubbers 64 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 8
Trenchers 78 8
Welders 46 8

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 11
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 91, Packet Page 248 Appendix B
Biological Resources Memo
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 92, Packet Page 249

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ▪ 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 ▪ Monterey, CA 93940 ▪ (831) 373-4341 1 April 9, 2020
Tad Stearn
Kimley-Horn |
824 Bay Avenue,
Suite 10, Capitola,
CA 95010
RE: North Fremont Street Transit Project
Dear Ms. Stern,
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, Inc. (DD&A) was contracted to identify sensitive habitats and special status plant and wildlife species including potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act within or adjacent to the North Fremont Street Transit Project (project) site. This assessment is a requirement of the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) form provided to the City of Monterey (City) by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on September 2, 2014. The project is located between Casa Verde Way in the City of Monterey and Kimball Avenue in the City of Seaside, California. A portion of the project site is located in the California Coastal Zone (Coastal Zone). This area is located near the intersection of North Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard and includes portions of the Seaside Coastal Zone’s Laguna Grande Subarea and the Monterey Coastal Zone. Currently the City of Seaside has a certified Local Coastal Plan that is applicable to the project and the City of Monterey does not.

The project consists of the improvement to the roadway to increase bicyclist safety and provides a designated bus lane. Attached to this memo is a graphic which shows the extent and distribution of biological resources that have the potential to be impacted by the project and a project site plan. The project employs a pedestrian bridge to span all sensitive habitats and avoids impacts to biological resources through design. The project will avoid all impacts to biological resources, including potential ESHA.

METHODS
A biological survey was conducted by DD&A Associate Environmental Scientist, Jami Davis, on September 17, 2014. The purpose of the survey was to assess the environmental conditions, general habitat features, potential sensitive habitat features, any potential for special status species at the site and within the local vicinity, in order to inform the design of the project. Prior to the site visit, special status plant and wildlife species occurrence records in the United States Geological Survey Monterey quadrangle from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014) and information regarding biological resources in the Seaside Land Use Plan were reviewed. Habitats within the project site were characterized in the field. An additional survey was conducted on April 6
th to confirm the site conditions were consistent with the earlier survey.

RESULTS
The project site is located within an urbanized area in the City of Monterey and a small portion of the City of Seaside. Because the vast majority of the project site is developed, the field survey focused on the open space areas located near the intersection of North Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard.

This area is part of the Laguna Grande Park. While portions of the park have high biological values, the portion immediately adjacent to North Fremont Street is highly disturbed and regularly maintained. A Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 93, Packet Page 250 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ▪ 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 ▪ Monterey, CA 93940 ▪ (831) 373-4341 2 large portion of the area is denuded or covered with large piles of woodchips from trees that were removed on-site or from other locations. The remainder of this area is a maintained garden and horticultural setting, planted with native and non-native plants, shrubs and trees; disturbed riparian; and oak woodland.

The native plant garden is present at the corner of North Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, which includes species such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and two buckwheat species (Eriogonum sp.). No special status plants were identified within the garden. One species present, dune buckwheat (E. parvifolium), is the host plant for the federally listed Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi); however, these individuals are horticultural plantings in an urban horticultural setting, and as such are unlikely to support the Smith’s blue butterfly (Arnold, 1983). No other habitat for special-status wildlife species is present within the garden.

Riparian vegetation is present adjacent to the Canyon Del Rey Creek channel and includes Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and blackberry (Rubus sp.) (Figure 1). The portion of the riparian habitat on the north and east slopes of the channel has been significantly disturbed as a result of adjacent development and ongoing management specific to homeless encampments. The oak woodland area1 is dominated by coast
live oak trees with an understory of blackberry and non-native English ivy (Hedera helix) and periwinkle (Vinca sp.).

Canyon Del Rey Creek runs through the project site. The creek runs into a culvert just south of Safeway, which daylights just north of North Fremont Street. The open channel begins approximately 50 feet from the edge of the roadway. The channel is approximately 15 feet wide at the culvert, but quickly narrows to approximately six feet wide. The creek runs in the open channel for about 140 feet before entering another culvert, and again daylighting closer to Laguna Grande Lake.

CONCLUSION
Sensitive resources within the area evaluated include riparian and oak woodland habitats, and Canyon Del Rey Creek (Figure 1). Riparian habitat is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) under their Lake and Streambed Alteration Program and is also potentially an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) where it occurs within the Coastal Zone. Oak woodland habitat is identified in the Seaside Land Use Plan as potential ESHA. Canyon Del Rey Creek is potentially waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the state, which are regulated under the Clean Water Act by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, respectively.

Within the Coastal Zone, waters of the U.S. and state are also potentially ESHA. No wetlands or special status plants or wildlife were identified within the project site or vicinity and none are expected to occur based on lack of vegetation and the urbanized and disturbed nature of the area.

Figure 1 identifies the location of the potential ESHA within the vicinity of the project site. The current site plan shows avoidance of any impacts to these resources. As a result, there are no impacts to biological resources and no regulatory permitting required. It is recommended that the following avoidance measures are made project conditions to ensure total avoidance of biological resources during construction:

1. A qualified biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing for all sensitive biological resources adjacent to the project site prior to the initiation of construction.

2. A qualified biological monitor shall continue to monitor the site through construction as, necessary to ensure the contractor is maintaining the fencing and containing all project activities outside of fenced biological resources.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 94, Packet Page 251 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ▪ 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 ▪ Monterey, CA 93940 ▪ (831) 373-4341 3 If you have any questions of comments please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jami Davis
Associate Environmental Scientist
[email protected]
REFERENCES CITED:

Arnold, R.A., 1983. Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Island biogeography, patch dynamics, and design of habitat preserves. Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomology 99: 1- 161.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Available online at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 95, Packet Page 252

MONTEREY CITY LIMITS

SEASIDE CITY LIMITS

CALTRANS
LIMITS
N. FREMONT GAP CLOSURE - EASEMENT EXHIBIT
MARCH 2020
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 96, Packet Page 253 Appendix C
Cultural Resources Report
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 97, Packet Page 254 For Planning Department: Yes No N/A See text
Evidence of: Sacred/Religious site ___ _X_ ___ _______
Native American Remains ___ _X_ ___ _______
Anything of Archaeological Significance ___ _X_ ___ _______ Findings of Historical Significance ___ _X_ ___ _______

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 3377
SALINAS, CA 93912
(831) 422-4912
PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

FOR THE NORTH FREMONT BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT PROJECT,

MONTEREY AND SEASIDE, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
by
Mary Doane, B.A., and Gary S. Breschini, Ph.D., RPA
December 5, 2014
Prepared for
Denise Duffy & Associates
SUMMARY: PROJECT 5035
RESULTS: NEGATIVE
LINEAR: <1 MILE
SITES: NONE
UTMG: NE 6.0292/40.5090 TO SW 6.0181/40.5050
MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE SEASIDE QUADRANGLE
_____________________________________________________________________________ Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 98, Packet Page 255 1 INTRODUCTION
In October 2014 Archaeological Consulting was authorized by Josh Harwayne of Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey report for a project on North Fremont Boulevard in Monterey and Seaside, Monterey County, California.

