Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, April 18, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 18, 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 Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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 4/18/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.

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

Approval of Minutes

2. April 4, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

3. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,630,297.00 to P. Brannon Corporation for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project approved on May 26, 2020) ***CIP***
Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."

4. Authorize Acceptance of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) 2022-2023 Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant in the amount of $32,997.89 and Appropriate the Funds (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Accept and Appropriate $275,635.25 in Grant and Donated Funds to the 2022-2023 Library Trust Fund Budget and Authorize Increased Purchase Price for Bookmobile (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
Adjourn to Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency Meeting: Consent Agenda

6. Adopt a Resolution Directing the Notification to the County Consolidated Oversight Board Regarding the Disposition of Assets in Connection with the Successor Agency’s Dissolution, Directing Dissolution Upon the County Consolidated Oversight Board's Adoption of the Final Resolution Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34187(e) (Exempt from CEQA Section 15061(b)(3)) Adjourn to City Council Meeting

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate 4/18/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 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.

7. Receive Annual Report and Renew the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance - Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10, and Authorize the Acquisition of Additional Military Equipment Including Five Unmanned Aircraft Systems and a Crisis Negotiating Team Command Vehicle (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Council will adjourn to closed session no later than 5:00 p.m.

RECESS 5:30 p.m.

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

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).)

8. Recommend that the City Council Adopt the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26)
4/18/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.

9. Receive Reports and Provide Direction on the City’s Housing Program, Legal Framework for Tenant Protections, Vacancy Tax and Rental Registry (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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

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

Adjourn to City Council Meeting

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

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.
4/18/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

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

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
VALUE 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.

DESCRIPTION:

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

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

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

The Mayor and City Council will recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY23 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on April 18, 2023:
 Sergeant Mitchell Lacey, from the U.S. Marine Corps
 Technical Sergeant Alec Richardson, from the U.S. Air Force  Airman 1st Class Corey Case, from the U.S. Air Force
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

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

Attachments: 1. Proclamations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, April 4, 2023
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA AND TELECONFERENCE LOCATION: WESTIN BOSTON SEAPORT DISTRICT, 425 SUMMER STREET, ROOM 519, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Councilmembers

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

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference at the duly noticed teleconference location listed above
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk

TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Gov. Code sec. 54953(b). ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. He announced that Councilmember Barber was attending remotely from the duly noticed teleconference location in Boston, Massachusetts.

City Clerk Klein called the roll as highlighted above, and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. Councilmember Barber confirmed that she could hear the meeting proceedings, had posted the agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting at the teleconference location listed above, and was providing public access from the same location, pursuant to GC 54953(b)(3). She confirmed that no member of the public was present with her at the teleconference location wishing to speak.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.

The Council and attendees sang “Happy Birthday” to City staff celebrating a birthday the week of the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Tom Rowley, Steve Lightfoot, Robert Ashmore, Rick Aldinger, Tina Wong, Nick Errichetto, Lorna Moffat, Nina Beety, Katia Gutierrez, Santos, and Andy Garcia.

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes April 4, 2023
2 CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the public requested that Items 1, 2, and 3 be pulled from Consent. Public comment was not received on the Consent Items.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Items 1, 2, and 3:

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

1. March 21, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Approved
Public comment was received from Lorna Moffat, who clarified that she had only intended to request that Items 2 and 3 be pulled from Consent.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the minutes for the March 21, 2023 Regular Meeting:

2. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 – Wireless Communications Facilities and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Ordinance No. 3660 C.S.

City Attorney Davi gave a brief verbal report and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Steven Lucas, who shared health and environmental concerns relating to wireless technology; Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, who spoke in support of adopting the ordinance; Lorna Moffat, who said that the Council should ban 5G from Monterey; and Nina Beety, who alleged a conflict of interest for the Mayor due to his employment at the Naval Postgraduate School ("NPS") and spoke against exemptions for government agencies.

Mayor Williamson clarified that he had discussed the conflict question with legal counsel and stated that because he would receive no material benefit and there was no conflict of interest or ethics violation relating to his employment at NPS, he would not recuse himself from voting on the matter.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes April 4, 2023
3 On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3650 C.S. Repealing and Replacing Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 - Wireless Communications Facilities and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act:

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

3. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend City Code section 19-103 to Increase Cost Recovery for Historic Preservation Fees and Appeals; and Provide Direction to Staff on Hardship Waivers and/or Refunds of Appeal Fees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Ordinance No. 3661 C.S.; Directed City staff to return with more information on hardship waiver options Public comment was received from Lorna Moffat and Nina Beety, who spoke against adopting the ordinance, stating that the proposed fees were too high.

On question, City Attorney Davi said that the policy question before Council was whether all taxpayers should subsidize the cost of appeals for specific individuals. She explained the process by which hardship waivers are received, provided an example of the content of an upcoming disabled access appeal, and provided context for appeals received at the City.

Comments were made by Council in favor of the City recovering 100% of the costs associated with processing appeals, citing the duty to protect taxpayers who should not have to subsidize appeals in which they have no interest. It was stated that Mills Act applicants may be likely to be able to pay the cost of their fees without financial hardship. It was stated that if an appellant can provide documentation to prove that they would qualify for low-income housing, then it would make sense to provide them relief. On question from Council, City Attorney Davi confirmed that staff could bring this back to Council for more information or an amendment regarding waivers.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3561 C.S. Amending City Code section 19-103 to Increase Cost Recovery for Historic Preservation Fees and Appeals and directed City staff to return with more information on hardship waiver options:

4. Amend Resolution 22-086, the FY 22/23 Position Control List by Adding One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Housing Manager Position and Removing One (1) Vacant FTE Administrative Analyst and Amend and Restate Resolution 23-004, the FY 22/23 Salary Schedule, to Add Salaries for the Housing Manager and the Deputy Public Works Director/Administration Positions (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-039 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes April 4, 2023
4 5. Authorize a Contract with Community Human Services to Grant $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-040 C.S.
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC HEARING

6. Resolution Modifying the 2019 Management District Plan of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 23-041 C.S.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Lorna Moffat, who asked about public transportation as it relates to tourism, and Tom Rowley, who said that Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) was the correct agency to answer Ms. Moffat's question.

The Council stated agreement that public transportation questions should be addressed by MST and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

The Council spoke in support of the matter and recommended that residents read the information contained in the Management District Plan. It was stated that the Council's value driver relating to fiscal responsibility, revenue enhancements, long-term planning, and community partnerships aligned with this modification of the MCTID.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-041 C.S. Modifying the 2019 Management District Plan of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District:

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

7. Resolution Reaffirming the City of Monterey’s Opposition to the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-042 C.S.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation.

Public comment was received from: Rick Aldinger, Monterey County Hospitality Association ("MCHA"), said that MCHA fully supports the staff recommendation due to the Act's potential to reduce local control; Tom Rowley, who echoed Mr. Aldinger's comments and spoke about the importance of requiring a 2/3 majority for special taxes; Carol Chorbajian, who urged the Council to oppose the Act; and Lorna Moffat, who expressed concern that the Council is not fair and honest when making decisions about fees and urged that the Council protect taxpayers.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes April 4, 2023
5 A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt the resolution.

City Attorney Davi explained about the current law and proposed new law relating to special tax meaures, and gave further information on the "Upland case" that was referenced by Mr.

Rowley. She said that this initiative measure would not affect fees for cost recovery such as were approved earlier in the meeting.

The Council stated that the Act would potentially cost every city in California additional money and would not help local governments do a better job of helping residents. It was stated that the best way for Council to protect taxpayers was to deliver services efficiently, and that the Act would waste taxpayers' money and would represent change for change's sake only. Measures X and P were cited as examples of measures that benefit the community.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Smith spoke about returning home from a recent trip and said that it was wonderful to be back in Monterey.

Mayor Williamson said that housing policies would be discussed at the April 18, 2023 Council meeting.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar announced that April is National Earthquake Month and that a small earthquake had in fact taken place shortly before the Council meeting. He said that the Cannery Row Days event was ongoing with a larger event on April 15, and reported that the Recreation department had sold out their spring break sport camps and enjoyed a successful Bunny Hop Photo Op event.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:41 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 15 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 $1,630,297.00 to P. Brannon Corporation for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project approved on May 26, 2020) ***CIP***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (“Project”) (33C1554) 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. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, P. Brannon Corporation, in the Amount of $1,630,297.00;

4. 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,

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

VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Monterey City Code, Chapter 28, which requires City Council approval of all Public Works contracts exceeding $150,000.

This action is also 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.” FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Five (5) bids were received through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on March 21, 2023 as follows:

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 16 Bidder Total Base Bid
P. Brannon Corporation $1,630,297.00
Granite Rock Company $1,669,870.00
The Don Chapin Company $1,891,955.00
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. $2,429,600.00 RX Lodge $2,856,580.41
Engineer’s Estimate $950,000.00
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Base Bid.

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Construction Contract (Total Base Bid) $1,630,297.00
Construction Contingency, 15% $244,544.55
Total Project Construction Estimate (This Authorization) $1,874,841.55 Construction Management and Inspection (Staff) $135,000.00 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $2,009,841.55 Funding Sources:

Measure P/S – Stormdrains (33C1554) $2,365,765.00
As of March 22, 2023, sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On May 26, 2020, the City of Monterey certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal project. The project consists of removal of sediment and recontouring the creek channel to re-establish the historic channel and prevent continued flooding of Iris Canyon Road. Approximately, 5,000 cubic yards of material would be removed within an approximate 1.5-acre area of disturbance along an approximate 1,200 linear foot segment of the creek. Sediment would be excavated and removed from approximately 2 to 5 feet below ground surface. Sediment removal is expected to take approximately 2-3 months to complete. Project plans include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control measures that address protection of water quality and sensitive resources.

Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 March 26, 2020 to April 24, 2020 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office by appointment and on the City’s website; and the IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, noise, Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 17 and mandatory findings of significance; and Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; and no comment letters were received during the public review period.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

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

DISCUSSION:

The Project consists of the removal of accumulated sediment and invasive plant species from Iris Canyon. Emergent vegetation and sediment have reduced and/or eliminated the capacity and function of the drainage channel causing Iris Canyon Road to flood during even minor rain events. Removal of accumulated sediment will restore the hydraulic capacity of the system and restore the hydraulic connection to Lagunita Mirada, reducing the frequency that Iris Canyon Road must be closed. The 1.5-acre Project includes the removal of accumulated sediment and emergent vegetation including invasive plants, brush, and 75 trees. Restoration of the project area includes the planting of 661 trees, 475 riparian woodland plants, 2,107 wetland plants, and seeding the wetland zone and riparian transition zone areas. Temporary irrigation will be installed to promote the growth of the restoration plantings during the 5-year plant establishment and maintenance period.

The Project was extensively advertised for construction bids and is available for public review in the Office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7). On March 21, 2023, the City received five (5) bids. The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by Brannon Corporation in the amount of $1,630,297.00. Brannon Corporation has successfully completed projects for neighboring municipalities. References have been checked and staff is confident in the contractor’s ability to perform the work successfully.

Construction costs were significantly higher than estimated due to the current economic climate, with inflation, construction materials, and labor shortages contributing to higher overall costs.

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

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (“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. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, P. Brannon Corporation, in the Amount of $1,630,297.00;

4. 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,

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

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 18 JR/fm
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Results
e: P. Brannon Corporation
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, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 19 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,630,297.00 TO P.

BRANNON CORPORATION FOR THE IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)
***CIP***
WHEREAS, on the 21st day of March 2023, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received five (5) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (“Project”); WHEREAS, P. Brannon Corporation of Morgan Hill, CA, Granite Rock Company of San Jose, CA, The Don Chapin Company of Salinas, CA, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA, and RX Lodge of Martinez, CA submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, the basis of award for the Project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, P. Brannon Corporation submitted the lowest, responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $1,630,297.00;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account(s) 33C1554 to complete the work; and
WHEREAS, On May 26, 2020, the City of Monterey certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal project. The project consists of removal of sediment and recontouring the creek channel to re-establish the historic channel and prevent continued flooding of Iris Canyon Road. Approximately, 5,000 cubic yards of material would be removed within an approximate 1.5-acre area of disturbance along an approximate 1,200 linear foot segment of the creek. Sediment would be excavated and removed from approximately 2 to 5 feet below ground surface. Sediment removal is expected to take approximately 2-3 months to complete. Project plans include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control measures that address protection of water quality and sensitive resources.

Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 March 26, 2020 to April 24, 2020 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office by appointment and on the City’s website; and the IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, noise, and mandatory findings of significance; and Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; and no comment letters were received during the public review period.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 20 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

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

1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project (“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. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a construction contract for the Total Base Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, P. Brannon Corporation, in the amount of $1,630,297.00;

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 21 City of Monterey
Public Works
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: March 21, 2023 at 2:00 pm
Report Generated: Thursday, March 30, 2023

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Brannon Corporation $1,630,297.00
Granite Rock Company $1,669,870.00
The Don Chapin Company $1,891,955.00
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$2,429,600.00
RX Lodge $2,856,580.4103

BID SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 22

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

Page 2 ends

Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.

1.4 ACRE $85,000.00 $119,000.00 $38,239.00 $53,534.60 $115,500.0 0 $161,700.00 $158,941.0
4 $222,517.456 $95,000.00 $133,000.00
X 5 Channel
Excavation,
Off-Haul and
Disposal (F)
4400 CY $100.00 $440,000.00 $71.00 $312,400.00 $95.00 $418,000.00 $195.32 $859,408.00 $110.00 $484,000.00 X 6 Landscape
Mobilization
and
Demobilizatio
n
1 LS $83,000.00 $83,000.00 $76,644.00 $76,644.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $91,300.00 $91,300.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 X 7 Invasive
Species
Treatment
1 LS $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $53,061.00 $53,061.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $60,500.00 $60,500.00 $62,500.00 $62,500.00 X 8 Planting Soil
Rehabilitation
(F)
1 ACRE $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $25,682.00 $25,682.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 23

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

Page 3 ends

Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.

Brannon Corporation Granite Rock Company RX Lodge 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 9 Temporary
Irrigation
System
1 LS $254,000.0
0 $254,000.00 $221,834.0
0 $221,834.00 $207,500.0
0 $207,500.00 $278,850.0
0 $278,850.00 $230,000.0
0 $230,000.00
X 10 36” Box
Container
Tree Plantings
10 EA $1,500.00 $15,000.00 $1,474.00 $14,740.00 $1,930.00 $19,300.00 $1,540.00 $15,400.00 $4,750.00 $47,500.00 X 11 24” Box
Container
Tree Plantings
45 EA $500.00 $22,500.00 $531.00 $23,895.00 $800.00 $36,000.00 $550.00 $24,750.00 $1,000.00 $45,000.00 X 12 15 Gallon
Container
Tree Plantings
122 EA $260.00 $31,720.00 $236.00 $28,792.00 $375.00 $45,750.00 $275.00 $33,550.00 $375.00 $45,750.00 X 13 5 Gallon
Container
Tree Plantings
126 EA $130.00 $16,380.00 $142.00 $17,892.00 $190.00 $23,940.00 $143.00 $18,018.00 $145.00 $18,270.00 X 14 5 Gallon
Container
Shrub
Plantings
36 EA $125.00 $4,500.00 $87.00 $3,132.00 $60.00 $2,160.00 $137.50 $4,950.00 $140.00 $5,040.00 X 15 1 Gallon
Container
Plantings
1885 EA $90.00 $169,650.00 $80.00 $150,800.00 $26.00 $49,010.00 $93.50 $176,247.50 $55.00 $103,675.00 X 16 Treepot
Container
Plantings
46 EA $85.00 $3,910.00 $77.00 $3,542.00 $105.00 $4,830.00 $93.50 $4,301.00 $38.00 $1,748.00 X 17 Cuttings 312 EA $60.00 $18,720.00 $47.00 $14,664.00 $55.00 $17,160.00 $38.50 $12,012.00 $31.00 $9,672.00 Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 24

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

Page 4 ends

Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.

Brannon Corporation Granite Rock Company RX Lodge 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 18 Revegetation
Signs
3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $943.00 $2,829.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $950.00 $2,850.00 X 19 Seeding – Mix
A (Wetland
Zone) (F)

0.82 ACRE $8,000.00 $6,560.00 $31,068.00 $25,475.76 $40,000.00 $32,800.00 $9,947.32 $8,156.8024 $27,500.00 $22,550.00 X 20 Seeding – Mix
B (Riparian
Transition
Zone) (F)

0.57 ACRE $38,000.00 $21,660.00 $22,438.00 $12,789.66 $26,000.00 $14,820.00 $43,691.67 $24,904.2519 $20,000.00 $11,400.00 X 21 Plant
Establishment
Period (120 –
Day)
1 LS $115,000.0
0 $115,000.00 $84,170.00 $84,170.00 $68,000.00 $68,000.00 $107,453.5 2 $107,453.52 $42,000.00 $42,000.00
X 22 Record
Drawings
1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,952.00 $4,952.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Total $1,556,600.0
0 $1,266,297.0
0 $1,321,270.0
0 $2,245,942.910
3 $1,501,955.0
0 ADDITIVE ALTERNATE 1 BID SCHEDULE
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 10, Packet Page 25

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL PROJECT (33C1554)

Page 5 ends

Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing acceptance of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) 2022-2023 Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant in the amount of $32,997.89 and appropriate the funds.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with prior Council direction regarding the acquisition of grant funding to supplement the cost of essential City programs, functions, and operations.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The number of Monterey Police Department (MPD) peace officers determined the allocation of funds. The Monterey Police Department’s portion is $32,997.89 and the funds will be appropriated to the MPD Patrol Division operating supplies account [101-210-2120-0000-4205].

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 27 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:

City Council could choose not to accept this grant. However, that is not recommended since these funds will help support law enforcement officers’ wellness and mental health.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Police Department recognizes a career in law enforcement can be one of the most rewarding and simultaneously demanding professions a person can choose. It is well documented that the rigor of police work, such as cumulative and acute stress, lack of sleep, and physical or psychological traumas, can result in a number of negative repercussions on our officers’ professional and personal lives. These repercussions can include a reduction in performance, substance abuse problems, relationship issues, disciplinary issues, and mental health injuries and illnesses.

In addition to these traditional rigors, present expectations that law enforcement should resolve complex societal problems such as gun violence, homelessness, and drug use add to an already significant stress load. In today’s environment of heightened police scrutiny, law enforcement officers are asked to do more while navigating a complex and changing environment. Yet with all these challenges, the Monterey police Department believes serving as a police officer remains a noble and worthy profession.

The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant Program, established in the 2022 Budget Act, provides $50 million for city and county law enforcement agencies for the purpose of improving officer wellness and expanding mental health resources. The Monterey Police Department will use its grant fund award for the following.
 EXPAND THE MPD PEER SUPPORT TEAM (RISE)
The Monterey Police Department’s current Peer Support Team is composed of department staff who assist with encouraging a department culture of Resiliency, Investment, Support, and Encouragement (RISE). RISE members assist with critical incident debriefs, one on one peer support during times of high stress, fitness, and camaraderie team building. Grant funds would be used to expand RISE’s training and experience in these areas and new emerging wellness topics. Trainings can include the Public Safety Peer Support Association annual conference, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) awareness and response, sleep recovery, exercise physiology, and sports psychology. These trainings cover the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of thriving in the public safety profession.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 28  FUND SERVICES PROVIDED BY A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL,

COUNSELOR OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL THAT WORKS WITH LAW

ENFORCEMENT
According to the United States Department of Justice, an estimated 15% of police officers will suffer from some form of PTSD in their careers due to working in traumatic environments. Police officers who experience trauma that overwhelms their natural ability to cope can suffer from numerous negative consequences such as poor job performance, depression, substance abuse, relationship strain, and suicide. PTSD is a treatable injury, but due to its complexity should be performed by a licensed trauma counselor. The department has had previous success using a trauma counselor to treat staff diagnosed with PTSD.
 OTHER PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT ARE EVIDENCE-BASED OR HAVE A

SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORD OF ENHANCING OFFICER WELLNESS
This grant allows expenditures for a broad range of wellness topics including fitness and wellness equipment, memberships to wellness organizations, and training. Encouraging fit and healthy police department staff members improves job performance and satisfaction while reducing the risk of injury and illness. Currently, the police department shares a fitness area located in the adjoining fire station and an investment in exercise equipment will benefit both departments.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the acceptance of the BSCC 2022-2023 Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant and appropriate the funds.