As part of our methodology in the preparation of this report, we have conducted: 1) a background records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at Sonoma State University; 2) A Sacred Lands File Search with the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with locally affiliated Native Americans, and 3) a field survey of the project area. The following report contains the results of these investigations as well as our conclusions and recommendations.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project proposes Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit improvements to North Fremont Boulevard, in the Cities of Monterey and Seaside, Monterey County, California (see Maps 1 and 2, and APE Maps 1-8). The Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (UTMG) coordinates for the approximate ends of the project area are as follows: NE 6.0292/40.5090 to SW 6.0181/40.5050 on the USGS 7.5 minute Seaside Quadrangle (1947; photo-revised 1983).

At the time of the field assessment, the project APE was paved. Soil was visible adjacent to the pavements adjacent to many parts of the APE. Overall, soil visibility was considered adequate for the purposes of this survey.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 99, Packet Page 256 2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in the preparation of this report included three primary steps, as follows:

Background Research
The background research for this project included an examination of the archaeological site records, maps, and project files of the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at Sonoma State University. In addition, our extensive files and maps were examined for supplemental information, such as mention of historic or prehistoric resources in the general area. These literature searches are undertaken to determine the locations and nature of any recorded archaeological resources in and near to the project area, and the scope and findings of any previous archaeological research or reconnaissance projects.

Established by the California Office of Historic Preservation, the regional Information Centers are the local repository for all archaeological reports prepared under cultural resource management regulations. A background literature search at the appropriate regional Information Center is required by state guidelines and current professional standards. Following completion of a project, a copy of the report must be deposited with that organization.

Native American Consultation
A Sacred Lands search was initiated with the Native American Heritage Commission on October 3, 2014. The search was completed on November 14, 2014.

The commission recommended consultation with locally affiliated Native Americans and provided a list of individuals from several bands to contact for such consultation. Initial contact was made by mail or email, followed by telephone if a timely response was not received.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 100, Packet Page 257 3 Field Survey
The field survey, conducted by Mary Doane and Gina Kay on October 9, 2014, consisted of a “general surface reconnaissance” of all areas adjacent to the paved APE which could reasonably be expected to contain visible cultural resources and which could be viewed without major vegetation removal or excavation.

RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT
Background Research
The project area lies within the currently recognized ethnographic territory of the Costanoan (often called Ohlone) linguistic group. Discussions of this group and their territorial boundaries can be found in Breschini, Haversat, and Hampson (1983), Kroeber (1925), Levy (1978), Margolin (1978), and other sources. In brief, the group followed a general hunting and gathering subsistence pattern with partial dependence on the natural acorn crop. Habitation is considered to have been semi-sedentary and occupation sites can be expected most often at the confluence of streams, other areas of similar topography along streams, or in the vicinity of springs. These original sources of water may no longer be present or adequate. Also, resource gathering and processing areas and associated temporary campsites are frequently found on the coast and in other locations containing resources utilized by the group. Factors, which may influence the locations of these sites, include the presence of suitable exposures of rock for bedrock mortars or other milling activities, ecotones, the presence of specific resources (oak groves, marshes, quarries, game trails, trade routes, etc.), proximity to water, and the availability of shelter. Temporary camps or other activity areas can also be found along ridges or other travel corridors.

Research of the files at the Northwest Information Center and the review of our records and maps found no prehistoric archaeological sites and seven historic Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 101, Packet Page 258 4 cultural resources recorded within one kilometer of the project area. These resources include several structures within the Naval Postgraduate School as well as the Old Del Monte Hotel historic district within the Naval Postgraduate School.

The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Del Rey Oaks PG&E transmission tower are also recorded as historic resources.

The Fremont Boulevard alignment appears on the 1913 USGS Monterey Quadrangle. The 1941 USGS Monterey Quadrangle depicts structures, mostly along the north side of the alignment, bordering the current project APE.

Several previous studies have included or touched on the project area (Sawyer et al. 2000; Doane and Haversat 2006; Doane and Breschini 2006, 2007, and 2009; Holm, Chao and Holson 2011). No resources were found in the project APE during previous surveys.

Native American Consultation
A Sacred Lands File Search was initiated on October 3, 2014. The response was not received until November 14. On November 17 consultation requests were sent to the various Native Americans on the list provided by the NAHC. Three consultants responded by email. We called and talked to several more and left voice mail messages with the rest on December 4, 2014. No new information was provided by the several consultants.

Field Research
None of the materials frequently associated with prehistoric cultural resources in this area (dark midden soil containing fragments of weathered marine shell, flaked or ground stone, bone fragments, fire-affected rock, etc.) were observed during the field survey.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 102, Packet Page 259 5 There was no surface evidence of potentially significant historic period archaeological resources seen within the project APE
The small areas of visible soil adjacent to pavements were tan to white sand that contained many imported rocks and other fill materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the background research and the field assessment, we have concluded that the project APE contains no evidence of significant cultural resources. For this reason we make the following recommendation:
• The proposed North Fremont Boulevard project should not be delayed for archaeological reasons.

Because of the possibility of unidentified (e.g., buried) cultural resources being found during any earth disturbance, we recommend that the following standard language, or the equivalent, be included in any permits issued for the project:
• If potentially significant archaeological or historic resources are accidentally discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the find is evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 103, Packet Page 260 6 REFERENCES
Breschini, G. S., T. Haversat, and R. P. Hampson
1983 A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast-Valley Study Areas [California]. Coyote Press, Salinas.