DJH/ea
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 29 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS (BSCC) 2022-2023 OFFICER WELLNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,997.89 AND APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Monterey Police Department has been awarded $32,997.89 by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) 2022-2023 Officer Wellness and Mental Health grant. The Monterey Police Department will use this grant to expand officer wellness and peer support units; fund services provided by a licensed mental health professional, counselor, or other professional that works with law enforcement; and fund programs and services that enhance officer wellness; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Police Department recognizes a career in law enforcement can be one of the most rewarding and simultaneously demanding professions a person can choose. It is well documented that the rigor of police work, such as cumulative and acute stress, lack of sleep, and physical or psychological traumas, can result in a number of negative repercussions on our officers’ professional and personal lives. These repercussions can include a reduction in performance, substance abuse problems, relationship issues, disciplinary issues, and mental health injuries and illnesses; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these traditional rigors, present expectations that law enforcement should resolve complex societal problems such as gun violence, homelessness, and drug use add to an already significant stress load. In today’s environment of heightened police scrutiny, law enforcement officers are asked to do more while navigating a complex and changing environment. Yet with all these challenges, the Monterey Police Department believes serving as a police officer remains a noble and worthy profession; and WHEREAS, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant Program, established in the 2022 Budget Act, provides $50 million for city and county law enforcement agencies for the purpose of improving officer wellness and expanding mental health sources; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 30 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY adopts a resolution authorizing acceptance of the $32,997.89 Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) 2022-2023 Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant and authorizes the Finance Director to make the following budget appropriation from the General Fund:

1. Appropriate $32,997.89 to the Police Patrol Division operating supplies account [101-210-2120-0000-4205].

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, 4/18/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 31 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library and Museums Director
Prepared by: Francesca Garibaldi, Library and Museums
SUBJECT: Accept and Appropriate $275,635.25 in Grant and Donated Funds to the 2022- 2023 Library Trust Fund Budget and Authorize Increased Purchase Price for Bookmobile (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 accepting the Stronger Together Early Learning Hub Grant funded by the State of California, administered by the California State Library, appropriating $188,700 in grant funds, and appropriate an additional Stronger Together grant in the amount of $8,070.53 to replace the Bookmobile, and $78,847.72 in donated funds from the MPL Friends & Foundation to the 2022-23 Library Trust Fund Budget.

It is also requested that the City Council authorize an increase in the purchase price of the bookmobile, previously authorized in Resolution 22-080, of $8,070.53, the amount of the new grant.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Article 7 of the Monterey City Charter states:

There shall be maintained a library trust fund which shall consist of the present library trust fund together with all gifts, devises or bequests received for the use of the library hereafter and all miscellaneous revenues of the library, except fines. Expenditures from said fund shall be made by the Council for such library purposes as are requested by the Library Board and as are in conformity with the conditions of any such gifts, devises, or bequests.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The recommended action would appropriate $275,635.25 in grant and donated funds to the Library Trust Fund Budget.

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 32 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:

None.

DISCUSSION:

Library & Museums Director Brian Edwards was notified that the Monterey Public Library was awarded a $188,700 Stronger Together Early Learning Hub grant, funded in whole or in part by the State of California, administered by the California State Library (CSL). This project will renovate the children’s area, expand the children’s collection, and includes funding for publicity, and staff training on diversity, equity, and inclusion for ages 0-5 and families. Funds for the project include consultant fees, operating expenses, equipment, and indirect costs. The grant period is January 1, 2023, through February 29, 2024.

The Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation (MPLFF) raised an additional $53,710.72 for the children’s area redesign through Monterey County Gives. The MPLFF donated $15,000 to improve the Library’s terrace and replace outdoor furniture as well as fund a new content management system.

On June 29, 2022 Council adopted Resolution 22-080 and approved the purchase a Mercedes Sprinter Van and authorized an appropriation of $144,000 California State Library “Stronger Together: Improving Library Access” grant funds, and $69,721 from the Monterey Public Library Bookmobile Reserve Fund (Oler Family Trust). Subsequently, an additional $8,087.53 was received for the “Stronger Together: Improving Library Access” grant funded by the State of California for the replacement of the Bookmobile to cover additional upfitting costs for upgraded shelving and installing an awning on the upcoming vehicle. This action would appropriate the $8,087.53 grant and approve the increased cost of the previously authorized bookmobile purchase.

Funds were also received from the California State Library for the ZIP Book program, which allows library cardholders to request one book purchase per month that is not already in the library’s collection. Through the Library’s Pacific Library Partnership membership, funds from the California Library Services Act were provided to purchase select electronic items specific to member libraries.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 33 The Monterey Public Library, in collaboration with numerous local organizations, is hosting Cannery Row Days 2023: Celebrating the Return of the Western Flyer from March 12-April 20, 2023. The Cannery Row Company donated $1,000 to support the Cannery Row Days program.

The Board of Library Trustees requests allocating the foregoing grant and donation funds to the 2022-23 Library Trust Fund Budget.

Attachment: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE GRANT AND DONATED FUNDS TO THE LIBRARY TRUST

FUND AND AUTHORIZE BOOKMOBILE INCREASED PURCHASE PRICE
WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library received and accepted $188,700 from the State of California for the Stronger Together Early Learning Hub Grant through a funding program of the California State Library to redesign the children’s area; WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library received $8,087.53 in additional state funds from the California State Library Stronger Together: Improving Library Access grant towards the purchase of the Bookmobile. The City previously adopted Resolution 22-080 to approve the purchase of one (1) 2022 Mercedes Sprinter Van Bookmobile, and appropriated $213,721 in funds for that purpose. The additional grant will enable upgrades to the bookmobile; WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation donated $68,710.72 and the Cannery Row Company donated $1,000;
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.

WHEREAS, the Board of Library Trustees requested the allocation of the Library funds for the foregoing purposes; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby accepts the “Stronger Together” grants and funds, and directs the Finance Director to make the following appropriations to the Library Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 2022-23:

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Library Trust Fund
Appropriate $275,635.25 for the noted expenditures:

Stronger Together: Early Learning Hub Grant – My Place to Learn $188,700.00 Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 35 2 Monterey County Gives! My Place to Learn $53,710.72
Terrace Furniture Replacement and Improvement; Content
Management System $15,000.00
Bookmobile Grant $8,087.53
E-books $4,717.00
ZIP Books $4,420.00
Cannery Row Days Program $1,000.00
Total $275,635.25

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes an increase to the purchase price previously authorized in Resolution 22-080 for the bookmobile by $8,087.53, and the City Manager, or designee, to execute any contract amendments or other documents required to complete the purchase of the bookmobile.

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, 4/18/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 36 Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director By: Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Directing the Notification to the County Consolidated Oversight Board Regarding the Disposition of Assets in Connection with the Successor Agency’s Dissolution, Directing Dissolution Upon the County Consolidated Oversight Board’s Adoption of the Final Resolution Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34187(e) (Exempt from CEQA Section 15061(b)(3))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the governing board of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Monterey, (the "Successor Agency") adopt a resolution directing the Successor Agency to notify the County Consolidated Oversight Board (“Consolidated Oversight Board’) that the Successor Agency has disposed of all assets and request that the County Consolidated Oversight Board adopt a final resolution approving the dissolution of the Successor Agency (“Notification Resolution”). The Successor Agency’s adoption of the Notification Resolution is the final step that the Successor Agency needs to take to allow the Consolidated Oversight Board to formally dissolve the Successor Agency.

VALUE DRIVER:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Pursuant to Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code, effective February 1, 2012, the Successor Agency was formed to, and charged with, paying the enforceable obligations, disposing of the properties and other assets, and expeditiously unwinding the affairs of the dissolved Redevelopment Agency for the City of Monterey (the "Former Agency"). Approval of the resolution will effectuate this policy goal.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The dissolution of the Successor Agency is for the benefit of all the taxing entities and will result in no further property taxes being allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund as all property tax revenues will be distributed as required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which requires that all revenue from lease payments and any proceeds from any future sale of the Property be treated as restricted Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) program income and must continue to be transferred to the City of Monterey's CDBG program and spent in accordance with the CDBG program requirements.

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based upon a review of the evidence and information presented on the matter as it relates to the dissolution of the Successor Agency, the governing board has determined that such approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this proposal will have a significant impact on the environment.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

No alternatives have been presented.

DISCUSSION:

The Former Agency was formed, existed, and exercised its powers, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment law (California Health and Safety Code section 33000 et seq., the “CRL”). The California state legislature enacted laws in 2012 requiring redevelopment agencies to dissolve.

The Hotel Pacific, located at 300 Pacific Street, City of Monterey, County of Monterey, California (the "Property") was acquired using federal funds in the name of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Monterey, which was later renamed Redevelopment Agency of the City of Monterey.

Though title to the Property remained in the name of the Urban Renewal Agency, the Former Agency owned the Property until it was dissolved, pursuant to the California Dissolution Statutes, at which point the Successor Agency was granted fee title to the Property by operation of law. On April 13, 2022, the State Department of Finance (‘DOF”) sent a letter inquiring on the dissolution status of the Successor Agency.

On November 1, 2022, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 22-146 and accepted the transfer of the Property from the Successor Agency in accordance with DOF approvals. The deed was signed, delivered and recorded on November 7, 2022, as reflected in Monterey County Recorder document 2022047660. However, the Monterey County Assessor’s office rejected the transfer due to the grant deed not referencing the Urban Renewal Agency. A corrected grant deed was signed, delivered and recorded on March 29, 2023 as reflected in Monterey County Recorder document 2023009219.

Therefore, the Successor Agency retired or paid off all the enforceable obligations of the Former Agency and disposed of all real property of the Former Agency, pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 34181 or 34191.4, and confirmed that the Successor Agency has no outstanding litigation.

On November 16, 2022, the Successor Agency, having determined that all dissolution criteria in Section 34187(b) had been met, adopted SA/RDA Resolution 867 to request the Consolidated Oversight Board approve the formal dissolution of the Successor Agency.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34187(e), the Consolidated Oversight Board approved the Successor Agency’s request by adopting Resolution 2023-01 (Attachment 1).

Resolution 2023-01, along with a copy of SA/RDA Resolution 867, was submitted to the DOF for approval.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 The DOF issued its letter, dated March 2, 2023, approving the Consolidated Oversight Board’s approval resolution (Attachment 2).

The adoption of this Notification Resolution is the last step the Successor Agency needs to take to provide notice to the Consolidated Oversight Board of the completion of the final transfer of the Property.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34187(f), upon receipt of the Successor Agency Notification Resolution, the Consolidated Oversight Board shall: (i) verify all of the Successor Agency obligations that have been retired or paid off, all outstanding litigation has been resolved, and all remaining assets have been disposed of; and (ii) within 14 days of verification, adopt a final resolution of dissolution for the Successor Agency, which shall be effective immediately.

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Consolidated Oversight Board Resolution 2023-01

3. DOF letter dated March 2, 2023
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 39 SA/RDA RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

DIRECTING NOTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OVERSIGHT

BOARD REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF ASSETS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY’S DISSOLUTION, DIRECTING DISSOLUTION UPON THE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED OVERSIGHT BOARD’S ADOPTION OF THE FINAL RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34187(e) WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Monterey (the "Former Agency") was formed, existed, and exercised its powers pursuant to the Community Redevelopment law (California Health and Safety Code section 33000 et seq. the "CRL"); WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 34173 of the Health and Safety Code, effective February 1, 2012, the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Monterey, a separate legal entity (the "Successor Agency") was formed to, and charged with, paying the enforceable obligations, disposing of the properties and other assets, and unwinding the affairs of the dissolved Former Agency, a separate legal entity as of June 27, 2012; WHEREAS, Section 34179 (j) of the Health and Safety Code provides for the appointment of a countywide oversight board (the "Countywide Oversight Board") with specific duties to approve certain Successor Agency actions, pursuant to Section 34180 of the Health and Safety Code, and to direct the Successor Agency in certain other actions, pursuant to Section 34181 of the Health and Safety Code;
WHEREAS, under Health and Safety Code Section 34187(b), "when all of the enforceable obligations have been retired or paid off, all real property has been disposed of pursuant to section 34181 or 34191.4, and all outstanding litigation has been resolved, the successor agency shall, within 30 days of meeting the aforementioned criteria, submit to the oversight board a request, with a copy of the request to the county auditor-controller, to formally dissolve the Successor Agency;
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution 22-146 and accepted the transfer of fee title to the Hotel Pacific, located at 300 Pacific Street, City of Monterey, County of Monterey, California (the "Property") from the Successor Agency in accordance with the State Department of Finance (the "Department") approved Long Range Property Management Plan ("LRPMP");
WHEREAS, the deed to the Property was signed, delivered and recorded on November 7, 2022, as reflected in Monterey County Recorder document 2022047660; Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 40 2 WHEREAS, the Monterey County Assessor’s office rejected the transfer due to the grant deed not referencing the Urban Renewal Agency and a corrected grant deed was signed, delivered and recorded on March 29, 2023, as reflected in Monterey County Recorder document 2023009219.

WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has retired or paid off all the enforceable obligations of the Former Agency and all real property has been disposed of, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 34181 or 34191.4, and no litigation is outstanding, thereby satisfying the conditions of Health and Safety Code Section 34187(b);
WHEREAS, the dissolution of the Successor Agency is for the benefit of the taxing entities and will result in no further property taxes being allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, as all property tax revenues will be distributed as required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which requires that all revenue from lease payments and any proceeds from any future sale of the Property be treated as restricted Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) program income and must continue to be transferred to the City of Monterey's CDBG program and spent in accordance with the CDBG program requirements;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based upon a review of the evidence and information presented on the matter as it relates to the dissolution of the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency has determined that such approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this proposal will have a significant impact on the environment;
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2022, the Successor Agency, having determined that all dissolution criteria in Section 34187(b) had been met, adopted SA/RDA Resolution 867 to request the Consolidated Oversight Board approve the formal dissolution of the Successor Agency;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34187(e), the Consolidated Oversight Board approved the Successor Agency’s request by adopting Resolution 2023-01.

Resolution 2023-01, along with a copy of SA/RDA Resolution 867, was submitted to the California State Department of Finance ("DOF”) for approval; WHEREAS, the DOF issued its letter, dated March 2, 2023, approving the Consolidated Oversight Board’s approval resolution;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34187( e), within 100 days after the issuance of the DOF approval, the Successor Agency shall dispose of all remaining assets as directed by the Consolidated Oversight Board;
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 41 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34187( e)(2), the Successor Agency shall send a notification to the Consolidated Oversight Board after completing the transfer of the Property;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 34187(f), upon receipt of the notification, the Consolidated Oversight Board shall: (i) verify all of the Successor Agency's obligations have been retired or paid off, all outstanding litigation has been resolved, and all remaining assets have been disposed of; and ( ii) within 14 days of verification, adopt a final resolution of dissolution for the Successor Agency, which shall be effective immediately; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has no outstanding assets or obligations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby finds, resolves, and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference, and together with information provided by the City and Successor Agency staff and the public, form the basis for the approvals, findings, resolutions, and determinations set forth below:

1. The Successor Agency's governing board hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the taxing entities to dissolve the Successor Agency and that all the conditions set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 34187(b) have been satisfied.

2. The Successor Agency is hereby directed to cause a copy of this Resolution to be submitted to the Consolidated Oversight Board. This Resolution shall serve as notification for the purposes of Health and Safety Code section 34187(e)(2).

3. The Consolidated Oversight Board is hereby requested to adopt a final resolution, without any further action by the Successor Agency.

4. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of the Successor Agency, or designee, to take any further actions on behalf of the Successor Agency, as may be necessary or appropriate, to implement the request and satisfy the requirements of the Dissolution Law. The authorization and direction in this section includes but is not limited to the submittal of this Resolution to the Auditor-Controller in accordance with Section 34187(b), the Consolidated Oversight Board, and the submittal of any documents as may be requested by the Consolidated Oversight Board or the DOF.

5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 42 4 Successor Agency's governing board declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion of this Resolution.

6. The Successor Agency's governing board hereby authorizes and directs the Successor Agency staff to take all actions necessary under the Dissolution Act to file, post, mail or otherwise deliver via electronic mail, internet posting, and/or hardcopy, all notices and transmittals necessary or convenient in connection with the approval of this Resolution.

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

AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS:

NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS:

ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: AGENCY MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Chair of the Successor Agency of the
Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Monterey, California
Secretary of the Successor Agency of the
Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Monterey, California
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 43 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 44 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 45 Transmitted via email
March 2, 2023
Hans Uslar, City Manager
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Approval of Redevelopment Successor Agency Dissolution
The City of Monterey Successor Agency (Agency) notified the California Department of Finance (Finance) of its January 27, 2023 Oversight Board (OB) resolution on January 31, 2023, requesting to dissolve the Agency. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 34187 (d), Finance has completed its review of the OB action.

Based on our review and application of the law, OB Resolution No. 2023-01 approving the dissolution of the Agency, is approved. It is our understanding the Agency has met the conditions per HSC section 34187 (b) as follows:
• All enforceable obligations identified in the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule have been retired or paid off.
• All real property has been disposed pursuant to HSC section 34181 or 34191.4. • All outstanding litigation has been resolved.

Pursuant to HSC section 34187 (e), within 100 days upon receipt of this letter, the Agency shall dispose any remaining assets as directed by the OB and proceeds from asset dispositions are to be transferred to the County-Auditor Controller. In addition, the Agency is to notify the OB of its compliance related to any remaining assets. Upon notification of the Agency’s compliance, and within 14 days of verification, the OB shall submit to Finance a final resolution of the Agency’s dissolution which shall be effective immediately.

This is our determination with respect to the OB action taken.

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 46 Hans Uslar
March 2, 2023

Page 2 ends

Please direct inquiries to Todd Vermillion, Supervisor, or Michael Painter, Staff, at (916) 322-2985.

Sincerely,

JENNIFER WHITAKER
Program Budget Manager
cc: Janna Aldrete, Leasing & Property Manager, City of Monterey Patty Ruiz, Auditor-Controller Analyst I, Monterey County Jennifer Forsyth, Countywide Oversight Board Representative Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 47 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Michael Bruno, Assistant Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Receive Annual Report and Renew the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance – Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10, and Authorize the Acquisition of Additional Military Equipment Including Five Unmanned Aircraft Systems and a Crisis Negotiating Team Command Vehicle (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council find that the military equipment identified in the Monterey Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in the Military Equipment Use Policy; MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment and the Military Equipment Inventory and renew the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance – Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10. Also, to authorize the purchase of additional military equipment, including five unmanned aircraft systems and a Crisis Negotiating Team Command vehicle.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Renewing an ordinance in compliance with state legislation related to the City’s Police Department acquisition and use of military equipment and the related MPD policy is consistent with the City Council’s Value Driver and Quality of Life Strategic Priorities: Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City. Prepare for emergencies and community resiliency.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The financial considerations are listed in the attached Monterey Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report (May 2022 to May 2023), in initial and annual costs. All of these costs are funded through the existing police budget. Additionally, the MPD requests authorization to procure five (5) unmanned aircraft systems with an initial cost of approximately $8,000, and ongoing annual costs of approximately $300, which will be funded through the existing police budget.

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 48 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Without Council approval, the Police Department’s ability to respond to critical incidents would be greatly diminished and would be detrimental to the safety of the public, involved parties, and public safety officers, and would increase the City’s risk exposure.

DISCUSSION:

On September 30, 2021, California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) was signed into law. California Government Code §§ 7070, 7071, and 7072 codify the requirements established by AB 481 for law enforcement’s acquisition, use, and funding of “military equipment.” The information presented in this report explains the Police Department’s compliance with the requirements of AB 481.

In enacting AB 481, the Legislature stated that the public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight. The same applies to the public’s right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.

The bill required law enforcement agencies that seek to continue the use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to receive approval from their governing body prior to May 1, 2022.

On April 19, 2022, the Monterey Police Department provided a council report and presentation related to Assembly Bill 481, MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment and requested the creation of the Military Use and Purchase Ordinance. The Monterey City Council approved MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment and the Military Equipment Inventory with Ordinance 3649 on April 19, 2022.

Government Code § 7072 requires law enforcement agencies that received approval for their military equipment use policy, to submit to their governing body an annual military equipment Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 49 report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

The governing body shall annually review the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting. During its review, the governing body shall consider the annual report and determine whether each type of military equipment has complied with specified standards for approval. Specifically, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(e)(2), the City Council may only approve the renewal of the ordinance if it determines:
(1) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (2) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(3) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (4) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

The MPD has leveraged federal and state grants and asset forfeiture programs through programs such as the Bullet Proof Vest Grant, Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, Citizens’ Option for Public Safety Grant, State Homeland Security Grant, Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant, etc. The federal government also offers what is commonly known as the “1033 Program” to provide surplus military equipment to law enforcement agencies. That being said, the MPD has not applied for or received designated military equipment through the 1033 Program and it does not possess any equipment that it has obtained from the military.

Regardless, some of MPD’s equipment qualifies as “military equipment” under the broad language of the 16 categories defined by Government Code § 7070.

The primary purpose of all equipment purchased by the Police Department is to save civilian lives, protect law enforcement personnel, reduce the risk for the City and enhance public safety.

Some of the items designated by AB 481 as “military equipment” have been in our Police Department’s equipment inventory for many years. Monterey Police Department policies and procedures govern the use, safe handling, storage, and qualification of the specified equipment.

Much of the equipment is part of the de-escalation process of Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT), which involves continuously evaluating the situation to attempt other techniques. The equipment may be used to create cover and distance and allow more time for decision-making processes. This allows the use of less-lethal tactics as part of a range of options to resolve a critical incident without using deadly force. These things allow officers to take in and constantly evaluate the totality of the circumstances, resulting in increased safety and reduced risk for everyone involved.

In addition, the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) requirements for the operation and deployment of this equipment are managed by the Police Department’s Training Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 50 Unit. As new tools are deployed, POST, internal training, vendor-provided training, or crosstraining among surrounding law enforcement agencies are implemented appropriately.

Monterey Police Department Policy 706 - Military Equipment The Police Department’s policy manual (structured on the Lexipol policy manual framework) addresses the appropriate use and deployment of military equipment. Specifically, MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment addresses the required parameters of the law. AB 481 requires law enforcement to publicly release a written policy document governing the use of military equipment. The Monterey City Council approved MPD Policy 706 by way of Monterey City Ordinance 3649 and the policy is posted on the Police Department’s webpage.

The approved Military Equipment Use Policy (Policy 706 – Military Equipment) is attached. This policy includes an inventory of all qualifying equipment as an attachment, divided into three sections and described in more detail below:

Section One – Qualifying equipment owned/utilized by the Monterey Police Department. (California Government Code § 7070(c))
Section Two – Qualifying equipment owned/utilized by law enforcement agencies the MPD collaborates and/or participates with as part of the Monterey Peninsula Special Response Unit (MPRSRU). (California Government Code § 7071(a)(1)(d))
Section Three – Qualifying equipment that the MPD will be procuring if authorized. (California Government Code § 7071(a)(6))
This year, the MPD requests approval to procure the following:
 Category 1 – Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles:
o Request: to purchase five (5) unmanned aircraft systems, also known as drones. o Funding: the unmanned aircraft systems will be funded using the existing MPD approved budget at an approximate total cost of $8,000. o Purposes and authorized use: To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to monitor video feed from UAS cameras of hazardous areas prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.

UAS/Drone/Aerial platforms may be used for search and rescue; suspect apprehension, crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring; identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; and legally authorized surveillance. o Rules that govern use: applicable state and federal laws and MPD Policy 606 – Unmanned Aerial System Operations.
o Required training: Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License (Part 107) and complete training required by FAA COA. Program Supervisor(s) and Commander(s) will attend a California P.O.S.T. UAS Operators Course (48 hours). UAS Pilots will attend a California P.O.S.T. UAS Basic Pilots Course (32 hours). All members of the UAS Team will attend the California POST approved FAA 107 Ground School (8 hours).

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 51  Category 5 - Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units – Crisis Negotiation Team Command Vehicle. (Note – this item was approved by City Council in 2022 as is required if requesting items through grant funding. The UASI grant program is a twoyear process and it is anticipated this item would be procured during FY24). o The MPRSRU Crisis Negotiations Team needs a mobile Negotiations Operations Center in a constant state of operational readiness to aid in the resolution of crisis incidents. The MPD has been working through the Federal UASI Grant Program to be approved for funding of this command vehicle. To proceed, the MPD needs approval from the Council to procure this piece of military equipment.
o Costs - $200,000 reimbursed through the UASI Grant. The vehicle would be procured with City of Monterey funds in FY 24 and fully reimbursed through the UASI grant program. This has been partially approved through UASI but would not be fully approved for procurement by UASI until October 2023. o Purposes and authorized use: This vehicle will provide a designated Negotiations Operations Center (NOC) in a constant state of operational readiness for the MPRSRU Crisis Negotiations Team that will aid in the resolution of crisis incidents. It would also be utilized for community outreach events such as National Night Out, public safety outreach, etc.
o Rules that govern use: MPD Policy 404 – Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit.
o Required training: MPRSRU CNT provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to operate these vehicles. All MPRSRU CNT members are required to complete an initial POST certified 40-hour basic Hostage Negotiation course and 48 hours of annual training.

Monterey Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report (May 2022 to May 2023) The Monterey Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report (May 2022 to May 2023) is attached. This report includes an inventory of all qualifying military equipment as an attachment which mirrors the inventory in MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment, but expands to report about the previous year, as described below.

Annually, the Police Department will prepare and present to the City Council an annual Military Equipment report and post it on the Police Department’s website within 30 days of the City Council meeting, where the following items are reviewed:
 The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment as of the date of the annual report;
 Summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use;  Summary of any concerns or complaints received involving the use of military equipment;
 The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response; Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 52  Total annual cost of each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs; and,  Acquisition plans (including the source of funds) for the coming year, type, and quantity.

DJH/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment

3. Monterey Police Department Annual Military Equipment Report (May 2022 to May 2023)
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 53 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT AND RENEW THE MILITARY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND USE ORDINANCEMONTEREY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 27-10, AND AUTHORIZE

ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT INCLUDING FIVE UNMANNED

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND A CRISIS NEGOTIATING TEAM COMMAND VEHICLE WHEREAS, the Monterey City Council approved the Monterey Police Department Policy 706 – Military Equipment and the Military Equipment Inventory with Ordinance 3649 on April 19, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Report complies with the standards for approval set forth in the Military Equipment Use Policy; MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment and Military Equipment Inventory, and California Government Code Sections 7070, 7071, and 7072 for law enforcement’s acquisition, use, and funding of “military equipment”; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 7072 requires law enforcement agencies that received approval for their military equipment use policy, to submit to their governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The governing body shall review the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance and vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting. During its review, the governing body shall consider the annual report and determine whether each type of military equipment has complied with specified standards for approval; and WHEREAS, the primary purpose of all equipment purchased by the Police Department is to save civilian lives, protect law enforcement personnel, reduce the risk for the City and enhance public safety. Some of the items designated by AB 481 as “military equipment” have been in our Police Department’s equipment inventory for many years. Monterey Police Department policies and procedures govern the use, safe handling, storage, and qualification of the specified equipment. Much of the equipment is part of the de-escalation process of Integrating Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT), which involves continuously evaluating the situation to attempt other techniques. The equipment may be used to create cover and distance and allow more time for decision-making processes. This allows the use of less-lethal tactics as part of a range of options to resolve a critical incident without using deadly force. These things allow officers to take in and constantly evaluate the totality of the circumstances, resulting in increased safety and reduced risk for everyone involved; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(e)(2), the City Council has determined that:
(1) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (2) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 54 2 (3) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (4) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance; 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 the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby renews the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance – Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10 and authorizes the acquisition of additional military equipment including five unmanned aircraft systems and a crisis negotiating team command vehicle.

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, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 55

!
"!
"
#
$% &"
$'

""
&

()

+,-,./01234,5678. 9:;<=;>?2@AB?C>;2
D"#

"

"
E

)

"$
E

$
F#

$
GH
H
" &

$
$%D

I
J
$
"
&
"''
#"
"EF#

$
GGH
H
H
H
$'

'"
&
$

" '

"

)

% H
K%
%
(LMNMDMONP
D"$
"

E'
$
E

""

E

F#

$
GH
H
IJI
J
G H
H
I
JI
KJ"&

$
$"
"
$
$Q RST708,8UVSW1XD

$&$

#
"

% +,-,./01734,5678.X
% Y

$'

$

$#

"% %

*
""

&"*

$I
! J#

"
$
"

"% Z'
#

#
"
"E"

$$
"
#

"
"
E
$
$ E
""&$#"
% [% Z&

"
'

$#

"IZ

\]J

E

$
" Z#

"
'*
$*

*E*

^"E#
*

^"'

$#

"

#
&

$% % D^
$
$#

"

#$
&"

"
$
_

^
$""

$E'

"EE'$

% `%
$
$

#

"

&
$E
$
E

$$

E&"E

"% K% \

_
$E
#
""
"#

"E
^
$% H% a

"""
$&

"
"

"#

% Z'
#

"$
"

$

#
^""&

"
$
$ $
"

$
&

"

"
E
$
$E
""&$#"
% b% L
"E%`
&

%Z'
#
"

$$""
"

"
"
E
$
$E
""&$#"
% c%

E%`
&

%Z'
#
"

$$""
"

" "
E
$
$E
""&$#"
%

%P
_
$E
"
$

E
""

d%`
&

$
""
'

""$
E

$
"

"G[
`

$G[
`
`E

$
'

E"

$$""
"
#
'

"
$

E
""

%`
&

""
$
EE
"

"E'

%
E
E

""

"$
"

$

"#
e

"% Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 56

!"#$

%## &'&&()&()*%+

,
!"-,-./0 1

-"/2
"
--
1

34
5&
)&067
-"1!6!/-/$
-
.1
"
!
-%6!-%6/61

-%6 $

/
!-//%-.

--/"/"
/-0 )809+:3,;:"
<2.%

2.2-%2
-%/"#!,! +
-

=#,+
>0 )*09"?

2
!@

"
?-/"
--

/

-A*' @

"-%611!%6111

%/-

=:B> 2-0 )C0+"4
-/
/1!.
!1/-!
4
//

.-
!"0 )D0E2
"-/
!!"-=)>"!"=)C>%6

34
6/-

/ !
4
/-
!/-"
1 /

/1"7/

?- #!
-

-+!
0 FGHIJKLMNOP B
-"

"1-?"
-/

2
" ".
-
-?Q. /RS'S)2
"-

4
0T-?

4
-"
/-?!/1

2
?%-?%

!"-%/

1
-0 FGHIUVNMNWXYPZ[\NKVZ]WOLLY^N]XWLY 9" "
??

/-
!-"+--
- "
??

4

/
09"--
1
-?"

4

/

/A =>+

!-

-"!.
!1/?-
/"4
-?"
-

0 =1>B/
?
!/4
"4

?
--

4

"
----
?"
%"4
"

/-
4
"4
-.
1"!.
!1/0 =
> /

!
.?

4

-

0 =/>

1
!2
"

/!
"-

4
2
"
" @
-/

=Q. /RS'S)>0 =>
!?%-
"/

!%/
/

!"

!!
!

/A )0 1

_
!"/

-?"
!0 &
!?1

4-
-!/
!"/`-?/
!%
4
-

% /-?4
0 =?>
!"

4
?-1
--
" "
??

/-
!""
-/.

1
"/21-
=Q. /RS'S&>0 =!> /

!"
--?-!
-

%

%4-
1"-??

4
09"
2

-/

0 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 57

!"#$

%## &'&&()&()*%+

,
!"-,-./0 1

-"/2
"
--
1

34
56
+

%

4-

/

7
1"

1/"!"8"1
2

-/"/-9 3

4
:0! ;19"-9((22200!(

(

(
-
/</(
/
-<<

-0" ="9>?6)@A*A56?6' =

B+9

34
C- /
B6D) /
-E%% +F6F*' GHIJKLMMNOPLQ R"
-

%/-1-4/-%2

1
"/21-

- 6'/-
1

"
!

!"

4

--0S
"
)%&'&&%"
-

1-1
/"

8.
%/2

88

8

-./2
"
)?'/-8-1
--
0+.
8"
-

-1-4 /-4
-/
1/

---
8!

!.
/
! 81

0R"/2

--8

4

8
--%"

8
--%
-./0+./

4
-

-4
/
!!
!
8"8

2
!>T. /UV'V)@9 >@,4-
!

4
/.

1
-)'CE U&DVA0 >1@EW
!8/-8

4
%

/
!1

/

!8!% -

!
.%

%-%8/
8/-%
5W
//
-%" /
--8-0 >
@ +
4

!

4

"

/
!112
!
-
!0 >/@

1
!2
""
28
!

"/
"-8

4
2
"
"X
-/

8"
-/0 >@C-
!2$
-
!

4
8-%
%1- .
-
./1"!.
!1/0 >8@ E

!-/
!-
8%
!
!2
"%" -
-W8/-8%

.%
4
%-%

1
" -8

4
0 >!@+
4

!

4
"!"-.
//1.0 GHIJYZOON[\]L^\O]_\^`O^`aNbcN\d[\Z^\O]d

4
-/1"X
-/

-.
/
!
/
-"

2
""
-

.

4
-

-0

-

!18"
-
,!

E

,--C
> ,E,C@

1
2
""
28
!

-"
-
0 ,E,C.
/-
1

-//---

8
2 8

---%-
"-

.-"

/-%"-!-

-%1

//-1X
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 58

!"#$

%## &'&&()&()*%+

,
!"-,-./0 1

-"/2
"
--
1

34
5*

/-%
0

-

1-/26-2
"" 7"
889-
/"

%-/8/

28
!

-".
/
/
0 4
2/1":
-/

-"1-/1 ,7,;
-
/"
89-:
-/

-/
7

<28"

34
=.0

- "
>/-"

4

2
" ,7,;

.

-(---0 ?@ABACDDECFGHIJGK
L
"
8.
8"

4
-

"8%" "
88

""
>//-
!2

-1

4
8
" 8./

4
8-
!-"

4

-.

1
8-0<"

4
2

1
"/21-
8-
! -"

4

-.

1
8-0<"-"

8
4
/1 M. /NO'O&8"
/
!

/8
"8

4
0 ?@AB?PJQQEDRKSHDTCTHQHDK L
"
U'/-8-1

!/1

-
!"
%"
-"

"
/
-2

>//
.

/

!!
!%2"

" "1

/
-
--/-64-
-!/
!"8/
!%
4
-

%-8

4
0 ?@ABVQRFRKCGSHWERIQHDKRDXHDKJGS
<"
"/

-
-/
.
//
"-

-0 Y 7

Z5

--4

8
!4
"
-2//(

>/1"

0 7
"[
O'\7
)5
34
Z2/Z0/8 Y 7

<25

--4

8
!4
"
-2/1"

%12"

"
-6212//(

>/1
28
!

-2"

1-/(

-2
" -8"
-
,!

7

,--;
] ,7,;^8
2 8
--0 7
"[
O'\57
&5 ,7,;34
Z2/Z0/8 Y 7

<"5

--4

8
!4
""

1

!%2
"

//-8
0 7
"[
O'\57
U5
7,;34

0/8
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 59 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition
Quantity
(existing/sought): 53 (existing)
Capabilities: The Colt/Spikes Tactical semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's
description:

The Colt/Spikes Tactical features the railed forend. The rail system features the patented bolt‐up attachment system. The Colt/Spikes Tactical semiautomatic rifle is unmatched in size, weight, and performance. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized
Use:

Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:
(1) Situations where the member reasonably anticipates an armed encounter. (2) When a member is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range. (3) Situations where a member reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower. (4) When a member reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.
(5) When a member reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor. (6) When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
(7) When needed to euthanize an animal.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost: Approximately $115,000
Annual costs: Approximately $6,000 (ammunition, repair parts, batteries, etc.) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: CA Penal Code 33220(b). All other applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing short‐barreled rifles and police use of force.

Procedural: MPD Policies ‐ 300 (Use of Force), 306 (Firearms), 412 (Rapid Response and Deployment) (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy
Required training: CA POST certified 16‐hour patrol rifle course & 4 hours annually / qualification annually Other Notes:

These rifles are standard issue service weapons for MPD officers and as a result exempted from the Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document for transparency.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 60 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity (existing/sought): 15 (existing)
Capabilities: The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 40mm Kinetic Energy Munitions, known as sponge projectiles.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

Penn Arms 40mm Multi‐Shot launchers are manufactured using 4140 hardened steel, 6061‐T6 mil‐spec anodized aluminum, and DuPont super tough glass‐filled nylon. These launchers are lightweight, versatile, and used worldwide by police and corrections officers. The 40mm launcher is available in both pump‐action advance and single shot versions.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less‐lethal use of force option.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost: $41,000
Annual costs: $6,000 (includes sponge projectiles for training) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:   MPD Policies ‐ 306 (Firearms), 303 (Control Devices and Techniques) (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy
Required training:   Two (2) hours of initial training and (2) hours every (2) years (includes qualification) Other: MPD has two (2) pump‐action 40mm multi‐shot launchers and thirteen (13) single shot launcher Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 61 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Remington 870 Shotgun and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity (existing/sought): 14 (existing)
Capabilities:   The shotgun Less Lethal platform is capable of firing CSI “Super‐Sock” Kinetic Energy Munitions, which are fiber bean bag projectiles.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The Remington Shotgun is milled from a single block of steel.  The stock and fore grip are comprised of fiberglass‐reinforced polymer with a rubber over‐molding.   This shotgun is a U.S.‐made pump‐ action shotgun.  The magazine tube holds 6 less‐lethal rounds. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The shotgun Less Lethal platform and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less‐lethal use of force option.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $7,000
Annual costs:   $1,500 (includes fiber bean bag projectiles) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Less Lethal Shotguns are painted orange to signify the use as a less‐lethal device. The MPD does not utilize shotgun ammunition that is designed for lethal purposes.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 62 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: 37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Quantity (existing/sought): 2 (existing)
Capabilities:

The 37mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing barricade penetrating “OC” rounds which disperse .02 ounces of OC powder into a defined space. These munitions are designed to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas.