Doane, M. and G. S. Breschini
2007 Phase 1 Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Marina Coast Water District, Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project, Recycled Water Component, Northern Segment, in Marina, Ord Community, Seaside and Monterey, Monterey, Monterey County, California. Report on file with the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University. 2009 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance for the CaliforniaAmerican Water Company Improvement Project 1, PRV Stations in the Coastal Zone, In Monterey and Seaside, Monterey County, California.

Report on file with the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University.

Doane, M. and T. Haversat
2006 Phase 1 Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Marina Coast Water District, Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project, Recycled Water Component, Northern Segment, in Marina and Seaside, Monterey, Monterey County, California. Report on file with the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University.

Holm, L., K. Chao and J. Holson
2011 Archaeological Assessment for the City of Monterey 2011 Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Monterey County, California. Report on file with the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University.

Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Levy, R.
1978 Costanoan. Pp. 485-495 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Margolin, M.
1978 The Ohlone Way. Heyday Books, Berkeley.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 104, Packet Page 261 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 105, Packet Page 262 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 106, Packet Page 263 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 107, Packet Page 264 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 108, Packet Page 265 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 109, Packet Page 266 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 110, Packet Page 267 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 111, Packet Page 268 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 112, Packet Page 269 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 113, Packet Page 270 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 114, Packet Page 271 7 Attachment 1

CHRIS DOCUMENTATION
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 115, Packet Page 272 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 116, Packet Page 273 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 117, Packet Page 274 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 118, Packet Page 275 8 Attachment 2

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 119, Packet Page 276

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 3377
SALINAS, CA 93912
(831) 422-4912
Fax (831) 422-4913
December 5, 2014
AC 5035
Josh Harwayne
Denise Duffy & Associates
947 Cass St., Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: North Fremont Boulevard project
Dear Mr. Harwayne:

At your request we initiated a search of the sacred lands file with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 3, 2014. Attached please find a copy of the response, dated November 17, 2014 from Katy Sanchez of the NAHC. As you will see there was no specific site information found in their files regarding the project area, which lies within traditional Ohlone territory. She recommended that we make additional contacts with other Native American sources of information regarding the potential for cultural resources in the project area. Because these Native American peoples are not a federally recognized tribe, there is no single person or group who represents all of them. A sample copy of the letters regarding your project that were sent on November 24, 2014 to the Native American contacts on the NAHC list is also attached.

I have received an email response from Ed Ketchum, historian of the Amah Mutsun Tribal, who referred me to the Esselen Nation. I also received a response from Irenne Zwierlein and Michelle Zimmer of the Aman Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista. They recommend that construction crews be trained in cultural sensitivity and monitors when necessary.

I called the other consultants on December 4, 2014. Val Lopez referred me to the Esselen Nation for information. Tony Cerda of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe requested information on any findings that may occur during the project.

Ramona Garibay of the Trina Marine Ruano Family was unfamiliar with the area.

Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan had no specific information or concerns with the project area. I left voice messages for Louise Miranda-Ramirez and Christianne Arias of the Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation, and with Jakki Kehl.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 120, Packet Page 277 Although the Native Americans offered no information specific to sites in the project area, they wish to know of any significant discoveries during the project.

Because of their concern for the preservation of the cultural resources which comprise their heritage, the listed Native Americans should be informed of the of the discovery of any previously unknown cultural resources which may occur during the course of this project. A continuing sensitivity to their concerns and the inclusion of interested Native Americans in this project will be greatly appreciated by them.

If I should receive further information or requests for consultation from other Native Americans, I will provide a supplement to this summary letter.

Please feel free to call if you have any further questions or need additional information in this matter.

Yours truly,
Mary Doane
Mary Doane
Cc. Native American Heritage Commission
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 121, Packet Page 278

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 3377
SALINAS, CA 93912
(831) 422-4912
Fax (831) 422-4913
October 3, 2014
AC 5035
Debbie Pilas Treadway
State Of California
Native American Heritage Commission
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Sacred Lands File search request
Dear Debbie:

We have just started a Phase I Archaeological Survey for the proposed North Fremont Boulevard Project in Monterey and Seaside, Monterey County. We do not yet have the results of the CHRIS search for recorded archaeological sites in and near the project area.

We are contacting your office for information on possible Native American Sacred sites or concerns in the project area. Would you please search your Inventory of Sacred Lands to determine whether the project area contains any such resources in Township 15S/Range 1E (see attached map from the USGS 7.5 Minute Seaside Quadrangle).

We are prepared to contact local Native Americans for their comments on the proposed project area if you will provide us with the names and addresses on your current list for this part of Monterey County.

If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours truly,
Mary Doane
Mary Doane
Attachment
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 122, Packet Page 279 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 123, Packet Page 280 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 124, Packet Page 281 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 125, Packet Page 282 Exhibit A Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 126, Packet Page 283

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 3377
SALINAS, CA 93912
(831) 422-4912
Fax (831) 422-4913
November 24, 2014
AC 5035
Tony Cerda
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
240 E. 1st St.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: North Fremont Boulevard Project in Monterey and Seaside Dear Tony:

We are in the process of completing a Phase I Archaeological Survey for the proposed North Fremont Boulevard Project in Monterey and Seaside Monterey County, California (see Map attached). The current project proposes pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements within the existing Fremont Boulevard right-of-way.

The Northwest Information Center has found no prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area or within one kilometer of the project area. There are several historic resources recorded within one kilometer.

We are contacting you for additional information on Native American Sacred Lands or other native resources that may be in or near the project area and subject to project impacts. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with your response or concerns.

If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours truly,
Mary Doane
Mary Doane
Attachment
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 127, Packet Page 284 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 128, Packet Page 285 2/8/2022 Mail - Fernanda Roveri - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAQkAGM5MDQ1ZjE2LWVlZTEtNDZmZS1iOGZiLWQ3YmJkMzA4OTE4MwAQAO2tOu9rMV1LjSbSo… 1/1 Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 Fernanda Roveri <[email protected]>
Tue 2/8/2022 10:53 AM
To: Fernanda Roveri <[email protected]>
Bcc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Tom Little Bear Nason <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Susan Morley <[email protected]>; Jana Nason <[email protected]>; Brenna Wheelis <[email protected]>; Cari Herthel <[email protected]>
Dear Tribal Representave,
The purpose of this email is to satisfy the notification requirements of AB 52 at Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1. The City of Monterey has decided to undertake the following project.