Expected lifespan:   15 years
Manufacturer's description: The Federal 37 mm Less Lethal Launcher is a single‐shot break‐open platform designed to fire 37mm less lethal oleoresin capsicum munitions.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 37mm Less Lethal Launchers and “OC” Munitions are intended for use as a less‐lethal use of force option.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $3,000
Annual costs:   $100 (includes munitions)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force and crowd control.

Only Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit (MPRSRU) trained personnel and Less Lethal Instructors are authorized to use this Less Lethal launcher. All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 63 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: The Larue OBR AR‐10 is a semiautomatic rifle capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet.

Quantity (existing/sought): 1 (existing)
Capabilities: The Larue OBR AR‐10 is a semiautomatic rifle capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The LaRue OBR (Optimized Battle Rifle) was built from the ground up, using a newly designed upper‐receiver platform, combined with a lower, inspired from our successful 5.56 MM lower. Both the upper and lower are CNC‐machined from billet, for the optimum fit and consistency. The receiver components are designed with more material in critical areas to alleviate known issues of weakness in 7.62 platforms and to stiffen the receiver, translating into maximum accuracy. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

This rifle is authorized for use by Precision Rifle/Observer SWAT Operator(s) only. It is deployed in conjunction with the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team during high‐ risk incidents.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost: $10,000 (includes scope and other accessories) Annual costs: $2,000 (includes ammunition and cleaning supplies) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:

MPD Policies ‐ 300 (Use of Force), 306 (Firearms), 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit), 412 (Rapid Response and Deployment)
(5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy
Required training:

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually. MPRSRU Precision Rifle/Observers must also complete a 40 Post certified SWAT precision rifle/observer course and attend 120 hours of training annually.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 64 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Desert Tech SRS M2 Precision Rifle
Quantity (existing/sought): 1 (existing)
Capabilities: The Desert Tech SRS M2 is a bolt action rifle capable of firing a .308 caliber projectile bullet.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The SRS‐M2 adds the ability to make fast and easy adjustments to accessories mounted on the forearm through the integrated Area 419 Arcalock rail. The full‐length 30 MOA tapered top rail minimizes optical visual displacement when moving between day and night scopes. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

This rifle is authorized for use by Precision Rifle/Observer SWAT Operator(s) only. It is deployed in conjunction with the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team during high‐ risk incidents.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost: $10,000 (rifle, scope, attachments/equipment) Annual costs: $2,000 (includes ammunition and cleaning supplies) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:

Other: N/A
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 65 SECTION ONE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: FN SPR Precision Rifle
Quantity (existing/sought): 1 (existing)
Capabilities: The FN SPR is a bolt action rifle capable of firing a .308 caliber projectile bullet.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

All A5 M barrels are MIL‐SPEC cold hammer‐forged, fluted and have a hard‐chromed bore. These rifles excel at long‐range target shooting and tactical competition. The A5M has a detachable box magazine (DBM) in 308 Winchester models. The one‐piece steel MIL‐STD‐1913 optical rail has an additional 20 MOA of elevation built in. The fully adjustable matte black McMillan™ fiberglass stock offers a close‐radius upright grip, textured gripping surfaces, undercut buttstock profile, semi‐wide tapered fore‐end, adjustable comb and four flush mounting points for slings plus a steel bipod stud.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

This rifle is authorized for use by Precision Rifle/Observer SWAT Operator(s) only. It is deployed in conjunction with the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team during high‐ risk incidents.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost: $10,000 (rifle, scope, attachments/equipment) Annual costs: $2,000 (includes ammunition and cleaning supplies) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:

Other: N/A
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 66 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category Govt Code §7070(c): (1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered arial and ground vehicles Quantity (existing/sought):
0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team and Sheriff's Bomb Squad)
Capabilities:

Vehicles are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Expected lifespan: 5 years
Manufacturer's description:

Remotely operated land vehicles to support various mission areas such as explosive device remediation, hazardous materials operations, tactical law enforcement operations, search & rescue, and surveillance/detection. Examples include, but are not limited to rovers, scout vehicles, and surveillance platforms. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) comprises an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. The system generally includes a fixed or rotary‐wing (tethered or non‐thethered) aircraft and a ground control station.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to monitor video feed from vehicle cameras of hazardous areas prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.  Remotely piloted ground vehicles may be used to investigate and mitigate potential explosive devices.   UAS/Drone/Arial platforms may be used for search and rescue; suspect apprehension crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring; identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; legally authorized surviellance.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:

All applicable State, Federal and Local laws. Any use of UAS/Drone platforms will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.

Procedural: MPD Policies ‐ 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy
Required training:

MPRSRU SWAT Team provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to operate the ground vehicle equipment. All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually. Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License and complete training required by FAA COA.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team (MPRSRU). The Monterey County Sheriff's Office also provides the regional explosive mitigation team "bomb squad." This equipment is owned and operated by MPRSRU SWAT and the Monterey County Sheriff's Department. While the Monterey Police Department does not own this equipment, it could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU SWAT or the Monterey County Sheriff's Department if they are deployed to an incident within city limits.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 67 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one‐half‐ton trucks, five‐ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all‐terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: MPRSRU Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle) Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Capable of transporting personnel and equipment while providing them with armored protection. Also has a breaching apparatus that can be attached.

Expected lifespan: 10 years
Manufacturer's description:

The Lenco BearCat is the standard tactical armored vehicle for special operations units within the US Law Enforcement community. Since the early 2000s, agencies such as LAPD, LASD SEB, NYPD ESU, Boston PD and hundreds of Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement agencies have made the BearCat part of their standard operating procedure. The Bearcat has excellent on‐road driving characteristics and maneuverability in tight urban settings. The large floor plan seats 10 – 12 fully equipped officers.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

The SRU Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle) is intended for use during critical incidents including, but not limited to: (a) Hostage situations; (b) Barricaded subject incidents; (c) Active shooter situations; (d) High risk arrest and search warrants; (e) Any threat of explosive devices; (f) Other situations where ballistic protection is necessary for the protection of personnel. The SRU Rescue Vehicle will not be deployed for situations such as peaceful protests or demonstrations where violence is not threatened toward the public, property or law enforcement personnel. When deploying the vehicle one must consider how its use or misuse could create fear or distrust in the community and take steps to mitigate those negative effects.  The SRU Rescue vehicle may be deployed for exhibition at community based events for the purpose of educating and familiarizing the public with its use and purpose. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws.

The SRU Rescue Vehicle is driven by approved personnel who have received training in the vehicle’s operation. The training includes both classroom and practical driving exercises.

Operators also receive scenario based training to include the decision making process as to how it should and should not be deployed. Scenario based training includes constitutional and community policing principles as it relates to SRU Rescue Vehicle deployment. All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST Certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team (MPRSRU). This equipment is registered to the Marina Police Depatment and utilized by MPRSRU SWAT. It could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU SWAT if they are deployed to an incident within city limits. It may also be used in Monterey at community events for educational and familiarization purposes.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 21, Packet Page 68 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Workhorse commercial van
Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Vehicles modified to facilitate the control and direction of public safety units.

Expected lifespan:   Unknown
Manufacturer's description: Unavailable
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: Workspace for commanding/supervising personnel during critical incidents.  Also utilized for community outreach events such as National Night Out, Public Safety Outreach, etc. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws.

MPRSU SWAT Team provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to operate these vehicles. All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team (MPRSRU). This equipment is registered to the Seaside Police Department and operated by MPRSRU SWAT. While the Monterey Police Department does not own this equipment, it could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU SWAT if they are deployed to an incident within city limits.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 22, Packet Page 69 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service‐issued handheld pepper spray (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment Description: Flashbang grenades, explosive breaching tools, tear gas and pepper balls Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry, creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemical.

Expected lifespan: Unknown
Manufacturer's description:

Defense Technology® offers a complete range of less lethal products and solutions to law enforcement professionals. A full‐line manufacturer, Defense Technology’s premier product lines are grouped into five categories including aerosols, impact munitions, distraction devices, chemical munitions and launchers. We are committed to manufacturing the safest possible products and providing comprehensive training for detectives, patrol and tactical officers.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: Breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry, creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemicals.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws.

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 10 hours annually.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team (MPRSRU). This equipment is owned and operated by MPRSRU SWAT. While the Monterey Police Department does not own this equipment, it could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU SWAT if they are deployed to an incident within city limits.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 23, Packet Page 70 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment Description: Remington 870 Breaching Shotgun
Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun modified with pistol grip and barrel standoff designed for breaching doors or other points of entry.

Expected lifespan: Unknown
Manufacturer's description:

A breaching shotgun can be deployed any time tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a lawful breaching, and other breaching methods are determined to be ineffective. Shotgun breaching generally needs to be supported by exigent circumstances necessitating immediate access for public safety. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐ annually. MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Other:

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 24, Packet Page 71 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment Description: 37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: The 37mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing barricade penetrating “OC” rounds which disperse .02 ounces of OC powder into a defined space. These munitions are designed to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas.

Expected lifespan:   15 years
Manufacturer's description: The Federal 37 mm Less Lethal Launcher. Is a single‐shot break‐open platform designed to fire 37mm less lethal oleoresin capsicum munitions.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 37mm Less Lethal Launchers and “OC” Munitions are intended for use as a less‐lethal use of force option.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Other:

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 25, Packet Page 72 SECTION TWO ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE MPD COLLABORATES AND/OR

PARTICIPATES WITH AS PART OF THE MPRSRU FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment Description: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity (existing/sought): 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 40mm Kinetic Energy Munitions, known as sponge projectiles
Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

Penn Arms 40mm Multi‐Shot launchers are manufactured using 4140 hardened steel, 6061‐ T6 mil‐spec anodized aluminum, and DuPont super tough glass‐filled nylon. These launchers are lightweight, versatile, and used worldwide by police and corrections officers. The 40mm launcher is available in both pump‐action advance and single shot versions (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less‐ lethal use of force option.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual costs:   $0 (not maintained by MPD)
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:   All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi‐annually.

MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit SWAT Team (MPRSRU). This equipment is registered to the Sand City Police Department for use by MPRSRU SWAT. While the Monterey Police Department does not own this equipment, it could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU SWAT if they are deployed to an incident within city limits.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 26, Packet Page 73 SECTION THREE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT THAT THE MPD WILL BE PROCURING WITH ANTICIPATED DATES OF PROCUREMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment Description: LDV Inc. Custom Specialty Vehicles ‐ Crisis Negotiation Team Command Vehicle Quantity (existing/sought): 1 (sought to be owned by MPD and utilized by MPRSRU ‐ CNT) Capabilities: Vehicles modified to act as Negotiations Operations Center at critical incidents.

Expected lifespan: 20 Years
Manufacturer's description: 2022 Ford E‐450 Cutaway ‐ Emergency Response Vehicle ‐ Mobile Command Vehicle (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

This vehicle will provide a designated Negotiations Operations Center (NOC) in a constant state of operational readiness for the MPRSRU Crisis Negotiations Team (CNT) that will aid in the resolution of crisis incidents. Also utilized for community outreach events such as National Night Out, Public Safety Outreach, etc.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:
$200,000 initial outlay to be reimbursed through the Homeland Security Grant Program ‐ Urban Areas Security Initiative. This vehicle would not be procured until October 2023 in FY 24. *Note:

Item was approved by the Monterey City Council by Ordinance 3649 in 2022.

Annual costs: $2,500 / year maintenance and upkeep
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws.

MPRSU CNT team provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to operate these vehicles. All MPRSRU CNT members are required to complete an initial POST certified 40 hour basic Hostage Negotiation course AND 48 hours of annual training.

Other:

The Monterey Police Department participates in the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit CNT Team (MPRSRU). This equipment will be registered to the Monterey Police and operated by MPRSRU CNT. This equipment could be used in Monterey by MPRSRU CNT if they are deployed to an incident within city limits.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 27, Packet Page 74 SECTION THREE ‐ QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT THAT THE MPD WILL BE PROCURING WITH ANTICIPATED DATE OF PROCUREMENT AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c): (1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles (1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment
Description: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Quantity (existing/sought): 5 (4 DJI Air 2s and 1 DJI Mavic 3 Thermal) Capabilities: UAS are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Expected lifespan: 5 Years
Manufacturer's description:

DJI Air 2s features a 1‐inch CMOS sensor, powerful autonomous functions, and a compact body weighing less than 21 oz., DJI Air 2S is the ultimate drone for creators on the move. Take this all‐in‐one aerial powerhouse along anywhere to experience and record your world in stunning detail.

Designed to support enterprise‐level missions and projects, the DJI Mavic 3 Thermal is an ideal solution for first responder applications. The drone is extremely compact and lightweight, can be quickly unfolded and deployed at a moment's notice, and is capable of up to 45 minutes of flight time. The Mavic 3 Thermal features wide‐angle, telephoto, and thermal lenses in its 3‐axis gimbal camera. The 20MP wide lens is ideal for taking expansive shots and rapid surveying, the 12MP tele gets you close with a 56x hybrid zoom, and the thermal camera makes it easier to carry out inspections and search and rescue missions.

Long‐range O3 transmission, omnidirectional obstacle avoidance. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to monitor video feed from UAS cameras of hazardous areas prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.   UAS/Drone/Ariel platforms may be used for search and rescue; suspect apprehension, crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring; identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; legally authorized surveillance.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment
Initial cost:   $8,000 to be purchased in FY23
Annual costs:   $300 (batteries, propellers, and other parts) (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use Legal:

All applicable State, Federal and Local laws. Any use of UAS/Drone platforms will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. All drone operators will be FAA Part 107 certified.

Procedural: MPD Policies – 606 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy
Required training:

Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone, staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License (Part 107) and complete training required by FAA COA. Program Supervisor(s) and Commander(s) will attend a California P.O.S.T. UAS Operators Course (48 hours). UAS Pilots will attend a California P.O.S.T. UAS Basic Pilots Course (32 hours). All members of the UAS Team will attend the California POST approved FAA 107 Ground School (8 hours).

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 28, Packet Page 75 1 | P a g e
Monterey Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
(May 2022 to May 2023)
California Government Code §§ 7070, 7071, and 7072
On September 30, 2021, California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) was signed into law. California Government Code §§ 7070, 7071, and 7072 codify the requirements established by AB 481 for law enforcement’s acquisition, use, and funding of “military equipment.”
In enacting AB 481, the Legislature stated the public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight. The same applies to the public’s right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.

The bill required law enforcement agencies that seek to continue the use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to receive approval from their governing body prior to May 1, 2022. The Monterey City Council approved MPD Policy 706 – Military Equipment and the Military Equipment Inventory by ordinance (3649). The policy and inventory list are located on the Monterey Police Department’s website – www.montereypolice.org.

California Government Code § 7072 requires law enforcement agencies to prepare annually, a Military Equipment Report. The annual Military Equipment Report is required to contain the following.  A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use;  A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment;  The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response;
 The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report;
 The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment; and  If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

This annual Military Equipment Report satisfies the reporting requirements outlined in California Government Code § 7072.

A complaint, concern or question related to Military Equipment utilization by the Monterey Police Department can be made through any of the below listed methods:

Email: [email protected]
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 29, Packet Page 76 2 | P a g e
Web:https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/police/inside_mpd/commendations_or_complaints.php By phone: (831) 646-3830
By mail: Monterey Police Department; Attn: Military Equipment Use Coordinator; 351 Madison Street, Monterey, CA 93940
The following is a summary of the Military Equipment owned and maintained by the Monterey Police Department as defined by California Government Code §7070:

Item Quantity Owned Gov’t Code Subsection
Semi Automatic Rifles
53 7070(c)(10)
Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun
14 7070(c)(14)
40mm Less Lethal Launcher
15 7070(c)(14)
37mm Less Lethal Launcher
2 7070(c)(14)
Larue OBR AR-10 Semi Automatic Rifle
1 7070(c)(10)
FN SPR Precision Rifle
1 7070(c)(10)
LDV – Crisis Negotiation Team Command Vehicle
0 7070(c)(5)
The following is a summary of the Military Equipment used by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit. The Monterey Police Department does not own or maintain this equipment; however, the military equipment may be used by members of the MPRSU (SWAT) during a critical incident in the City of Monterey. (California Government Code §7071(a)(1)(D) Item Gov’t Code Subsection
Unmanned, Remotely Piloted, Powered Ground Vehicle
7070(c)(1)
7071(a)(1)(D)
Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle)
7070(c)(3)
7071(a)(1)(D)
Workhorse Commercial Van
7070(c)(5)
7071(a)(1)(D)
Flashbang Grenades, Explosive Breaching Tools, Tear
Gas, and Pepper Balls
7070(c)(12)
7071(a)(1)(D)
Remington 870 Breaching Shotgun
7070(c)(10)
7071(a)(1)(D)
37mm Less lethal Launcher
7070(c)(10)
7071(a)(1)(D)
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 30, Packet Page 77 3 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE §7070(c)(10)
Description: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition
Quantity: 53
Capabilities: The Colt/Spikes Tactical semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The Colt/Spikes Tactical features the railed forend. The rail system features the patented bolt-up attachment system. The Colt/Spikes Tactical semiautomatic rifle is unmatched in size, weight, and performance.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Initial cost: Approximately $115,000
Annual costs: Approximately $6,000 (ammunition, repair parts, batteries, etc.) Legal: CA Penal Code 33220(b). All other applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing short-barreled rifles and police use of force
Procedural: MPD Policies - 300 (Use of Force), 306 (Firearms), 412 (Rapid Response and Deployment)
Required training:

CA POST certified 16-hour patrol rifle course & 4 hours annually / qualification annually Other Notes:

These rifles are standard issue service weapons for MPD officers and as a result exempted from the Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10).

They have been included in this document for transparency.

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 31, Packet Page 78 4 | P a g e
Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition
Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

The rifles were deployed within the guidelines set force in MPD Policy 306. Within the past 12 months, MPD officers have used their patrol rifle on two occasions to euthanize severely injured animals that were struck by vehicles.

Over the past 12 months, MPD officers deployed the rifle, but not fired, in the following circumstances:
(1) Situations where the officer reasonably anticipated an armed encounter. (2) When an officer was faced with a situation that required accurate and effective fire at long range.
(3) Situations where an officer reasonably expected the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: The MPD conducted an audit of the equipment and accounted for all the rifles. There were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0 (no new rifles were acquired)
Training: $6,000 (ammunition, targets, magazines, etc.) Other: $500 (parts, e.g. batteries, other spare parts)
Funding Source: Police Budget
Quantity: 53
Intention to acquire more: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 32, Packet Page 79 5 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(14)
Description: Remington 870 Shotgun and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity: 14
Capabilities: The shotgun Less Lethal platform is capable of firing CSI “Super-Sock” Kinetic Energy Munitions, which are fiber bean bag projectiles
Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The Remington Shotgun is milled from a single block of steel. The stock and fore grip are comprised of fiberglass-reinforced polymer with a rubber over-molding. This shotgun is a U.S.-made pump-action shotgun. It holds 6 less-lethal rounds.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The shotgun Less Lethal platform and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less-lethal use of force option
Initial cost: $7,000
Annual costs: $1,500 (includes fiber bean bag projectiles) Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force Procedural: MPD Policies - 306 (Firearms), 303 (Control Devices and Techniques) Required training:

Two hours of initial training and two (2) hours every two (2) years (includes qualification)
Other:

Once the single-shot 40mmn less lethal launchers are rotated into service, these lesslethal shotguns will be retired and removed from the MPD’s inventory Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Remington 870 Shotgun and Kinetic Energy Munitions
Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

This equipment is used primarily in situations where officers encounter a subject armed with a weapon other than a firearm. The less lethal munitions are used to disarm violent individuals from a safe distance. The less lethal shotguns were deployed in calls for service consistent with their use, but were not discharged.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: The MPD conducted an audit of the equipment and accounted for all of the Remington 870 less lethal shotguns. There were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0 (no new shotguns were acquired)
Training: $1,500
Others: $0
Funding Source: Police Budget
Quantity: 14
Intention to acquire more: No
Note: Once the 40mm less lethal launchers are rotated into service, the less lethal shotguns will be retired from service
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 33, Packet Page 80 6 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(14)
Description: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions Quantity: 15
Capabilities: The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 40mm Kinetic Energy Munitions, known as sponge projectiles
Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

Penn Arms 40mm Multi-Shot launchers are manufactured using 4140 hardened steel, 6061-T6 mil-spec anodized aluminum, and DuPont super tough glass-filled nylon. These launchers are lightweight, versatile, and used worldwide by police and corrections officers. The 40mm launcher is available in both pump-action and single shot versions.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less-lethal use of force option
Initial cost: $41,000
Annual costs: $6,000 (includes sponge projectiles for training) Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force Procedural: MPD Policies - 306 (Firearms), 303 (Control Devices and Techniques) Required training: Two (2) hours of initial training and (2) hours every (2) years (includes qualification) Other:

MPD has two (2) pump-action 40mm multi-shot launchers and thirteen (13) single shot launcher; one less lethal launcher for each patrol vehicle. The single shot launchers will replace the less lethal shotguns.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:
40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

In February 2023, the 40mm less lethal launcher was deployed and used against an individual threatening officers with an axe. The subject eventually dropped the axe and was taken into custody.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: The MPD conducted an audit of the equipment and accounted for all of the 40mm less lethal launchers. There were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0.00 (no new 40mm less lethal launchers were acquired) Training: $3,000
Others: $0
Funding Source: Police Budget
Quantity: 15
Intention to acquire more: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 34, Packet Page 81 7 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(14)
Description: 37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Quantity: 2
Capabilities:

The 37mm Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing barricade penetrating “OC” rounds of OC powder into a defined space. They are designed to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description: The Federal 37 mm Less Lethal Launcher is a single-shot break-open platform designed to fire 37mm less lethal oleoresin capsicum munitions
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: They are intended for use as a less-lethal use of force option Initial cost: $3,000
Annual costs: $100 (includes munitions)
Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force and crowd control
Procedural: MPD Policies - 306 (Firearms), 303 (Control Devices and Techniques) Required training: Two (2) hours of initial training and two (2) hours every two (2) years Other: Only Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit (MPRSRU) trained personnel and Less Lethal Instructors are authorized to use this Less Lethal launcher.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:
37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

The 37mm less lethal launcher and “OC” munition is used for firing penetrating “OC” rounds of “OC” powder into a defined space. They are designed to dislodge barricaded subjects from confined areas. The MPD did not use the 37mm less lethal launcher.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: The MPD conducted an audit of the equipment and accounted for all of the 37mm launchers. There were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0 (no new 37mm less lethal launchers were acquired) Training: $100 (munitions)
Others: $0
Funding Source: Police Budget
Quantity: 3
Intention to acquire more: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 35, Packet Page 82 8 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(10)
Description: The Larue OBR AR-10 is a semiautomatic rifle capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet.

Quantity: 1
Capabilities: The Larue OBR AR-10 is a semiautomatic rifle capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

The LaRue OBR (Optimized Battle Rifle) was built using a newly designed upper-receiver platform, combined with a lower, inspired from our successful 5.56 MM lower. Both the upper and lower are CNC-machined from billet, for the optimum fit and consistency. The receiver components are designed with more material in critical areas to alleviate known issues of weakness in 7.62 platforms and to stiffen the receiver, for maximum accuracy.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Initial cost: $10,000 (includes scope and other accessories) Annual costs: $2,000 (includes ammunition and cleaning supplies) Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:

MPD Policies - 300 (Use of Force), 306 (Firearms), 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit), 412 (Rapid Response and Deployment) Required training:

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training biannually. MPRSRU Precision Rifle/Observers must also complete a 40 Post certified SWAT precision rifle/observer course and attend 120 hours of training annually.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

The Larue OBR AR-10 is a semiautomatic rifle capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: The MPD conducted an audit of the equipment and accounted for the rifle. There were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0 (no additional rifles were acquired)
Training: $1,000 (ammunition)
Other: $1,000 (cleaning supplies, optic batteries, parts) Funding Source: Police Budget (Training)
Quantity: 1
Intention to acquire more: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 36, Packet Page 83 9 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT OWNED/UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(10)
Description: FN SPR Precision Rifle
Quantity: 1
Capabilities: The FN SPR is a bolt action rifle capable of firing a .308 caliber projectile bullet.

Expected lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's description:

All A5 M barrels are MIL-SPEC cold hammer-forged, fluted and have a hard-chromed bore.

The A5M has a detachable box magazine (DBM) in 308 Winchester models. The one-piece steel MIL-STD-1913 optical rail has an additional 20 MOA of elevation built in. The fully adjustable matte black McMillan™ fiberglass stock offers a close-radius upright grip, textured gripping surfaces, undercut buttstock profile, semi-wide tapered fore-end, adjustable comb and four flush mounting points for slings plus a steel bipod stud.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: This rifle is authorized for use by Precision Rifle/Observer SWAT Operator(s) only and is deployed during high-risk incidents
Initial cost: $10,000 (rifle, scope, attachments/equipment) Annual costs: $2,000 (includes ammunition and cleaning supplies) Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force.

Procedural:

MPD Policies - 300 (Use of Force), 306 (Firearms), 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit), 412 (Rapid Response and Deployment) Required training:

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

FN SPR Precision Rifle
Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

Complaints or Concerns:

Total Annual Cost:

Acquisition: $0 (no additional rifles were acquired)
Training: $1,000 (ammunition)
Other: $1,000 (cleaning supplies, optic batteries, parts) Funding Source: Police Budget
Quantity: 1
Intention to acquire more: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 37, Packet Page 84 10 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES § 7070(c)(1) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial and ground vehicles Quantity:
0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team and Sheriff's Bomb Squad)
Capabilities:

Vehicles are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Expected lifespan: 5 years
Manufacturer's Description:

Remotely operated land vehicles to support various mission areas such as explosive device remediation, hazardous materials operations, tactical law enforcement operations, search & rescue, and surveillance/detection. Examples include, but are not limited to rovers, scout vehicles, and surveillance platforms. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) comprises an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. The system generally includes a fixed or rotary-wing (tethered or non-tethered) aircraft and a ground control station.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Initial Cost: $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual Costs: $0 (not maintained by MPD)
Legal:

All applicable State, Federal and Local laws. Any use of UAS/Drone platforms will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.

Procedural: MPD Policies - 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) Required Training:

MPRSRU SWAT Team provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to operate the ground vehicle equipment. All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi-annually. Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License and complete training required by FAA COA.

Other:

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 38, Packet Page 85 11 | P a g e
Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial and ground vehicles Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

In February 2023, a suspect in Monterey battered an employee at a market and assaulted a delivery driver with a deadly weapon. The suspect barricaded himself inside the business. An unmanned robot was prepped for deployment but was never deployed because the suspect surrendered.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team and Sheriff's Bomb Squad)
Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 39, Packet Page 86 12 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES §7070(c)(3) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: MPRSRU Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle) AB 481 Category
Govt Code §7070(c):
(3) High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Capable of transporting personnel and equipment while providing them with armored protection. Also has a breaching apparatus that can be attached.

Expected Lifespan: 10 years
Manufacturer's Description:

The large floor plan seats 10 – 12 fully equipped officers.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

The SRU Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle) is intended for use during critical incidents including, but not limited to: (a) Hostage situations; (b) Barricaded subject incidents; (c) Active shooter situations; (d) High risk arrest and search warrants; (e) Any threat of explosive devices; (f) Other situations where ballistic protection is necessary for the protection of personnel. The SRU Rescue Vehicle will not be deployed for situations such as peaceful protests or demonstrations where violence is not threatened toward the public, property or law enforcement personnel. When deploying the vehicle one must consider how its use or misuse could create fear or distrust in the community and take steps to mitigate those negative effects. The SRU Rescue vehicle may be deployed for exhibition at community based events for the purpose of educating and familiarizing the public with its use and purpose.

Initial Cost: $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual Costs: $0 (not maintained by MPD)
Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws
Procedural: MPD Policies - 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) Required Training:

The SRU Rescue Vehicle is driven by approved personnel who have received training in the vehicle’s operation. The training includes both classroom and practical driving exercises.

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 40, Packet Page 87 13 | P a g e
Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

MPRSRU Rescue Vehicle (Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle)
Summary of how the
military equipment was used
and the purpose of its use:

In February 2023, a suspect in Monterey battered an employee at a market and assaulted a delivery driver with a deadly weapon. The suspect barricaded himself inside the business.

The Lenco Bearcat Armored Vehicle was deployed and a PA system was used to communicate with the suspect. Additionally, the vehicle provided safety to officers while they closely observed suspect and the market.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment.

Audits, Violations, Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 41, Packet Page 88 14 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES § 7070(c)(5) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: Workhorse commercial van
Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Vehicles modified to facilitate the control and direction of public safety units.

Expected Lifespan: Unknown
Manufacturer's Description: Unavailable
Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: Workspace for commanding/supervising personnel during critical incidents and utilized community outreach events, such as National Night Out, Public Safety Outreach, etc.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Workhorse commercial van
Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

Workspace for commanding/supervising personnel during critical incidents and utilized community outreach events, such as National Night Out, Public Safety Outreach, etc.

In February 2023, a suspect in Monterey battered an employee at a market and assaulted a delivery driver with a deadly weapon. The suspect barricaded himself inside the business.

The Command vehicle was used to deploy, direct, and command personnel at the incident.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Internal Audits, Violations,
Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT) Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 42, Packet Page 89 15 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES § 7070(c)(12) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: Flashbang grenades, explosive breaching tools, tear gas and pepper balls Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry, creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemical.

Expected Lifespan: Unknown
Manufacturer's Description:

A full-line manufacturer, Defense Technology’s premier product lines are grouped into five categories including aerosols, impact munitions, distraction devices, chemical munitions and launchers.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: Breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry, creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemicals.

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi-annually.

MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 10 hours annually.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Flashbang grenades, explosive breaching tools, tear gas and pepper balls Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

There were no incidents of flashbangs grenades, explosive breaching tools, tear gas or pepper balls used in Monterey.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 43, Packet Page 90 16 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES § 7070(c)(10) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: Remington 870 Breaching Shotgun
Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities: Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun modified with pistol grip and barrel standoff designed for breaching doors or other points of entry
Expected Lifespan: Unknown
Manufacturer's Description:

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Can be deployed any time tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a lawful breaching, and other breaching methods are determined to be ineffective. Shotgun breaching generally needs to be supported by exigent circumstances necessitating immediate access for public safety.

Initial Cost: $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual Costs: $0 (not maintained by MPD)
Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force Procedural: MPD Policies - 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) Required Training:

All MPRSRU members complete a certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training bi-annually. MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:

Remington 870 Breaching Shotgun
Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

There were no incidents of the Breaching Shotgun used in Monterey.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 44, Packet Page 91 17 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE MONTEREY POLICE DEPARTMENT USED AS PART OF THE MPRSRU GOVERNMENT CODES § 7070(c)(14) and 7071(a)(1)(D)
Description: 37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT Team) Capabilities:

Expected Lifespan: 15 years
Manufacturer's Description: The Federal 37 mm Less Lethal Launcher. Is a single-shot break-open platform designed to fire 37mm less lethal oleoresin capsicum munitions.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use: The 37mm Less Lethal Launchers and “OC” Munitions are intended for use as a less-lethal use of force option
Initial Cost: $0 (not owned by MPD)
Annual Costs: $0 (not maintained by MPD)
Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force Procedural: MPD Policies - 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) Required Training:

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training biannually. MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Government Code Section § 7072 – Annual Report:
37mm Less Lethal Launcher and Oleoresin Capsicum “OC” munitions Summary of how the military
equipment was used and the
purpose of its use:

There were no incidents of the 37mm Less Lethal Launcher used in Monterey.

Complaints or Concerns:

The MPD did not receive any complaints or concerns regarding this military equipment Audits, Violations, Actions: This equipment is not owned or maintained by the Monterey Police Department Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the Monterey Police Department Quantity: 0 (owned by collaborating law enforcement agency for MPRSRU SWAT) Intention to Acquire More: No
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 45, Packet Page 92 18 | P a g e
Equipment Acquisition Request

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION REQUEST
GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(1)
Description: LDV Inc. Custom Specialty Vehicles - Crisis Negotiation Team Command Vehicle Quantity:
0 (Approved in 20222, purchased through grant cycle for 2024, to be owned by MPD and utilized by MPRSRU – CNT)
Capabilities: Vehicles modified to act as Negotiations Operations Center at critical incidents Expected lifespan: 20 years
Manufacturer's description: 2022 Ford E-450 Cutaway - Emergency Response Vehicle - Mobile Command Vehicle Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Initial cost:
$200,000 initial outlay to be reimbursed through the Homeland Security Grant Program - Urban Areas Security Initiative. Will not be procured until October 2023 in FY 24. *Note:

Item was approved by the Monterey City Council by Ordinance 3649 in 2022.

Annual costs: $2,500 / year maintenance and upkeep
Legal: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force Procedural: MPD Policies - 404 (Monterey Peninsula Regional Special Response Unit) Required training:

All MPRSRU members are required to complete an initial POST certified 80 hour basic SWAT course, 120 hours of annual training, and 24 hours of SWAT update training biannually. MPRSRU members train on this piece of equipment 4 hours annually.

Other:

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 46, Packet Page 93 19 | P a g e

QUALIFYING EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION REQUEST
GOVERNMENT CODE § 7070(c)(1)
Description: Unmanned Aircraft System(s) (UAS), remotely piloted, powered aircraft Quantity Sought: 5 (4 DJI Air 2s and 1 DJI Mavic 3 Thermal) Capabilities:

UAS are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Expected Lifespan: 5 years
Manufacturer's Description:

DJI Air 2sfeatures a 1-inch CMOS sensor, powerful autonomous functions, and a compact body weighing less than 21 oz., DJI Air 2S is the ultimate drone for creators on the move.

Take this all-in-one aerial powerhouse along anywhere to experience and record your world in stunning detail.

Designed to support enterprise-level missions and projects, the DJI Mavic 3 Thermal is an ideal solution for first responder applications. The drone is extremely compact and lightweight, can be quickly unfolded and deployed at a moment's notice, and is capable of up to 45 minutes of flight time. The Mavic 3 Thermal features wide-angle, telephoto, and thermal lenses in its 3-axis gimbal camera. The 20MP wide lens is ideal for taking expansive shots and rapid surveying, the 12MP tele gets you close with a 56x hybrid zoom, and the thermal camera makes it easier to carry out inspections and search and rescue missions.

Long-range O3 transmission, omnidirectional obstacle avoidance.

Purpose(s)/Authorized Use:

Initial Cost: $8,000
Annual Costs: $300 (batteries, propellers and other parts, SD Card) Legal:

Procedural: MPD Policies – 606 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations Required Training:

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 47, Packet Page 94 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Recommend that the City Council Adopt the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public comments on the proposed 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (Action Plan) for Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) and adopt a resolution approving the Action Plan and authorize submission to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Action Plan is a one-year plan and budget that will implement year four of the City’s adopted 2020–2024 Five Year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) for spending federal CDBG money on programs to benefit low- and moderate-income households residing in the City. Policies and programs identified in the Annual Action Plan will be funded in Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (Program Year 22) and are consistent with the goals and priorities set in the Consolidated Plan.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey’s 2022/2023 Annual Action Plan (Action Plan) is based on an estimated $1,356,442 million projected CDBG budget: The funds consist of federal entitlement, carryover from the previous year and program income generated, loan payments and property sales as follows:
 $250,474 in estimated entitlement funds from CDBG/HUD  $1,003,183 in projected program income (pay off of rehabilitation loans and the sales of City owned deed restricted units)
 $105,968 prior year resources
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Action Plan is considered exempt under the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (24 CFR Part 58). The Action Plan is also determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) because the projects proposed for funding including public Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 95 service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, and housing preservation and planning and administration have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed action recommending the draft Action Plan for review and implementing budget includes the public service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, housing preservation and planning and administration. There are no project sites referenced in the Action Plan and implementing budget that are located in a particularly sensitive environment. No impact is anticipated.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed action recommending the draft Action Plan for review and implementing budget includes the public service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, housing preservation and planning and administration. No cumulative impacts are foreseeable.

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. The proposed action recommending the draft Action Plan for review and implementing budget includes the public service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, housing preservation and planning and administration and no significant effect is anticipated.

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 EIR. There are no project sites referenced in the Action Plan and implementing budget that are located near scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated near scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. There are no project sites referenced in the Action Plan and implementing budget that are listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Action Plan does not reference any sites or locations identified as a historical resource.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 96 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council may make changes to the draft Action Plan if it determines that changes are necessary to better implement City policy. However, staff have evaluated these plans and programs and determined they implement policies contained in the General Plan Housing Element.

DISCUSSION:

To receive CDBG funds, the City must submit an Action Plan to HUD each year. The Action Plan describes the City’s planned investments for the coming program year, including proposed actions and CDBG projects. The Action Plan is the City’s application for federal funds and provides a yearly operating plan for activities. It outlines the City’s priorities for addressing the needs of the community’s disadvantaged and low-income households. A number of programs and activities are proposed in Program Year 2023 (PY23) to address community needs. These activities relate back to the goals and objectives presented in the Consolidated Plan (available on monterey.org/housing).

To continue the City’s efforts to comply with HUD CDBG spending regulations and implement approved priorities, the Action Plan projects a total estimated funding amount of $1,356,442 for PY23.

It is important to note that the CDBG entitlement portion of this projection is subject to U.S.

Congress approval of the federal budget and it is possible CDBG entitlement grant funding may be reduced or modified. Therefore, the exact amount of CDBG entitlement funding that the City will actually receive from HUD is unknown at this time. Program revenue is also variable and may change during the program year dependent on market factors affecting the sale of deedrestricted low-income housing units and loan payoffs. Therefore, staff has planned activities based on a generally conservative budget. If funding varies substantially within the program year, staff will amend the Action Plan accordingly.

Additionally, the Action Plan is limited in that Housing Program funds are only allowed to be spent on activities that provide benefits to low-income and disadvantaged households in the community and that some of these activities are subject to caps that limit the amount of CDBG funding that can be authorized. If Council wishes to direct staff to provide additional services beyond those proposed in the Action Plan that exceed spending caps or do not meet HUD eligibility standards, then alternative funding sources would be required.

The proposed activities support the Consolidated Plan goals and objectives. The draft Action Plan proposes funding a variety of housing and community services projects. Overall, there are four major project areas including Public Services, Public Infrastructure, Housing Preservation Programs and Planning and Administration.

The Housing Programs Office typically begins the planning process in October by developing a calendar and preparing a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Last year, Housing staff released the 2023/2024 NOFA for the CDBG program on November 18, 2022 for Public Services and CDBG CV grants and November 30, 2022 for public facilities. The purpose of the notice and workshop was to solicit applications for viable affordable housing and public facilities projects through a competitive application process. City staff held a required grant application Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 97 workshop on December 14, 2022. Applications were due to the City on December 30, 2022. A list of the applications received for public service and infrastructure grants are described below.

Public Services ($172,000 budgeted) and CDBG CV ($100,000 budgeted) Public Service grants provide funding to local non-profit agencies serving low and moderateincome households and individuals. The amount of the Action Plan award is determined by a HUD formula of 15% of current year entitlement and up to 15% of prior year program income.