Project Title: North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Contact Person, Email, and Phone Number: Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner, [email protected], (831) 242-8788
Project Location: The project is located at the east end of North Fremont Street (north side only) between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard (State Route 218), on portions of APNs 013-142-004- 000, 013-142-005-000, and 013-142-006-000, and on public right-of-way in the cities of Monterey and Seaside.

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 General Plan Designation: City of Monterey: Parks and Open Space; City of Seaside: Parks and Open Space Zoning: City of Monterey: Open Space; City of Seaside: Open Space and Recreation Description of Project: The project is the construction of an approximate 130-foot long prefabricated bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect an existing gap in the sidewalk along North Fremont Street on the border of the City of Seaside and City of Monterey. The project involves limited ground disturbance and fill for the span’s abutments, curb and gutter improvements, paved sidewalk/trail approaches on each side of the span, and removal of up to four existing oak trees.

Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1. (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this email to request consultation with the City of Monterey. Please contact Principal Planner Fernanda Roveri at (831) 242-8788 or at [email protected] should you have any questions regarding this project.

Respectfully,
Fernanda Roveri
Principal Planner
(831) 242-8788
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 129, Packet Page 286

!" #$%&'&('
)*+$%,
-%*+$%,./*&0$%$12*%34 #%,
5675876966
:;<<
=> ?*;@AB'&
>*%C$1
-DAC0A%'CE%$B*A%D$B.$BB$C$&0%,F$2*%34 GD;?*/
H,00C$
I$'%
J'B*&
-0%,F'CDK',%/'&.$BB$C$&0%,F$2*%34LM'&'
J'B*&
-0%,F'C'(/,&.$BB$C$&0%,F$2*%34LI%$&&'
NK$$C,B -F%$&&'.$BB$C$&0%,F$2*%34LG'%,
O$%0K$C
-$BB$C$&BP,%,0/$(,D,&$.3/',C2D*/4 QRSST
UVWXYZ [Y
\XYVX]^
_Z
`a``Z
bZ
TY
cRdXSe
Te
fdR
ghf^
Te
iTYfR]R^Z
]RjRhkRl
XY
RmXhS
e]Tm
^TVZ
]Rn]RWRYoYp
fdR qWWRSRY
r]hcR
Te
iTYfR]R^
gTVYf^Z
shfd
]RtVRWfW
]RpX]lhYp
fdR
uT]fd
v]RmTYf
Uf]RRf
UhlRsXSw
xXn gSTWV]R
y]TzRjf{
[Y
\XYVX]^
|}Z
`a``Z
b
]RnShRl~XSS
fT
^TV]
RmXhS
fT
XWw
he
fdR
n]TnTWRl
mhopXoTY mRXWV]RW
WXoWRl
qWWRSRY
r]hcR
Te
iTYfR]R^
gTVYf^W
]RtVRWfW{
[Y
\XYVX]^
`Z
`a``Z
b
WRYf
^TVZ
XYl jTnhRl
rTm
hSR
RX]
uXWTYZ
\XYX
uXWTYZ
]RYYX

dRRShWZ
XYl
gX]h
QR]fdRSZ
X
eTSSTs~Vn
RmXhSZ
cVf
lhl YTf
]RjRhkR
X
]RnS^
e]Tm
^TV
T]
fdR
TfdR]
]Rn]RWRYfXokRW
jTnhRl{
[Y
vRc]VX]^
}Z
`a``Z
b
YToRl
^TVZ XYl
jTnhRl
fdR
TfdR]
]Rn]RWRYfXokRWZ
fdXf
fdR
ghf^
Te
iTYfR]R^
sTVSl
]RlT
fdR

`
jTYWVSfXoTY n]TjRWW
eT]
fdR
uT]fd
v]RmTYf
Uf]RRf
UhlRsXSw
xXn
gSTWV]R
y]TzRjf{
URR
XjdmRYf
|
eT]
jTnhRW
Te
fdR XcTkRmRYoTYRl
RmXhSW{

[Y
vRc]VX]^
}Z
`a``Z
bZ
TY
cRdXSe
Te
fdR
ghf^
Te
iTYfR]R^Z
WRYf
^TV
XYl
fdR
TfdR]
]Rn]RWRYfXokRW
XY RmXhS
YTojXoTY
Te

`
jTYWVSfXoTY
TnnT]fVYhf^
XjdmRYf
`Z
nV]WVXYf
fT
yVcShj
RWTV]jRW gTlR

`|a}a{{|Z
eT]
fdR
uT]fd
v]RmTYf
Uf]RRf
UhlRsXSw
xXn
gSTWV]R
y]TzRjf{
b
lhl
YTf
]RjRhkR
XY
RmXhS e]Tm
qWWRSRY
r]hcR
Te
iTYfR]R^
gTVYf^
]RtVRWoYp
jTYWVSfXoTY
fdhW
omR
X]TVYl{ [Y
[jfTcR]
`Z
`a``Z
b
WRYf
^TVZ
XYl
jTnhRl
fdR
TfdR]
]Rn]RWRYfXokRWZ
X
eTSSTs~Vn
RmXhS
XjdmRYf
fT
SRf
^TV
wYTs
fdXf
fd]RR
f]hcXS
]Rn]RWRYfXokRW
]RtVRWfRl
jTYWVSfXoTY
XYl
fdXf
fdR
ghf^
sTVSl
ShwR
fT mRRf
shfd
^TV
fT
lhWjVWW
fdR
mhopXoTY
mRXWV]RW
n]TnTWRl
fT
Xll]RWW
fdR
hWWVRW
XYl
]RjTmmRYlXoTYW fdXf
RXjd
Te
fdR
f]hcRW
WdX]Rl{
bY
fdR
RmXhSZ
b
XWwRl
eT]
^TV]
XkXhSXchShf^
hY
fdR
YRf
fsT
sRRwW{
b
lhl
YTf
]RjRhkR
X
]RnS^
e]Tm
^TV
fT
m^
[jfTcR]
`Z
`a``Z
RmXhS{
rdR]ReT]RZ
fdR
ghf^
shSS
mTkR
eT]sX]l shfd
lhWf]hcVoYp
X
YTojR
Te
hYfRYf
fT
XlTnf
X
mhopXfRl
YRpXokR
lRjSX]XoTY
eT]
fdR
uT]fd
v]RmTYf Uf]RRf
UhlRsXSw
xXn
gSTWV]R
y]TzRjf
shfd
fdR
eTSSTshYp
XllRl
mhopXoTY
mRXWV]RW

¡{
y]hT]
fT
jTmmRYjhYp
XY^
p]TVYl
lhWfV]chYp
sT]w
Xf
fdR n]TzRjf
WhfRZ
jTYWf]VjoTY
mXYXpR]W
XYl
nR]WTYYRS
WdXSS
nX]ojhnXfR
hY
jVSfV]XS
XYl
f]hcXS
WRYWhokhf^
f]XhYhYp jTYlVjfRl
c^
X
tVXShRl
X]jdXRTSTphWf
Xnn]TkRl
c^
fdR
ghf^
Te
iTYfR]R^
ySXYYhYp
¢hkhWhTY{
f
mhYhmVmZ
fdR f]XhYhYp
WdXSS
RnSXhY
|
XnnShjXcSR
WfXfVfRWZ
]RpVSXoTYWZ
XYl
RYeT]jRmRYf
n]TkhWhTYW£
`
fdR
n]RdhWfT]hj
XYl dhWfT]hj
RYkh]TYmRYf
WR¤Yp
XYl
jTYfRfZ
hYjSVlhYp
hYeT]mXoTY
]RpX]lhYp
fdR
STjXS
f]hcXS
p]TVnW£
XYl

sdXf n]RdhWfT]hj
XYl
dhWfT]hj
X]jdXRTSTphjXS
lRnTWhfW
STTw
ShwR
Xf
fdR
WV]eXjR
XYl
sdRY
RnTWRl
lV]hYp
jTYWf]VjoTY{ gTYWf]VjoTY
nR]WTYYRS
WdXSS
YTf
cR
nR]mhRl
fT
TnR]XfR
RtVhnmRYf
shfdhY
fdR
n]TzRjf
X]RX
VYSRWW
fdR^
dXkR XRYlRl
fdR
f]XhYhYp{

ShWf
Te
YXmRW
Te
XSS
nR]WTYYRS
sdT
XRYlRl
fdR
f]XhYhYp
WdXSS
cR
WVcmhRl
fT
fdR
ghf^
Te iTYfR]R^
ySXYYhYp
¢hkhWhTY{

¥
¦§¨©
ª

«§{

¢V]hYp
n]TzRjf
jTYWf]VjoTYZ
he
XY^
X]jdRTSTphjXSZ nXSRTYfTSTphjXSZ
T]
f]hcXS
]RWTV]jRW
R{p{Z
RkhlRYjR
Te
nXWf
dVmXY
dXchfXoTY
T]
eTWWhSW
X]R
eTVYlZ
fdR
n]TzRjf XnnShjXYf
XYl¬T]
hfW
jTYf]XjfT]
WdXSS
jRXWR
XSS
sT]w
shfdhY
a
eRRf
Te
fdR
lhWjTkR]^
XYl
YToe^
fdR
ghf^
Te
iTYfR]R^ ySXYYhYp
¢hkhWhTY
hmmRlhXfRS^{
gVSfV]XS
XYl¬T]
f]hcXS
jVSfV]XS
]RWTV]jRW
mX^
hYjSVlR
n]RdhWfT]hj
X]jdXRTSTphjXS mXfR]hXSW
WVjd
XW
XwRl
XYl
p]TVYl
WfTYR
fTTSW
XYl
lRc]hWZ
WdRSSZ
cTYRZ
jR]XmhjWZ
XYl
]R~X®RjfRl
]TjwZ
XW
sRSS
XW dhWfT]hj
mXfR]hXSW
WVjd
XW
pSXWWZ
mRfXSZ
sTTlZ
c]hjwZ
T]
Wf]VjfV]XS
]RmYXYfW{
rdR
n]TzRjf
XnnShjXYf
XYl¬T]
hfW jTYf]XjfT]
WdXSS
]RfXhY
X
tVXShRl
X]jdXRTSTphWfZ
T]
nXSRTYfTSTphWf
he
XnnShjXcSRZ
fT
RkXSVXfR
fdR
YlW
XYlZ
WVczRjf Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 130, Packet Page 287

# $

%

# $

&'()*(+,&-*./0-1234'.5+6-07+89/:*,;-:*',.<

% %
!

%

=

?
@

A
B

A

%

<

# $

# $

%
$

DE$F

G HI

B
J

K
KL"

%
AM?
C

AMC!

%
# $

=
B
J

K
KL

!$N

%
O

?

&'()*(+,&-*./0-P3Q*(6-R:-0'5*,&+,'S+0',)$

G!

U

B

U

>

VD

#

D

"A

W
# $

D
%

%

%
=$ ?
%

%

%

%
X

"
?

?

W
YZ[\]\^]_`aZ[b cdefgehijcjiffkd lmnopqrqsmtmm
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 131, Packet Page 288

!" #$%&'&('
)*+$%,
-%*+$%,./*&0$%$12*%34 #%,
5675876966
:;<9
=> ?*;'(/,&.@'&1*&@*&ABC0,&32D*/
-'(/,&.@'&1*&@*&ABC0,&32D*/4 EFGGH

IJKLHKM NK

OFPQRJQL
SM
TUTTM
VM
HK
PFWJGX
HX
YWF
Z[YL
HX
\HKYFQFLM
]FKY
LHR
JK
F^J[G
KH_`aJ_HK
HX
bc
dT aHK]RGYJ_HK
HeeHQYRK[YL
fbgJaW^FKY
hiM
eRQ]RJKY
YH
jRPG[a
kF]HRQaF]
ZHlF
m
ThUSUnonhM
XHQ
YWF
pHQYW OQF^HKY
qYQFFY
q[lFrJGs
tJe
ZGH]RQF
jQHuFaYn
vWJY
]J^F
lJLM
V
QFaF[wFl
LHRQ
QFxRF]Y
XHQ
aHK]RGYJ_HK JKl
QFaH^^FKlJ_HK]
HK
PFWJGX
HX
YWF
VKl[JK
ZJKLHK
cJKl
HX
ZH]YJKHJK
NWGHKF
jFHeGF
fbgJaW^FKY Tin