Award amounts are based on a proportionate percentage of the total available funding and the agency’s funding request. These grants support services for seniors, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, youth and families, and fair housing. Agencies that have applied for funding are shown in Table 1. Tentative award amounts are depicted in the Table but ultimately depend on the amount of entitlement and prior year program income. The City estimates a budget of $172,000 but this amount could increase or decrease based on HUD actions.

The Table also shows the agencies that applied for Public Service CDBG- CV funds that are directly related to coronavirus services. These funds are a one-time allotment and given to the City because of its successful implementation of emergency rental assistance during the COVID pandemic and will be the last of federal COVID funding available for these types of programs.

Table 1 Public Service Grants and Public Service CDBG-CV Agency Public Service Grants Public Service CDBG-CV
Alliance on Aging $13,000
CASA $10,000
Community Human
Services Casa de
Noche Buena
$19,400
Community Human
Services Safe Place
$19,400
Community Human
Services Shuman
HeartHouse
$19,400
ECHO Fair Housing $13,600
Food Bank for
Monterey County
$19,400 $20,000
Gathering for Women $19,400
Interim, Inc. $19,400
Josephine Kernes
Memorial Pool
$9,000
Legal Services for
Seniors
$10,000
Meals on Wheels $0 $80,000
Total $172,000 $100,000
These agencies were selected through an open and competitive request for proposals process that included a notice of funding availability, a mandatory technical assistance workshop, a community meeting on housing and community needs, and agency presentations of proposals Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 98 to the community services committee (comprised of representatives from the Planning Commission, Police Department, Planning Office, and Housing Office).

There has been some interest in establishing a rental assistance program. If that occurred, the City would have to create a new program next year that may ultimately reduce the funding to the programs listed above. Unfortunately, the maximum allocation for public services including rental assistance is 15% of the estimated entitlement and program income budget (not carry over funds). In contrast, other program areas are not restricted such as public infrastructure and housing preservation programs as demonstrated below.

Public Infrastructure ($100,000 budgeted)
In addition to the public service grants, the City released a notice of funding availability to solicit applications for viable public infrastructure projects through a competitive application process.

Projects are rated and reviewed by staff for eligibility and compliance with HUD regulations, and then ranked with scoring weighted to give the highest points to projects that met the top Consolidated plan goals. Projects are also given preference for being construction-ready, having multiple, secured funded sources, and having project managers with experience with federally funded public works construction projects. The City received two applications:
 Meals on Wheels - $100,000
 Laguna Grande Regional Park Improvements - $100,000
The draft Action plan initially proposed $100,000 to fund a food packaging system for Meals on Wheels’ planned new kitchen which will be located near the Veterans Administration (VA) Clinic in the City of Marina. During the review process, it was discovered that the new kitchen will not be operational this fiscal year so the initial recommendation to support the $100,000 was withdrawn from consideration. Staff contacted Meals on Wheels and encouraged the agency to apply as part of the future kitchen upgrade. Consequently, the community has been discussing improvements to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Improvements. This $100,000 can fund permanent park improvements.

Housing Preservation Programs ($748,926 budgeted)
Another successful program that the Action Plan is continuing to pursue is the Housing Rehabilitation Grant program comprised of the Fix It grant, the Home Safety grant, and the Housing Accessibility grant. These grants provide emergency housing repairs, minor home repairs, and accessibility improvements for low-income homeowners. The Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program is intended to improve the condition of substandard owneroccupied single-family homes with special emphasis placed upon the remediation of health and safety housing issues to keep people in their homes. The City also provides loans up to $90,000 for larger home repairs.

The Action Plan also supports the rehabilitation and repair of ownership units purchased for resale to low-income first-time homebuyers. This program is essential to maintaining the City’s existing affordable housing stock. Since the program is focused on first time homebuyers, the program also provides downpayment assistance to qualified households.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 99 Councilmembers have been recently inquiring about rental assistance programs. Housing preservation funds are not available for rental assistance. The funding source for rental assistance could be part of the public service grants that the City distributes but a significant number of the current nonprofits funded would no longer receive funding because this funding source is limited to 15% of the entitlement and program income budgets. Additionally, the City could provide grants to the owners of rental properties to repair existing multi-family structures but 51% of the units would need to be dedicated to low and moderate income. In the past, the City has contacted some multifamily property owners and the buildings were not eligible.

If the City were to create a rental rehabilitation program, it would need to be explored for fiscal year 24/25 in order to prepare guidelines and create a program. It is also important to note that the yearly inspection program for rental properties is more labor intensive than for ownership properties. Lastly, the CDBG Program is subject to a timeliness test, and the City cannot accrue significant funds and bank them for future work efforts.

Planning and Administration ($232,731 CDBG and $5,968 CARES Act budgeted) Planning and administration activities include monitoring and providing technical assistance to sub-recipients, professional planning on-call assistance as needed, and continuing outreach efforts to service providers and other jurisdictions in the area to identify new affordable housing projects and additional homeless services or facilities. The City strives to continue building upon its existing collaboration and coordination efforts with other public agencies, service organizations, and the community to work together to increase the availability of affordable housing and reduce homelessness. Unfortunately, this budget does not cover the full cost of administering the program.

Public Outreach and Citizen Participation
Public engagement is a vital element to the success of the CDBG program. In order to inform the public about the program and solicit comments on the Action plan, the City is implementing the following public outreach plan:
 November 18, 2022: The City released the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the CDBG Public Services and CDBG-CV programs.
 November 30, 2022: The City released the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the CDBG Public Facilities Program.
 December 14, 2022: City staff held a required grant application workshop.  January 12, 2022: Agency Presentations of Applications to grant committee.  February 17, 2023: Friday, Draft action plan available and start of the 30-day public comment period.
 February 28, 2023: Tuesday, Planning Commission Public Hearing for draft Action Plan.  April 18, 2023: Tuesday, City Council Public Hearing to adopt Action Plan and end of the 30-day comment period.
 May 15, 2023: Action Plan due to HUD.

The draft 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan is available at: monterey.org/housing as well as the Planning and Housing Offices at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey and Monterey Public Library.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the Council conduct a public hearing and receive public comments on the proposed Action Plan for CDBG funds, and adopt a resolution approving the Action Plan and authorize submission to HUD.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 100 Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
Exhibit A - Draft Action Plan
Attachment - Public Comments Received
(Minutes and Email)
e: Linda Hamill, HUD, San Francisco Regional Office
Public Services Grant Applicants and Attendees
Coalition of Homeless Service Providers
Monterey Neighborhood Associations
Monterey Business Associations
David Hober, Police Chief
Housing Outreach List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 101 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
ADOPT THE 2023/2024 ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
WHEREAS, since 1975, the City of Monterey has been an eligible metropolitan entitlement city under the CDBG programs;
WHEREAS, the Five Year (2020-2024) Consolidated Plan (the “Consolidated Plan”) adopted in Resolution No. 20-049 identified funding sources to provide housing and housing services and prioritized the use of local, state, and federal funds; WHEREAS, consistent with Consolidated Plan priorities for Housing and Community Services, the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Budget and Action Plan (the “Program Year 2023 Action Plan”) provides resources to implement the Consolidated Plan to meet HUD National Objectives;
WHEREAS, a public notice to announce the publication of the Draft Program Year 2022 Action Plan and initiate a 30-day period for review and comment was published February 18, 2023 in the Monterey Herald, a newspaper of area wide circulation; WHEREAS, the Draft Program Year 2022 CDBG Action Plan was published and made available for public review on February 18, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hosted a noticed public hearing on February 28, 2023 and recommended the City Council adopt the plan. One modification has been made since their recommendation since it was discovered that the Meals on Wheels kitchen would not be operational this fiscal year. This $100,000 project was eliminated from the budget; WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter during the Planning Commission’s review. The letter referred to an affordable housing project being considered behind City Hall that is not funded with CDBG funds;
WHEREAS, the Action Plan is considered exempt under the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (24 CFR Part 58). The Action Plan is also determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) because the projects proposed for funding including public service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, and housing preservation and planning and administration have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 102 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. The proposed action recommending the draft Action Plan for review and implementing budget includes the public service grant program, non-profit and City public infrastructure projects, housing preservation and planning and administration. There are no project sites referenced in the Action Plan and implementing budget that are located in a particularly sensitive environment. No impact is anticipated.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 103 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves the Program Year 2023 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds, and authorizes submittal of the Action Plan to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development as presented and discussed at the Public Hearing and reflected in Exhibit A.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 104 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
1 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Monterey, incorporated in 1850, is one of California’s oldest communities. Founded in 1770, the city hosted the state’s first constitutional convention in the historic Colton Hall, where in 1849 the State of California’s Constitution was signed. The City of Monterey is located on Monterey Bay, now a National Marine Sanctuary.

The city is a regional and national tourist destination and is approximately 125 miles south of San Francisco and 345 miles north of Los Angeles. The city also boasts several institutions of higher learning including the Defense Language Institute, which specializes in teaching foreign languages to military personnel; the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, which provides graduate degrees with emphasis on the international community, their customs, languages, and business trends; the Naval Postgraduate School, which provides advanced degrees for military personnel; and Monterey Peninsula College, which offers general education for an associate’s degree to transfer to a four-year institution.

These institutions attract many culturally diverse populations from across the globe.

This 2023 Annual Action Plan (AAP) is submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as the application for 2023-2024 funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. This Annual Action Plan encapsulates the fourth year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. For program year 2023, the estimated CDBG entitlement amount is $250,474, and the estimated amount of program income is $1,003,183.

The City has been awarded an additional $105,968 in reallocated CARES Act (CDBG-CV) funds. The City has incorporated the process to allocate these funds into the normal Annual Action Plan process. To keep the Action Plan process on schedule and still comply with the required public participation and local approvals, the City used estimates to draft the action plan and obtain public comment and local government approvals. These estimates will be replaced with exact amounts once the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releases the final allocation amounts. As program income receipts can be inconsistent, the City makes its best effort to estimate future income and executes ongoing program budget adjustments as necessary.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This could be a restatement of items, or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs assessment, the housing market analysis, or the strategic plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 105 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Action Plan includes the following CDBG budget projections:
 $105,968 in CARES Act funds from HUD
 $250,474 in CDBG entitlement funds from HUD
 $1,003,183 in projected program income funds
All the projects support the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Key projects proposed for PY 2023 include:
 Housing Rehabilitation Programs focusing on minor repairs, accessibility improvements, and emergency repairs
 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resale of housing units to create affordable units  Public Service Grants to groups serving youth, seniors, and homeless persons and families  Capital improvement grants for facility improvements for public service providers  Staffing and overhead for overall administration of the CDBG program  Monitoring subrecipients

3. Evaluation of past performance
This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or projects.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Summary from citizen participation section of plan.

Several meetings were held prior to the adoption of the PY 2023 Annual Action Plan to allow for citizens to participate in the process by providing their comments and suggestions on the community’s housing, public facility, and public service needs. The first meeting was held on December 14, 2022 and acted as a technical workshop to provide potential applicants with the knowledge necessary to complete the grant application. It also acted to solicit public comment on community development needs. Nonprofit agencies played a key role in providing information and recommendations in the development of this Action Plan. Next, a meeting was held on January 12, 2023, for the Public Service Grant Review Committee to receive presentations on the grant proposals from the public service organizations. A 30- day public comment period for the draft PY 2023 Annual Action Plan commenced on February 18, 2023 and ended on March 21, 2023. A third meeting on February 28, 2023, was held as a public hearing before the Planning Commission to receive their advisory review and recommendations on the draft Action Plan. The City Council held a public hearing to adopt the Action Plan April 18, 2023.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 106 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
 Monterey Public Library – 625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940  Monterey City Hall: Planning Office, City Clerk’s Office, and Housing Programs Office – 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Draft copies of the Action Plan have also been made available to local organizations and individuals representing neighborhood associations, special needs groups, and low-income constituencies. All entities were sent meeting notifications to solicit oral or written comments.

5. Summary of public comments
This could be a brief narrative summary or reference an attached document from the Citizen Participation section of the Con Plan.

All public comments will be included in the attached public comment documentation.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City received a comment letter expressing concern about a proposed affordable housing project located behind City Hall. This project will not use CDBG funds and is at a conceptual stage. No changes were made to the Action Plan.

During the Planning Commission, public hearing the representative from Josephine Kearns Memorial Pool expressed concerns about the reduction in funding. In response, the Planning Commission amended the amount allocated to this agency. Other agencies that were receiving $20,000 were reduced to provide additional funding to Josephine Kearns Memorial Pool.

7. Summary
The City of Monterey has been able to successfully manage the ongoing timeliness obligations of the CDBG program and has identified programs and projects that will benefit the community.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 107 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator MONTEREY Housing Office
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative (optional)
The City of Monterey’s Housing office is the team that administers the City’s CDBG funds and serves as the lead agency in performing CDBG planning and administration tasks.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
The City’s Housing Office is the designated department responsible for planning and implementing the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and the City’s CDBG program. General inquiries regarding the Consolidated Plan or the CDBG program may be directed to the Housing Office at (831) 646-3995. Written correspondence regarding the Action Plan should be directed to the Housing Office, City of Monterey, City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 108 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
The city consulted with many of the trusted organizations and agencies it has worked with in the past to learn the community’s priority needs and to learn ways to best deliver services to those in need. In addition, resilience specific stakeholders have been working with Monterey County and all the surrounding jurisdictions to update the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County recently finalized its 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and this document is currently available online. The City of Monterey will continue to incorporate the mitigation efforts identified in the Plan and move towards achieving the goals established. This will help to address the needs of residents who are vulnerable to both the effect of disasters and housing issues.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
It is the City’s policy, as referenced in the Housing Element of the General Plan, to assist the Housing Authority, nonprofit agencies, and private developers in providing housing opportunities to extremely low, low, and very low-income households when such an opportunity is identified. To address homelessness, since 2013, the city has participated in the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP) Leadership Council’s oversight of the Lead Me Home Plan. The City of Monterey has prepared a Vulnerable Communities Needs Analysis, currently available online, to gain a better understanding of the needs of the most vulnerable populations and identify goals and strategies to address these issues.

The Monterey Vulnerable Communities Needs Analysis has been a platform to gather information from the community, including specific stakeholders, and demographic data about the city to identify which public or social services in Monterey are in the highest demand and what the unmet needs in the community are related to services and housing.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP) is the Continuum of Care (CoC) for Monterey and San Benito Counties. The City of Monterey staff regularly attend monthly meetings held by the CHSP, which include the CHSP Board meeting, the Housing Pipeline meeting, the Leadership Council meeting, and the meeting of the CHSP Executive Committee.

The May 2019 Lead Me Home Update to the 10-year Plan was developed in collaboration with Monterey County Board of Supervisors and San Benito County Board of Supervisors. The plan builds upon the successful relationships developed during the creation of the original plan. These relationships Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 109 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
are multi-organizational, multi-governmental, and multi-sectoral. Collaboratively, an approach has begun to identify successful practices, organize resources, scale up to the size of the problem, and produce public value by delivering meaningful results. This will require continued innovation by community-based organizations, advances in government policy practices, and meaningful private sector investment.

The Lead Me Home Plan Update is founded on a new vision of a system that starts with stabilizing existing tenancies to prevent homelessness, re-housing people before they enter shelter, and linking people to appropriate community supports so that they may find and keep stable housing, as well as improve their economic position. It seeks to use housing opportunity as a vehicle to link families & individuals with employment or income programs.

The Lead Me Home 10-Year Plan for housing the homeless in Monterey and San Benito Counties was developed to meet the requirements of the Federal Governments Homeless, Emergency Assistance & Rapid Transition to Housing Act. The Plan lays out the priorities, strategies, and action steps for ending homelessness in the two counties. The City of Monterey’s Housing Office is working to implement many of the key strategies identified in the Plan.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Not applicable. The City does not receive ESG funds.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 110 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Agency/Group/Organization Interim Inc`
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services-Persons with disabilities
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homelessness Strategy
1 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City's community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Salvation Army of the Monterey Peninsula Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services – Homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
2 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City's community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.
3 Agency/Group/Organization Community Human Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services – Children
Services – Homeless
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 111 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Economic Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Legal Services for Seniors
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Elderly Persons Service - Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs
Economic Development
4 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Alliance on Aging
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs
Economic Development
5 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 112 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Agency/Group/Organization Veterans Transition Center
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services - Housing
Services – Homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Strategy
Economic Development
6 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Food Bank of Monterey County
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homeless Needs - Veterans
7 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.
8 Agency/Group/Organization Meals on Wheels of the Monterey Peninsula Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Elderly Persons Services - Persons with Disabilities
Services - Health
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 113 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Josephine Kernes Memorial Pool Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons Services-Persons with Disabilities
Services-Health
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs
9 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Monterey Police Department
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
10 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 114 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Agency/Group/Organization City of Monterey Community Development Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Facility Needs
11 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization City of Monterey Parks and Recreation Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Facility Needs
12 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.
13 Agency/Group/Organization The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services - Persons with HIV/AIDS
Services - Victims of Domestic Violence
Services – Homeless
Services - Victims
Regional organization
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 21, Packet Page 115 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homeless Needs - Veterans
Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homeless Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Economic Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Housing Authority of County of Monterey Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services - Homeless
Other government - County
14 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
Economic Development
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 22, Packet Page 116 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services - Housing
Service - Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homeless Needs - Veterans
Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homeless Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Economic Development
15 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Gathering for Women
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homelessness Strategy
16 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 23, Packet Page 117 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Agency/Group/Organization Interfaith Homeless Emergency Lodging Program Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless
Services - Health
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homeless Needs - Veterans
Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied youth
17 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Boys and Girls Club of Monterey County Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Children
Services - Education
Services - Employment
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homeless Strategy
Economic Development
Anti-poverty Strategy
18 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.
19 Agency/Group/Organization Avila Construction
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 24, Packet Page 118 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Market Analysis
Economic Development
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Silicon Constructors, Inc.

Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services - Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Market Analysis
Economic Development
20 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) attended at least one community forum and provided input to help prioritize the City’s community needs in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization Viasat
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Broadband Internet Service Providers What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Market Analysis 21 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
A representative from VSAT Systems was included in the survey undertaken by Monterey. In addition, VSAT Systems was included in the Stakeholder meetings for the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization AT&T
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Broadband Internet Service Providers 22 What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Market Analysis Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 25, Packet Page 119 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was
consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representatives from the local AT&T Store attended the Stakeholder Meeting and submitted a survey for the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization County of Monterey
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - County What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment 23 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) contributed narrative and data to answer questions relevant to the Consolidated Plan in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Agency/Group/Organization United Way Monterey County
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services - Children
Services - Education
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment 24 Briefly describe how the Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Representative(s) contributed narrative and data to answer questions relevant to the Consolidated Plan in the Con Plan, which has helped to inform this Action Plan.

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) was not consulted regarding the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and therefore did not help to provide information for this Action Plan. However, the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP) was consulted regarding the provision of temporary shelter needs of homeless individuals following release from CHOMP. Specifically, the Salvation Army Monterey Peninsula Corps works in partnership with CHOMP to create housing plans and provide temporary shelter for homeless individuals. The City consulted with the Salvation Army of the Monterey Peninsula, Interim, Inc., and Community Human Services, all of whom assist in the process of placing homeless individuals after local medical or mental health facility discharge using vouchers and temporary housing.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 26, Packet Page 120 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care
Coalition of
Homeless Service
Providers
The City of Monterey attends all monthly meetings held by the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers and has been a contributor to the Lead Me Home Plan. Traditionally, the City has supported agencies and organizations the CHSP regular partner with to carry out the vision of the Plan by providing services to all homeless populations. The City will also comply with the Housing First approach, which requires removing barriers for homeless individuals and families that have faced in obtaining housing, such as income requirements. Additionally, as part of the Plan, training will be enhanced and replicated by Community Action officers in the City of Monterey to train police/law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions on homeless outreach strategies and goals of discharge planning policies.

Emergency Shelter
Overlay
City of Monterey To reference areas ideal for emergency shelters and supportive services.

General Plan and
Housing Element
City of Monterey
The General Plan Housing Element is the City policy guide to meeting the community housing needs. The Strategic Plan aligns with the goals and policies for implementation of the Housing Element.

Parks & Recreation
Master Plan
City of Monterey
To reference the most ideal areas in need of improvement according to City plans with a focus on low to moderate CDBG target areas.

City of Monterey, 2016
Climate Action Plan
City of Monterey
Development as related to the Consolidated Plan that occurs shall be primarily in the areas where environmental hazards can be properly mitigated.
2019 Analysis of
Impediments
City of Monterey
Assessment of impediments and fair housing challenges in Monterey with specific and measurable goals to help address fair housing problems.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 27, Packet Page 121 Exhibit A
Annual Action Plan
2023
18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? 2020-2024 Consolidated
Plan
City of Monterey
Strategic Plan Goals: 1. The Housing Opportunities goal supports rehabilitating low to moderate rental units, production of low-income rental units and preserving low to moderate income Deed Restricted Ownership units and monitoring and rehabilitating low to moderate Ownership Housing units. 2. Services that support a suitable living environment, including services to homeless persons, seniors, youth, disabled persons, and low to moderate income households in the community. 3. Address the impacts of the health crisis and accompanying economic downturn through emergency housing assistance. 4. Public infrastructure in low to moderate income CDBG target areas. Needs include park upgrades, ADA accessibility, improvements to streets and other infrastructure. 5. Economic development because of the high number of low-income households combined with impacts of the recent COVID-19 health crisis and accompanying economic downturn. 6. Optimal program planning is a goal for administering the CDBG program at the City. 2022 Monterey County
Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan
County of
Monterey
The Hazard Mitigation Plan helps to identify a wide range of natural and manmade hazards that the city must be aware of and take action to mitigate.

Vulnerable Community
Needs Analysis
City of Monterey
The Vulnerable Community Needs Analysis helps gain a better understanding of the needs of the most vulnerable populations in Monterey and identify goals and strategies to address these issues
Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Narrative (optional)
Resilience specific stakeholders have been working with Monterey County and all of the surrounding jurisdictions to update the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The County finalized the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2022 and the Plan is available online.

The City of Monterey will continue to incorporate the mitigation efforts identified in the Plan and move towards achieving the goals established.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 28, Packet Page 122 Annual Action Plan
2023
19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting A number of meetings were held prior to the adoption of the PY 2023 Annual Action Plan in order to allow for citizens to participate in the process by provide their comments and suggestions on the community’s housing, public facility, and public service needs. The first meeting was held on December 14, 2022 and acted as a technical workshop to provide potential applicants with the knowledge necessary to complete the grant application. It also acted to solicit public comment on community development needs. Nonprofit agencies played a key role in providing information and recommendations in the development of this Action Plan. Next, a meeting was held on January 12, 2023 to receive presentations on the grant proposals from the public service organizations. A 30-day public comment period for the draft PY 2023 Annual Action Plan commenced on February 18, 2023 and will end on March 21, 2023. A third meeting on February 28, 2023 was held as a public hearing before the Planning Commission to receive their advisory review and recommendations on the draft Action Plan. The City Council held a public hearing to adopt the Action Plan April 18, 2023.

To ensure maximum participation, the draft Action Plan has been made available for public review online at the City’s website, with hard copies available at public counters at the following locations:
 Monterey Public Library – 625 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940  Monterey City Hall: Planning Office, City Clerk’s Office, and Housing Programs Office – 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Draft copies of the Action Plan have also been made available to local organizations and individuals representing neighborhood associations, special needs groups, and low-income constituencies. All entities were sent meeting notifications to solicit oral or written comments.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 29, Packet Page 123 Annual Action Plan
2023
20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
1 Public
Meeting
Nontargeted/broad
community
Public service
Providers,
Neighborhood and
Business
Associations
Technical workshop
held on December 14,
2022. Attendance by
public services
providers and
residents. Intent to
invite comment on
unmet community
needs and describe
the City's CDBG public
services grant
program and
application
procedure.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 30, Packet Page 124 Annual Action Plan
2023
21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
2 Newspaper
Ad
Nontargeted/broad
community
Newspaper notices
informing the public
of the City's scheduled
public meetings and
hearings on the
Action Plan and
notifying the public of
the opening public
comment period for
the draft Action Plan.

The public comment
period opened on
February 18, 2023,
and closed March 21,
2023.

N/A
3 Internet
Outreach
Nontargeted/broad
community
Copies of the Action
Plan were posted on
the City's website for
the public comment
period.

N/A
https://monterey.org/city_hall/community_d
evelopment/housing_programs/plans___rep
orts/index.php
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 31, Packet Page 125 Annual Action Plan
2023
22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of
comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
4 Public
Hearing
Nontargeted/broad
community
On February 28, 2023,
a public hearing was
held before the
Planning Commission
to receive their
advisory review and
recommendations on
the draft Action Plan.

N/A
5 Public
Hearing
Nontargeted/broad
community
The City Council held
a public hearing to
adopt the Action Plan
on April 18, 2023.

N/A
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 32, Packet Page 126 Annual Action Plan
2023
23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City’s CDBG entitlement allocation of funding requires addressing the ratio of program income to entitlement that the city receives each year. While entitlement allocations have been stable, the amount of program income received each year is unpredictable and has ranged from less than $500,000 to more than $1,000,000. The average program income received over the last 10 years is about $900,000; however, due to rising housing costs, many loans are being repaid to the CDBG fund. To meet CDBG expenditure timeliness requirements and comply with HUD’s program funding reporting and public outreach requirements, it is important to make the best estimate regarding the total funding expected to roll over from the prior year and the amount of program income to be received. The city is budgeting for about $1,000,000 in program income for the 2023–2024 program year.

CDBG entitlement allocations also fluctuate slightly from year to year. For PY 2023, the city is expecting to receive $250,474 in CDBG entitlement funding from HUD. In addition, the City of Monterey was selected to receive Reallocated CARES Act funds in the amount of $105,968. These funds will be included in this year’s Annual Action Plan.

The city anticipates receiving a little more than $1,359,625 in combined entitlement funding and program income over the coming year of the Consolidated Plan cycle for 2020-25. These funds will be used for activities similar to what the City has consistently funded over the past few years. Some examples of these activities are the purchase and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, public services that assist low-moderate income persons or households including seniors, the homeless, and the disabled, and public facility/public infrastructure improvement projects that provide assistance and service in low-moderate income areas.

On January 29, 2021, the State of California passed the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act which utilizes SB 91 and Federal stimulus dollars to extend eviction protections to COVID-19 impacted tenants and establish the state’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Monterey County was given $28 million for rent and utility assistance, with the United Way of Monterey County acting as the pass-through organization. The County has fully obligated all available ERAP funds to eligible households who applied prior to April 14, 2022, and staff are working as quickly as possible through Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 33, Packet Page 127 Annual Action Plan
2023
24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
the waitlist of clients who have applied to the program. The program is no longer accepting new applications or second requests for funding and is offering services to all applicants and beneficiaries such as case management, referrals to other health/human services resources, and referrals to legal counseling/eviction services. As of the end of January 2023, the County has about $2.5M in Direct Financial Assistance remaining to be distributed. The County has assisted approximately 6,500 households. The City of Monterey applied to the United Way for $2.5 million and ended up receiving an award of $1.25 million to be used for its Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). The City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program was established in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was funded using CDBG-CV money allocated to the City through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city will continue to pursue potential funding for the program as they become available.

In 2017, the City established and contributed to a CDBG Revolving Loan Fund, which is made up of Program Income funds that are set-aside for specific housing acquisition and rehabilitation programs. The revenues of the Revolving Loan Fund are included in the total Program Income (PI) estimates for planning and budgeting purposes as estimated Revolving Loan Fund receipts can be difficult to project both in timing and in total amount. Revolving Loan Fund funds will be used as a resource for the City’s single-family housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale program that makes housing ownership available to qualifying low-income households. It may also be used for housing rehabilitation loans that address health and safety repairs for low-income homeowners, including seniors and persons with disability. The Revolving Loan Fund is budgeted in the Housing Programs project.

The table below includes the estimated CDBG revenues for the coming year.

Anticipated Resources
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 34, Packet Page 128 Annual Action Plan
2023
25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Source of Expected Amount Available Year 1
Funds
Uses of Funds
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 250,474 1,003,183 105,968 1,359,625 1,076,840 Program Income. This year we
are including the Reallocation of
CARES Act funding.

Table 1 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
The City’s current housing resources do not have matching fund requirements. However, the City will be using PY 2023 funds to leverage other resources, including repayment of housing loans made by the former redevelopment agency. These resources are dedicated to affordable housing activities, while the City’s CDBG allocation provides support through infrastructure, public facility, and public services.

The city will pursue other resources as they become available. Some examples of these resources are the CalHome Program, the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant, and the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant. The City has already been chosen to receive PLHA, REAP, and LEAP funds and will use the funds to meet local needs throughout the duration of the Consolidated Plan cycle. As the City receives more funding, it will be reported in future Annual Action Plans.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 35, Packet Page 129 Annual Action Plan
2023
26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.

The City will be providing technical assistance from the CDBG planning and administration funds for Citysponsored parks projects in CDBG targeted low to moderate areas. Additionally, the City has a program to purchase and rehabilitate deed restricted affordable homes and then resell them to low-income firsttime homeowners, to ensure that no inventory is lost. There are currently 540 Deed Restricted Affordable Units in the City. The budget allows for the purchase of up to three units should they come available. The city also will continue outreach efforts and technical assistance to service providers and other jurisdictions in the area to identify new affordable housing projects and additional homeless services or facilities.

In addition, ten units have been rented on City leased property at 595 Munras Avenue, two of which are affordable. There are several other projects under development that will include affordable units through the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Projects include 2300 Garden Road that was recently issued a building permit for 64 units of which 13 are affordable. The developer for 2300 Garden Road also obtained approvals for an additional 91 units at 2000 and 2600 Garden Road of which 20% would be affordable units. However, the developer is reconsidering these proposals at this time and staff anticipates entirely new concepts to be submitted in 2023. Older projects such as 2200 North Fremont that included 40 Dwelling Units with eight affordable units through a seven percent Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing have been approved but the developer is no longer actively pursuing building permits. The city also has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a 100% affordable low income project on City leased land behind City Hall. The number of units is in the process of being refined although the developer would like to achieve 36 low-income units.

Discussion
See above sections.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 36, Packet Page 130 Annual Action Plan
2023
27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Housing
opportunities
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Homelessness
Prevention
Production of New
Rental Units for
Extremely Low-Income
Production of New Very
Low-Income Rental
Units
Production of New LowIncome Rental Units
Production of New
Moderate-Income For
Sale and Rental;
Preservation of LMI
Deed Restricted
Ownership Units
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitation
CDBG:
$748,926
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated: 15 Household
Housing Unit
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 37, Packet Page 131 Annual Action Plan
2023
28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
2 Suitable living
environment
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Homeless
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Homelessness
Prevention
Public Service:

Emergency housing
assistance
Economic development
Public Services:

Homeless counseling
Landlord Tenant
Counseling/Legal
Assistance/Fair Housing
Public Service: Job
training
Public Service: Job
generating activities
Public Services:

Counseling for at-risk
youth
Public Services: After
school programs
Public Services:

Emergency
preparedness
Public Services:

Transportation
Public Services:

Healthcare
Public Services:

CDBG:
$172,000
CARES Act:
$100,000
Public service activities other
than Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 1750
Persons Assisted
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 38, Packet Page 132 Annual Action Plan
2023
29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Homeless outreach
Public Services:

Homeless mental health
Public Services:

Homeless substance
abuse
3 Creating
Affordability
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Homeless
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Homelessness
Prevention
Public Service:

Emergency housing
assistance
Economic Development
CDBG: $0 Other: 0 Other
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 39, Packet Page 133 Annual Action Plan
2023
30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
4 Public
Infrastructure
2020 2024 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Laguna
Grande
Park
Lower Old
Town
El Estero
Permanent and
Supportive Housing
Emergency Shelters
Public Facilities: Parks
Public Facilities:
recreational facilities
Public Facilities: Youth
centers
Public Facilities: Senior
centers
Public Facilities:

Neighborhood
community centers
Public Facilities:

Healthcare facilities
Infrastructure
improvements:

Sewer/street
improvement
Infrastructure
improvements: Street
Improvements
Infrastructure
improvements: Safe
Routes to School
Infrastructure
improvements:

Sidewalk/Curb
CDBG:
$100,000
Public Facility or
Infrastructure Activities other
than Low/Moderate Income
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 40, Packet Page 134 Annual Action Plan
2023
31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Improvements
Infrastructure
improvements:

Infrastructure support
Infrastructure
improvements: ADA
accessibility
Infrastructure
improvements: Bike
lanes with light
5 Economic
development
2020 2024 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Economic
development
Citywide Economic development CDBG: $0 Businesses assisted: 0 Businesses Assisted
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 41, Packet Page 135 Annual Action Plan
2023
32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
6 Program
administration
2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Homeless
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Planning and
administration
Citywide Homelessness
Prevention
Public Service:

Emergency housing
assistance
Economic development
Low Barrier Homeless
Shelters
Public Services:

Homeless counseling
Landlord Tenant
Counseling/Legal
Assistance/Fair Housing
Production of New
Rental Units for
Extremely Low-Income
Production of New Very
Low-Income Rental
Units
Production of New LowIncome Rental Units
Production of New
Moderate-Income For
Sale and Rental
Preserve LMI Deed
Restricted Ownership
Units
Public Service: Job
CDBG:
$232,731
CARES Act:
$5,968
Other: 1 Other
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 42, Packet Page 136 Annual Action Plan
2023
33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
training
Public Service: Job
generating activities,
Public Services:

Counseling for at-risk
youth
Public Services: After
school programs
Public Services:

Emergency
preparedness
Public Services:

Transportation
Public Services:

Healthcare
Public Services:

Homeless outreach
Public Services:

Homeless mental health
Public Services:

Homeless substance
abuse
Permanent and
Supportive Housing
Emergency Shelters
Public Facilities: Parks
Public Facilities:

Recreational facilities
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 43, Packet Page 137 Annual Action Plan
2023
34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Public Facilities: Youth
centers
Public Facilities: Senior
centers
Public Facilities:

Neighborhood
community centers
Public Facilities:

Healthcare facilities
Infrastructure
improvements:

Sewer/street
improvements
Infrastructure
improvements: Street
Improvements
Infrastructure
improvements: Safe
Routes to School
Infrastructure
improvements:

Sidewalk/Curb
Improvements
Infrastructure
improvements:

Infrastructure support
Infrastructure
improvements: ADA
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 44, Packet Page 138 Annual Action Plan
2023
35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
accessibility
Infrastructure
improvements: Bike
lanes with light
Homeowner housing
rehabilitation
Table 2 – Goals Summary
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Housing opportunities
Goal
Description
The Project Summary table below includes the estimated CDBG revenues for the coming year. 2 Goal Name Suitable living environment
Goal
Description
Data and community outreach showed a great need for services that support a suitable living environment, including services to homeless persons, seniors, youth, disabled persons, and low to moderate income households in the community.
3 Goal Name Creating affordability
Goal
Description
Address the impacts of the health crisis and accompanying economic downturn through emergency housing assistance. 4 Goal Name Public Infrastructure
Goal
Description
Data and community need showed a need for public infrastructure in low to moderate income CDBG target areas. Needs include park upgrades, ADA accessibility, improvements to streets and other infrastructure.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 45, Packet Page 139 Annual Action Plan
2023
36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
5 Goal Name Economic development
Goal
Description
Data and community outreach showed a need for economic development because of the high number of low-income households combined with impacts of the recent COVID-19 health crisis and accompanying economic downturn. 6 Goal Name Program administration
Goal
Description
Optimal program planning is a goal for administering the CDBG program at the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 46, Packet Page 140 Annual Action Plan
2023
37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The Needs Assessment revealed many findings related to the need for affordable housing, services to homeless and special needs populations, and needs for rental assistance to prevent homelessness. The City will continue to collaborate with the public service providers that have been traditionally funded by CDBG.

Projects
# Project Name
1 Planning and Administration
2 Public Services
3 Public Infrastructure Projects
4 Housing Preservation Programs
Table 3 - Project Information
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The needs assessment portion of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan identified the lack of affordable housing as a key unmet need. The Consolidated Plan acknowledges that land constraints and limited water make it very difficult to provide sufficient new housing supply to address the lack of affordable housing. The City will focus funding on preserving as many low and moderate-income ownership units through rehabilitation and the retention of deed restricted units. The City will also focus funding on homelessness prevention and services to low-moderate income persons.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 47, Packet Page 141 Annual Action Plan
2023
38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 48, Packet Page 142 Annual Action Plan
2023
39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Project Name Planning and Administration
Target Area Citywide
1 Goals Supported Program administration
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 49, Packet Page 143 Annual Action Plan
2023
40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Needs Addressed Homelessness Prevention
Public Service: Emergency housing assistance
Economic Development
Low Barrier Homeless Shelters
Public Services: Homeless counseling
Landlord Tenant Counseling/Legal Assistance/Fair Housing Production of New Rental Units for Extremely Low-Income Production of New Very Low-Income Rental Units
Production of New Low-Income Rental Units
Production of New Moderate-Income For Sale and Ren
Preserve LMI Deed Restricted Ownership Units
Public Service: Job training
Public Service: Job generating activities
Public Services: Counseling for at-risk youth
Public Services: After school programs
Public Services: Emergency preparedness
Public Services: Transportation
Public Services: Healthcare
Public Services: Homeless outreach
Public Services: Homeless mental health
Public Services: Homeless substance abuse
Permanent and Supportive Housing
Emergency Shelters
Public Facilities: Parks
Public Facilities: Recreational facilities
Public Facilities: Youth centers
Public Facilities: Senior centers
Public Facilities: Neighborhood community centers
Public Facilities: Healthcare facilities
Infrastructure improvements: Sewer/street improvements
Infrastructure improvements: Street improvements
Infrastructure improvements: Safe Routes to School
Infrastructure improvements: Sidewalk/curb improvements Infrastructure improvements: Infrastructure support
Infrastructure improvements: ADA accessibility
Infrastructure improvements: Bike lanes with light
Homeowner housing rehabilitation
Funding CDBG: $232,731; CARES Act: $5,968
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 50, Packet Page 144 Annual Action Plan
2023
41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Description Provide general staff administration of CDBG programs and activities, including Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) administration, program setup, reporting, planning, and subrecipient training and monitoring. A National Objective designation does not apply to activities completed under this project.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
Planning and Administration provides oversight to the CDBG program to ensure compliance with HUD regulations.

Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities General Planning and Administration. HUD Matrix Code: 21A General Administration. National objective: benefit to low- and moderateincome persons or households.