NK
\JQaW
TM
TUTTM
V
QFeG[Fl
YH
LHRQ
F^J[G
YH
[KxR[QF
JPHRY
LHRQ
JwJ[GJP[G[YL
XHQ
J
aHK]RGYJ_HK
^FF_Ky YWF
XHGGHr[Ky
rFFs
fJG]H
bgJaW^FKY
Tin
NK
NaYHPFQ
TzM
TUTTM
V
]FKY
LHR
J
XHGGHr{Re
F^J[G
fbgJaW^FKY
oi
YH
GFY
LHR
sKHr
YWJY
YWQFF
YQ[PJG QFeQF]FKYJ_wF]
QFxRF]YFl
aHK]RGYJ_HK
JKl
YWJY
YWF
Z[YL
rHRGl
G[sF
YH
^FFY
r[YW
LHR
YH
l[]aR]]
YWF ^[_yJ_HK
^FJ]RQF]
eQHeH]Fl
YH
JllQF]]
YWF
[]]RF]
JKl
QFaH^^FKlJ_HK]
YWJY
FJaW
HX
YWF
YQ[PF] ]WJQFln
VK
YWF
F^J[GM
V
J]sFl
XHQ
LHRQ
JwJ[GJP[G[YL
[K
YWF
KF|Y
YrH
rFFs]n
V
l[l
KHY
QFaF[wF
J
QFeGL
XQH^
LHR
YH
^L
NaYHPFQ
TzM
TUTTM
F^J[Gn
vWFQFXHQFM
YWF
Z[YL
r[GG
^HwF
XHQrJQl r[YW
l[]YQ[PR_Ky
J
KH_aF
HX
[KYFKY
YH
JlHeY
J
^[_yJYFl
KFyJ_wF
lFaGJQJ_HK
XHQ
YWF
pHQYW
OQF^HKY qYQFFY
q[lFrJGs
tJe
ZGH]RQF
jQHuFaY
r[YW
YWF
XHGGHr[Ky
JllFl
^[_yJ_HK
^FJ]RQF]} ~
~

n
jQ[HQ
YH
aH^^FKa[Ky
JKL
yQHRKl
l[]YRQP[Ky
rHQs
JY
YWF eQHuFaY
][YFM
aHK]YQRa_HK
^JKJyFQ]
JKl
eFQ]HKKFG
]WJGG
eJQ_a[eJYF
[K
aRGYRQJG
JKl
YQ[PJG
]FK][_w[YL
YQJ[K[Ky aHKlRaYFl
PL
J
xRJG[`Fl
JQaWJFHGHy[]Y
JeeQHwFl
PL
YWF
Z[YL
HX
\HKYFQFL
jGJKK[Ky
[w[][HKn
bY
^[K[^R^M
YWF YQJ[K[Ky
]WJGG
F|eGJ[K
fhi
JeeG[aJPGF
]YJYRYF]M
QFyRGJ_HK]M
JKl
FKXHQaF^FKY
eQHw[][HK]
fTi
YWF
eQFW[]YHQ[a
JKl W[]YHQ[a
FKw[QHK^FKY
]FKy
JKl
aHKYF|YM
[KaGRl[Ky
[KXHQ^J_HK
QFyJQl[Ky
YWF
GHaJG
YQ[PJG
yQHRe]
JKl
foi
rWJY eQFW[]YHQ[a
JKl
W[]YHQ[a
JQaWJFHGHy[aJG
lFeH][Y]
GHHs
G[sF
JY
YWF
]RQXJaF
JKl
rWFK
F|eH]Fl
lRQ[Ky
aHK]YQRa_HKn ZHK]YQRa_HK
eFQ]HKKFG
]WJGG
KHY
PF
eFQ^[gFl
YH
HeFQJYF
FxR[e^FKY
r[YW[K
YWF
eQHuFaY
JQFJ
RKGF]]
YWFL
WJwF JgFKlFl
YWF
YQJ[K[Kyn

b
G[]Y
HX
KJ^F]
HX
JGG
eFQ]HKKFG
rWH
JgFKlFl
YWF
YQJ[K[Ky
]WJGG
PF
]RP^[gFl
YH
YWF
Z[YL
HX \HKYFQFL
jGJKK[Ky
[w[][HKn

~
~

RQ[Ky
eQHuFaY
aHK]YQRa_HKM
[X
JKL
JQaWFHGHy[aJGM eJGFHKYHGHy[aJGM
HQ
YQ[PJG
QF]HRQaF]
fFnynM
Fw[lFKaF
HX
eJ]Y
WR^JK
WJP[YJ_HK
HQ
XH]][G]i
JQF
XHRKlM
YWF
eQHuFaY JeeG[aJKY
JKlHQ
[Y]
aHKYQJaYHQ
]WJGG
aFJ]F
JGG
rHQs
r[YW[K
dU
XFFY
HX
YWF
l[]aHwFQL
JKl
KH_XL
YWF
Z[YL
HX
\HKYFQFL jGJKK[Ky
[w[][HK
[^^Fl[JYFGLn

ZRGYRQJG
JKlHQ
YQ[PJG
aRGYRQJG
QF]HRQaF]
^JL
[KaGRlF
eQFW[]YHQ[a
JQaWJFHGHy[aJG ^JYFQ[JG]
]RaW
J]
JsFl
JKl
yQHRKl
]YHKF
YHHG]
JKl
lFPQ[]M
]WFGGM
PHKFM
aFQJ^[a]M
JKl
`QF{JFaYFl
QHasM
J]
rFGG
J] W[]YHQ[a
^JYFQ[JG]
]RaW
J]
yGJ]]M
^FYJGM
rHHlM
PQ[asM
HQ
]YQRaYRQJG
QF^KJKY]n
vWF
eQHuFaY
JeeG[aJKY
JKlHQ
[Y] aHKYQJaYHQ
]WJGG
QFYJ[K
J
xRJG[`Fl
JQaWJFHGHy[]YM
HQ
eJGFHKYHGHy[]Y
[X
JeeG[aJPGFM
YH
FwJGRJYF
YWF
`Kl]
JKlM
]RPuFaY YH
QFw[Fr
JKl
JeeQHwJG
PL
YWF
Z[YLM
lFwFGHe
JeeQHeQ[JYF
YQFJY^FKY
^FJ]RQF]
XHQ
YWF
[KJlwFQYFKYGL
l[]aHwFQFl QF]HRQaF]n
qRaW
^FJ]RQF]
^JL
[KaGRlF
JwH[lJKaFM
eQF]FQwJ_HK
[K
eGJaFM
F|aJwJ_HKM
lHaR^FKYJ_HKM
aRQJ_HKM

HQ HYWFQ
JeeQHeQ[JYF
^FJ]RQF]n
fEFJGYW
JKl
qJXFYL
ZHlF
qFa_HK
zUdUndin
vWF
Z[YL
]WJGG
aHK]RGY
r[YW
JeeQHeQ[JYF pJ_wF
b^FQ[aJK
QFeQF]FKYJ_wF]
[K
lFYFQ^[K[Ky
JeeQHeQ[JYF
YQFJY^FKY
^FJ]RQF]
XHQ
RKFJQYWFl
aRGYRQJG
QF]HRQaF] [X
YWF
QF]HRQaF]
JQF
eQFW[]YHQ[a
HQ
pJ_wF
b^FQ[aJK
[K
KJYRQFn

~
~

n
VX
WR^JK
QF^J[K]
HQ
aRGYRQJG
QF]HRQaF]
J]]Ha[JYFl
r[YW
J PRQ[JG
f[nFn
yQJwF
yHHl]i
JQF
l[]aHwFQFl
lRQ[Ky
aHK]YQRa_HKM
YWF
eQHuFaY
JeeG[aJKY
JKlHQ
[Y]
aHKYQJaYHQ
]WJGG Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 132, Packet Page 289

! !
"## $

%
&

%
&

# &

'

'

()& *
!
+,-#./ ./

0

1"#12# 3

.4
/
5 '

%
&

6

.

0

!
1"#12 ! !
"#/# &
5

' ''
'

'

'

# 89:;<:=> 8?<@AB? CD E<:F? GH?B9I<> 8=>9J=B9>;# & .+/
'

'

$ K
L
' LM
N(

% (

3

O

%
&

# (

'
6
# &

'

# P

'

# 3 '

O

# QRSTUTVU WXYRSZ [\]^_]`ab [ba^^c\ defgh ijikelee
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 133, Packet Page 290

!" #$%&'&('
)*+$%,
-%*+$%,./*&0$%$12*%34 #%,
5675876966
:;<9
=> ?*;@*A,B$
)'/,%$C
-%'/,%$C2D*A,B$.1'E**2F*/4 <
'00'FE/$&0B
G5
>HI
J00'FE/$&0
52K(LM
J00'FE/$&0
62K(LM
J00'FE/$&0
<2K(LM NOPPQ

RQSTUOV WX
YOZ[S\[]
^V
_`__V
aV
QX
ZOb\Pc
Qc
dbO
eTd]
Qc
fQXdO[O]V
UOXd
]QS
\X
Og\TP
XQhij\hQX
Qc
kl
m_ jQXUSPd\hQX
QnnQ[dSXTd]
okp\jbgOXd
qrV
nS[US\Xd
dQ
sSZPTj
tOUQS[jOU
eQuO
v
_q`^`wxwqV
cQ[
dbO
yQ[db Y[OgQXd
zd[OOd
zTuO{\P|
}\n
ePQUS[O
s[Q~Ojdw
WX
f\[jb
^V
_`__V
a
[OjOTOu
\X
Og\TP
c[Qg
]QS
[OSOUhX
jQXUSPd\hQXV
\Xu
QX
f\[jb
xqV
_`__V
a [OjOTOu
\X
Og\TP
c[Qg
]QS
{Tdb
\
USgg\[]
Qc
WeyU
[OSOUdU
uTUjSUUOu
uS[TX
QS[
jQXUSPd\hQX okp\jbgOXd
_rw
WX
WjdQZO[
_V
_`__V
a
UOXd
]QS
\X
Og\TP
cQPPQ{TX
Sn
QX
QS[
jQXUSPd\hQX
okp\jbgOXd
xr
dQ
POd
]QS |XQ{
db\d
db[OO
d[TZ\P
[On[OUOXd\hOU
[OSOUdOu
jQXUSPd\hQX
\Xu
db\d
dbO
eTd]
{QSPu
PT|O
dQ
gOOd
{Tdb ]QS
dQ
uTUjSUU
dbO
gTh\hQX
gO\US[OU
n[QnQUOu
dQ
\uu[OUU
dbO
TUUSOU
\Xu
[OjQggOXu\hQXU
db\d
O\jb Qc
dbO
d[TZOU
Ub\[Ouw
aX
dbO
Og\TPV
a
\U|Ou
cQ[
]QS[
\\TP\ZTPTd]
TX
dbO
XO
d
d{Q
{OO|Uw
a
uTu
XQd
[OjOTO
\
[OnP]
c[Qg
]QS
dQ
g]
WjdQZO[
_V
_`__V
Og\TPw
bO[OcQ[OV
dbO
eTd]
{TPP
gQO
cQ[{\[u {Tdb
uTUd[TZShX
\
XQhjO
Qc
TXdOXd
dQ
\uQnd
\
gTh\dOu
XO\hO
uOjP\[\hQX
cQ[
dbO
yQ[db
Y[OgQXd zd[OOd
zTuO{\P|
}\n
ePQUS[O
s[Q~Ojd
{Tdb
dbO
cQPPQ{TX
\uuOu
gTh\hQX
gO\US[OU

w
s[TQ[
dQ
jQggOXjTX
\X]
[QSXu
uTUdS[ZTX
{Q[|
\d
dbO n[Q~Ojd
UTdOV
jQXUd[SjhQX
g\X\O[U
\Xu
nO[UQXXOP
Ub\PP
n\[hjTn\dO
TX
jSPdS[\P
\Xu
d[TZ\P
UOXUThTd]
d[\TXTX jQXuSjdOu
Z]
\
S\PTiOu
\[jb\OQPQTUd
\nn[QOu
Z]
dbO
eTd]
Qc
fQXdO[O]
sP\XXTX
TTUTQXw
kd
gTXTgSgV
dbO d[\TXTX
Ub\PP
O
nP\TX
oqr
\nnPTj\ZPO
Ud\dSdOUV
[OSP\hQXUV
\Xu
OXcQ[jOgOXd
n[QTUTQXU
o_r
dbO
n[ObTUdQ[Tj
\Xu bTUdQ[Tj
OXT[QXgOXd
UOX
\Xu
jQXdO
dV
TXjPSuTX
TXcQ[g\hQX
[O\[uTX
dbO
PQj\P
d[TZ\P
[QSnU
\Xu
oxr
{b\d n[ObTUdQ[Tj
\Xu
bTUdQ[Tj
\[jb\OQPQTj\P
uOnQUTdU
PQQ|
PT|O
\d
dbO
US[c\jO
\Xu
{bOX
O
nQUOu
uS[TX
jQXUd[SjhQXw eQXUd[SjhQX
nO[UQXXOP
Ub\PP
XQd
ZO
nO[gTpOu
dQ
QnO[\dO
OSTngOXd
{TdbTX
dbO
n[Q~Ojd
\[O\
SXPOUU
dbO]
b\O \pOXuOu
dbO
d[\TXTXw

k
PTUd
Qc
X\gOU
Qc
\PP
nO[UQXXOP
{bQ
\pOXuOu
dbO
d[\TXTX
Ub\PP
ZO
USZgTpOu
dQ
dbO
eTd]
Qc fQXdO[O]
sP\XXTX
TTUTQXw

¡¢
£

¤ w

S[TX
n[Q~Ojd
jQXUd[SjhQXV
Tc
\X]
\[jbOQPQTj\PV n\POQXdQPQTj\PV
Q[
d[TZ\P
[OUQS[jOU
oOwwV
OTuOXjO
Qc
n\Ud
bSg\X
b\ZTd\hQX
Q[
cQUUTPUr
\[O
cQSXuV
dbO
n[Q~Ojd \nnPTj\Xd
\Xu¥Q[
TdU
jQXd[\jdQ[
Ub\PP
jO\UO
\PP
{Q[|
{TdbTX
m`
cOOd
Qc
dbO
uTUjQO[]
\Xu
XQhc]
dbO
eTd]
Qc
fQXdO[O] sP\XXTX
TTUTQX
TggOuT\dOP]w
eSPdS[\P
\Xu¥Q[
d[TZ\P
jSPdS[\P
[OUQS[jOU
g\]
TXjPSuO
n[ObTUdQ[Tj
\[jb\OQPQTj\P g\dO[T\PU
USjb
\U
¦\|Ou
\Xu
[QSXu
UdQXO
dQQPU
\Xu
uOZ[TUV
UbOPPV
ZQXOV
jO[\gTjUV
\Xu
i[O§\¨OjdOu
[Qj|V
\U
{OPP
\U bTUdQ[Tj
g\dO[T\PU
USjb
\U
P\UUV
gOd\PV
{QQuV
Z[Tj|V
Q[
Ud[SjdS[\P
[OgX\XdUw
bO
n[Q~Ojd
\nnPTj\Xd
\Xu¥Q[
TdU jQXd[\jdQ[
Ub\PP
[Od\TX
\
S\PTiOu
\[jb\OQPQTUdV
Q[
n\POQXdQPQTUd
Tc
\nnPTj\ZPOV
dQ
O\PS\dO
dbO
iXuU
\XuV
USZ~Ojd dQ
[OTO{
\Xu
\nn[Q\P
Z]
dbO
eTd]V
uOOPQn
\nn[Qn[T\dO
d[O\dgOXd
gO\US[OU
cQ[
dbO
TX\uO[dOXdP]
uTUjQO[Ou [OUQS[jOUw
zSjb
gO\US[OU
g\]
TXjPSuO
\QTu\XjOV
n[OUO[\hQX
TX
nP\jOV
O
j\\hQXV
uQjSgOXd\hQXV
jS[\hQXV
Q[ QdbO[
\nn[Qn[T\dO
gO\US[OUw
oNO\Pdb
\Xu
z\cOd]
eQuO
zOjhQX
`m`wmrw
bO
eTd]
Ub\PP
jQXUSPd
{Tdb
\nn[Qn[T\dO y\hO
kgO[Tj\X
[On[OUOXd\hOU
TX
uOdO[gTXTX
\nn[Qn[T\dO
d[O\dgOXd
gO\US[OU
cQ[
SXO\[dbOu
jSPdS[\P
[OUQS[jOU Tc
dbO
[OUQS[jOU
\[O
n[ObTUdQ[Tj
Q[
y\hO
kgO[Tj\X
TX
X\dS[Ow

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/7/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 134, Packet Page 291

"#$ %
&'

& !#$
%!#
##$%"
'!()"'
*
"
&+"!,
-!,$$(#.
!("#%$-! !((
",%$#'
%/$0'!1 $2!%'
11&"%
'
(3$ "'#%$'
%'$ #
&& "

!("
'!&4%!
#!
&&, $
(("#'
*",)$ 5$'!#"'!
(
&&)$ 5)"'"67!!'$'!8(
($/4'!9"'4 $:$'! !4;&
",<"-"#"$
('!:$'! !49$
'49$ $! 0
%%$ (",'$9
&"$ "
=!
&'
(>
!'49$(! >!%/$?7676'!9$ $! (!'!
"!#'! !

"#'$*!@
/-!A
! "%
0'!9$ $! #
&&$/4'!@
/-! A
! "%
=! "'
,!9$

"##"$A&&"-$&-!(1
/!##
&&$&&$)'!1 $%!(
!#"9BCAD
"(!&"!#>!%/$ E67FG6+(.
(+!.
(;
*&"%H!#$
%!#9$(!#!%/$67I?IJK!9$

"##"$)"&&(!#",
'!
:$#'L"5!&4 <!#%!(
'+:L<.)$)"&&*!

'$ "M!('$1 $-"(! !%$

!(
/$#$

,!
!'$'!@
/-!A
! "%

"#
(
4
##$%"
'!(

'! "
&#$ $*2!%'#+;
*&"%H!#$
%!#9$(!>!%/$67I?IJ
(=!
&'
( >
!'49$(!>!%/$?7676.A
'$ "M
/$'$ !#

!%$#'
%/$#
&&$&4*!,"-!*4'!9"'4
N!
%$#
&'
/$)"''!
$#'&"5!&4(!#%!(!'
(#
&&"%&
(!"
1&!
!'
/$$
&&
11 $1 "
'!
!
#
!#'$ 1 $'!%'
41$##"*&!*
"
&#"'!#$

OP Q
R
A'&!
#''!+E7.(
4#1 "$ '$%$(
%/,, $
(("#'
*",
%/-"/!#0'!9"'4)"&&$/4'!' !!' "*!#0#1!%"8%
&&4'!("
9
4$S
($9$#'
$
T&$!;!$1&!0 '!T&$!39$#'
$
UB##!&!@
/$0
('!B##!&!K "*!$:$'! !49$
'40)$ !V
!#'!('$
-!
@
/-!A
! "%

$"'$ $#"'!B
%' "*!

Monterey City CouncilMarch 7, 2023

Monterey City Council
March 7, 2023