Project Name Public Services
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing opportunities
Suitable living environment
Needs Addressed Homelessness Prevention
Public Services: Homeless counseling
Landlord Tenant Counseling/Legal Assistance/Fair Housing Public Service: Job training
Public Service: Job generating activities
Public Services: Counseling for at-risk youth
Public Services: Homeless outreach
Public Services: Homeless mental health
Public Services: Homeless substance abuse
Permanent and Supportive Housing
Funding CDBG: $172,000
Description Provide public services to low- and moderate-income households and individuals, including services for seniors, persons with disabilities, and homeless persons, youth, and families.
2 Target Date 6/30/2024
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 51, Packet Page 145 Annual Action Plan
2023
42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
About 1,700 individuals, including seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, homeless and households at risk of homelessness, and lowincome households.

Location Description Citywide
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 52, Packet Page 146 Annual Action Plan
2023
43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Planned Activities 1. Alliance on Aging: tax assistance and ombudsman services and referrals to assist 390 low-income seniors. Funding: $13,000 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 05A Senior Services. National
Objective: LMC.

2. Community Human Services Casa De Noche Buena: emergency shelter to serve an estimated 100 single women and families with children. Funding: $19,400 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs. National Objective: LMC with “homeless” presumed benefit.

3. Community Human Services Safe Place: homeless outreach and support to serve an estimated 120 homeless persons and at-risk youth. Funding: $19,400 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 03T
Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs. National Objective: LMC with “homeless” presumed benefit.

4. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA): Court Appointed Special Advocates Program - advocating for children in foster care to assist an estimated 300 persons. Funding: $10,000 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 05N Operating Costs of
Abused/Neglected children. National Objective: LMC with “abused children” presumed benefit.

5. ECHO Fair Housing Support Services: fair housing support services to low- income households in the city for an estimated 75 persons. Funding: $13,600 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code 05J Fair Housing Activities (subject to Public Services cap). The National Objective will be LMC.

6. Food Bank of Monterey County: provide nutrition support to an estimated 150 persons. Funding: $19,400 (CDBG), $20,000 (CARES Act). HUD Matrix Code: 05W Food Banks. National
Objective: LMC with “homeless” presumed benefit.

7. Gathering for Women: case management and day-center
services to homeless women to assist an estimated 200 persons.

Funding: $19,400 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Programs. National Objective: LMC with “homeless” presumed benefit.

8. Interim, Inc.: homeless services, emergency and temporary housing outreach, and case management for an estimated 20 persons with mental illnesses. Funding: $19,400 (CDBG). HUD Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 53, Packet Page 147 Annual Action Plan
2023
44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Matrix Code: 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs. National Objective: LMC.

9. Josephine Kernes Memorial Pool: warm-water exercise and therapy for 12 senior and disabled persons. Funding: $9,000 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 05B Handicapped Services. National Objective: LMC with “disabled” presumed benefit.

10. Legal Services for Seniors: legal advocacy and support for an estimated 250 low-income seniors. Funding: $10,000 (CDBG).

HUD Matrix Code: 05C Legal Services. National Objective: LMC with “elderly” presumed benefit.

11. Meals on Wheels: Meal delivery to homebound seniors and disabled persons; will serve an estimated 200 persons annually.

Funding: $80,000 (CARES Act). HUD Matrix Code: 05A Senior Services. National Objective: LMC with “elderly” presumed benefit.

12. Community Human Services Shuman Heart House: Homeless Center to provide services to families who may be experiencing homelessness. Funding: $19,400 (CDBG). HUD Matrix Code: 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs. National Objective: LMC
Project Name Public Infrastructure Projects
Target Area Laguna Grande Park
Historic Downtown
El Estero
Citywide
3 Goals Supported Suitable living environment
Public Infrastructure
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 54, Packet Page 148 Annual Action Plan
2023
45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Needs Addressed Public Facilities: Parks
Public Facilities: Recreational facilities
Public Facilities: Youth centers
Public Facilities: Senior centers
Public Facilities: Neighborhood community centers
Public Facilities: Healthcare facilities
Infrastructure improvements: Sewer/street improvements
Infrastructure improvements: Street Improvements
Infrastructure improvements: Safe Routes to School
Infrastructure improvements: Sidewalk/Curb Improvements Infrastructure improvements: Infrastructure support
Infrastructure improvements: ADA accessibility
Infrastructure improvements: Bike lanes with light
Funding CDBG: $100,000
Description Facility and infrastructure improvements to publicly funded facilities, nonprofit public service facilities, public facilities, parks, and public infrastructure in the CDBG target area.

Target Date 6/30/2023
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
Approximately 150 persons will receive benefits, including seniors, youth, homeless persons, and low-income households. Additionally, some neighborhoods will experience area benefits from park and public infrastructure improvements.

Location Description Laguna Grande, Historic Downtown, El Estero, Citywide Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 55, Packet Page 149 Annual Action Plan
2023
46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Planned Activities Public Infrastructure, Public Park, and Public Facility Improvements:

Accessibility and sustainability improvements for park and public facilities located in the CDBG target area or that predominantly serve low-income households; specific projects still to be determined. (See tiering below.) These projects will be funded by both program income and entitlement funds and will be budgeted to meet HUD's expenditure requirements and deadlines.

1. Tier 1 Improvements: projects that are ready for public bid or that are near shovel-ready and that can be completed prior to the completion of the program year – June 30, 2023.

Laguna Grande Park Improvements: $100,000 for park
improvements. HUD Matrix Code 03F Parks, Recreational
Facilities. National Objective is LMA.

2. Tier 2 Improvements: projects that are in development for the following program year or that may be fast tracked for shovelreadiness within the first quarter of the program year and that could be completed prior to the end of the following calendar year – December 31, 2024 (Tier 2 projects will be considered for funding as funding is available or pending reallocation from delayed or canceled Tier 1 projects).

3. Tier 3 Improvements: projects that are in development that may be ready for implementation in the next two to three funding cycles, but that may be fast-tracked for shovel-readiness within the current program year for implementation in the next program year (Tier 3 projects will be considered for funding as funding is available or pending reallocation from delayed or canceled Tier 1 and 2 projects.)
Project Name Housing Preservation Programs
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing opportunities
Needs Addressed Homeowner housing rehabilitation
Funding CDBG: $748,926
4 Description Emergency housing repairs, minor home repairs, repairs of city owned inclusionary housing units, purchase and resale program, and administration of these activities.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 56, Packet Page 150 Annual Action Plan
2023
47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Target Date 6/30/2023
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
Approximately 10 low-income households will be assisted.

Location Description Citywide
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 57, Packet Page 151 Annual Action Plan
2023
48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Planned Activities The national objective for all the Housing Rehabilitation Programs will be LMH.

1. Mr. Fix-It Grants: small grants to low-income households to make minor repairs to improve overall housing quality
(estimated $35,000 in grants) HUD Matrix Code 14A Rehab:

Single Unit

2. Home Safety Grants: small grants to low-income households to make emergency health and safety repairs to meet code
(estimated $35,000 in grants) HUD Matrix Code 14A Rehab:

Single Unit

3. Home Accessibility Grants: small grants to low-income households to make accessibility improvements for disabled household members (estimated $35,000 in grants) HUD Matrix Code 14A Rehab: Single Unit

4. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and repair of between 1 and 3 singlefamily ownership units purchased for resale to low-income firsttime homebuyers (estimated $378,926) HUD Matrix Code 14G Rehab: Acquisition

5. Housing Rehabilitation Activity Delivery: staff and project activity delivery costs (estimated $160,000) HUD Matrix Code 14H Rehab: Administration

6. Lead Paint Testing: Provide funds for testing and clearance testing (including risk assessment) of units constructed prior to 1978 that participate in the City's Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program. (Estimated $5,000) HUD Matrix Code14I.

7. Lead Paint Abatement: This program will provide remediation of lead/asbestos hazards of units constructed prior to 1978 that participate in the City's Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program (estimated $10,000); HUD Matrix Code14I.

8. Major Rehabilitation Loan Program: This program provides lowinterest loans to eligible low-income homeowners for major rehabilitation or modernization of their home. (estimated $90,000 in grants) HUD Matrix Code 14A Rehab: Single Unit These projects will be funded with both program income and entitlement funds to best meet HUD expenditure requirements and deadlines.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 58, Packet Page 152 Annual Action Plan
2023
49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed CDBG funding will largely be used city-wide for income eligible persons and households. If additional funding becomes available due to unexpected loan payoffs, the City expects to use CDBG funds in the CDBG target areas. The City has two target areas, Del Monte–Laguna Grande and Downtown target areas. The target areas in downtown are located to the southeast of the City's old town area and includes some of the oldest housing in Monterey. Del Monte Avenue connects the target areas in downtown with the other CDBG target area, which includes a series of neighborhoods to the southeast of Canyon del Rey Blvd. This means that much of the area's housing is older, and vulnerable to the issues that typically face older units, like deferred maintenance, lead-based paint, and inefficient mechanical and building envelopes. The Downtown target areas are one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the City, and while it does not have a minority concentration, it is 58 percent low- and moderate-income households. The Del Monte area is less dense but has a much larger minority population with 55 percent of the population as low mod income. A low- and moderate-income map is included in the attachments that shows the location and low-mod concentrations in the CDBG target areas.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Citywide 100
Table 4 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Traditionally, the City has committed to spending approximately 70 percent of CDBG funds as funding for housing and infrastructure projects in low- and moderate-income (LMI) census tract block groups.

This prioritization has included a portion of public services grant activity and public infrastructure funding that is targeted to LMI census tract block groups. The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPS) and only has a handful of census block groups that qualify as low to moderate income according to HUD’s income data. The diversified distribution of the low-mod population across the city makes it necessary to split the use of CDBG funds between low-mod neighborhoods and low-mod needs citywide.

Discussion
The decision to distribute funding citywide is based on the limited number of low-income census tract block groups that will qualify for HUD’s Low-Mod Income Area benefit. Only a handful of census block groups are classified as low income based on the percentage of households with income at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income. For this reason, there is limited ability for the City to target CDBG funds Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 59, Packet Page 153 Annual Action Plan
2023
50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
to specific areas and receive Low Mod Area (LMA) benefit. Additionally, the City’s most significant unmet need for affordable housing is generally citywide in geographic distribution. In recognition of this housing need, the City Council has directed that affordable housing and homeless services should be placed above the priority for public infrastructure improvements and home repair programs for homeowners.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 60, Packet Page 154 Annual Action Plan
2023
51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
Because the City is almost entirely built out and there is no water for new development, it is difficult to construct new residential development creating a strong demand and an expensive housing market. Additionally, the City continues to be a very desirable place.

The cost of buying a home in the County of Monterey continues to increase each year. According to multiple real estate websites, the median sale price for a home in Monterey County is currently near $900,000. Such an increase in the cost of purchasing a home at market rate can be an indication of a decrease in supply and increase in demand. Both of which could be caused by a surplus of buyers due to the COVID-19 pandemic and people wanting to move away from big cities.

Fair Market Rents established by HUD tend to be exceeded by the real cost of rental housing in the City.

As discussed, the City’s desirability as a place to live due to the coastal environment and amenities combined with a severe lack of developable land keeps the cost of housing too costly for low- to moderate-income households.

According to HUD User for fiscal year 2021, the median family income is $ $75,747 for the Salinas Metropolitan Statistical Area. The affordable monthly cost of housing is $1,894, and the actual market costs exceed this amount by 14 to 100 percent (depending on unit size), making the City unaffordable to for a household earning the median family income.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0
Non-Homeless 10
Special-Needs 0
Total 10
Table 6 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 8
Acquisition of Existing Units 2
Total 10
Table 7 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 61, Packet Page 155 Annual Action Plan
2023
52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Discussion
Traditionally, the City has allocated CDBG federal funding to homeowner rehabilitation, to preserve existing housing stock, provided rental assistance through services providers, and assistance to income eligible first-time homebuyers. The City provides affordable ownership opportunities at a number of sites, through deed restricted, price controlled covenants. The Purchase and Resale Program provides for a small increase in value each year. It is an opportunity to gain all of the benefits of ownership, such as tax benefits, increased equity and freedom from renting. The City will continue making these activities goals when opportunity allows.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 62, Packet Page 156 Annual Action Plan
2023
53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
The Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) is a public agency that provides rental assistance and manages affordable housing throughout Monterey County. The HACM administers Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). The Housing Choice Voucher is a rent subsidy program that helps lower income (up to 50 percent AMI) families and seniors pay rents in private units. Voucher recipients pay a minimum of 30 percent of their income toward their contract rent, and the local housing authority pays the difference through federal funds up to the payment standard (fair market rent) established by the HACM.

The HACM currently has an allocation by HUD of 4,335 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and 199 vouchers through the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) for veterans. However, due to budget constraints, only 3,235 HCVs are in use in the County; 184 are in use in the City alone. The City will continue to coordinate with the HACM as the regional housing authority and public housing provider whenever possible.

Currently there are 168 assisted housing units in the City managed by HACM. HACM has converted all its public housing units to Project-Based Rental Assistance. The conversion of HACM properties to ProjectBased Rental Assistance might offer the City an opportunity to collaborate with the Housing Authority to provide funding assistance for rehabilitation and repair of HACM units. These units are in five separate projects:
• Portola Vista at 20 Del Monte Avenue 64 units
• Casanova Plaza at 800 Casanova Avenue 86 units
• Montecito Apartments at 242 Montecito Street 8 units
• Watson Apartments at 531 Watson Street 5 units
• Oak Grove Apartments at 1100 Second Street 5 units
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing The City will continue to collaborate with the HACM to improve access to available public housing units using HCV. The City will also annually review opportunities to provide rehabilitation grant funding to the HACM for upgrading the condition of its public housing units located in the City.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
The HACM has developed a plan for self-sufficiency of the households it assists that is part of the Family Self-sufficiency program and continually recruits households. The HACM also coordinates a Welfare to Work program as part of the Housing Choice Voucher program. The HACM also has an HCV Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 63, Packet Page 157 Annual Action Plan
2023
54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Homeownership program that attracts participants. Employment is also encouraged by the HACM through job posting and works with contractors to further employment of its participants.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not applicable.

Discussion
See sections above.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 64, Packet Page 158 Annual Action Plan
2023
55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP) is the Continuum of Care (CoC) for the Counties of Monterey and San Benito and includes the City. Every two years, in the month of January, communities across the United States conduct counts of the local population experiencing homelessness. These Point-in-Time counts collect information on individuals and families residing in temporary shelters and places not meant for human habitation, and ultimately help the federal government to better understand the nature and extent of homelessness nationwide. As required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), jurisdictions receiving federal funding to provide homeless services, Continuums of Care must report the findings of their local Point-in-Time count to HUD.

Information gathered through the PIT survey is used by the CHSP to understand the issues associated with homelessness, including causes of homelessness, service needs of the homeless, the region’s unmet housing needs, and trends over time of homelessness in the region.

In 2022, a total of 2,047 homeless persons were counted in the County of Monterey. In the City of Monterey, a total of 101 homeless persons were counted, a 50 percent decrease from the count in 2019. The number of sheltered was 27 and the number of unsheltered was 74.

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
The City continues to work closely and collaborate with the CoC. In partnership with jurisdictions and service providers, the CoC has launched the Coordinated Outreach and Resources for Encampments (CORE) team. This multi-disciplinary team is built of providers that specialize in mentally ill, substance abuse, Veterans, and youth. CORE outreach workers are paired with homeless guides to penetrate the most difficult encampment communities to 1) establish rapport with the inhabitants, 2) assess client needs and provide linkages to services, and 3) administer CARS assessments to those interested in homeless housing programs, like transitional housing or permanent supportive housing.

Additionally, Monterey Police Department’s Community Action Team (CAT) consists of a team of officers who patrol the downtown and waterfront areas of the City. This is done to create a closer bond between the community, including unsheltered homeless or persons in need, and officers. The officers patrolling the waterfront and downtown areas typically use bicycles and four-wheel drive beach vehicles to accomplish their duties. Such in-person interactions allow officers to better supply assistance and referrals to the appropriate agencies with the goal of long-term re-entry back to a productive member of society.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 65, Packet Page 159 Annual Action Plan
2023
56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Monterey Police Department seeks to achieve these goals by actively participating in the MultiDisciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT), which is a new system allowing for collaboration to address community problems, including homelessness, domestic violence, and other chronic life-style challenges. Agencies with which the Monterey Police Department has partnered to implement MDOT include:
• Monterey Police Department
• Adult Protective Services
• Monterey County Behavioral Health
• Montage Health / Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) • Young Women’s Christian Association (Domestic Violence) • Interim
A social worker from each of these organizations is assigned a desk at the Monterey Police Department to provide services to MDOT, putting Monterey Police Officers in direct contact with referral services when need arises. Close access to service agencies and organizations allows for direct outreach and intervention efforts with homeless individuals to quickly assist them with access to benefits and housing.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The Continuum of Care (CoC) allocated over $7M to the construction of homeless shelters in the two jurisdictions that showed the most increase in homelessness per capita in the 2019 Homeless Census.

This dollar amount accounts for over half of the entire CoC’s Homeless Emergency Aid Program funding allocation and was used for the two proposed projects that met the immediate needs of our community.

Other strategies the City is using to address homelessness include:
• Safe Parking Ordinance
• Emergency Shelter Overlay District
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
The CoC coordinates numerous activities to train our service provider network and directly link homeless persons to affordable housing units and prevent formerly homeless persons from recidivism, like rapid rehousing training, weekly e-newsletters listing open low-income housing waitlists, prioritizing permanent supportive housing projects in funding rankings, and dedicating rapid re-housing funds to Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 66, Packet Page 160 Annual Action Plan
2023
57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
vetted seasoned providers.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

The City continues collaboration with the regional Continuum of Care (CoC), the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP). The CHSP is currently working to establish diversion programs and best practices among their provider network and are working on streamlining the CARS process to capture those at risk of becoming homeless to provide faster service.

In addition, to work with the CHSP, in PY 2023-2024, the City will provide public service grant funding to 11 organizations. Five of these organizations provide direct services to the homeless as well as services for homeless prevention: Food Bank of Monterey County, Gathering for Women, Interim, Inc., Community Human Services, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The Food Bank of Monterey County provides food for individuals, families, homeless persons, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the working poor in the City of Monterey. Gathering for Women will aid homeless women, including intake, donated materials, a secure day center, and case management that focuses on the unique challenges facing homeless women. Interim, Inc. focuses services on homeless persons experiencing a mental health crisis and assists with chronic and acute mental illness in the homeless population. Community Human Services focuses efforts on homeless youth with special attention on street outreach, family re-unification, and case management. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) provides advocacy for children in foster care, provides services to move them out of foster care and education on the importance of financial self-sufficiency.

The City’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program was established in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was funded using CDBG-CV money allocated to the City through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program was designed to mitigate potential homelessness and displacement of existing Monterey residents and workers who are experiencing a decrease in household income due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus, unable to pay their rent. On January 29, 2021, the State of California passed the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act (SB 91 and Federal stimulus dollars) to extend eviction protections to COVID-19 impacted tenants and establish the state’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Monterey County was given $28 million for rent and utility assistance, with the United Way of Monterey County acting as the pass-through organization. The City of Monterey applied to the United Way for $2.5 million and ended up receiving an award of $1.25 million to be used for its Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). The program will now be funded using the SB 91 and Federal stimulus dollars and will continue to help the residents of the City of Monterey stay housed.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 67, Packet Page 161 Annual Action Plan
2023
58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Since the City effectively spent this allocation, it was awarded additional CARES Act money this fiscal year.

Discussion
See sections above.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 68, Packet Page 162 Annual Action Plan
2023
59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

A potential barrier to housing opportunities can be related to public policies. Such policies include tax policy, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and other policies that affect the return on residential investment. Amending local zoning and land use laws or allocating funding for affordable housing through grants are mechanisms that can support the development of affordable units. Changes in policies can also help a community to overcome disparities in access to opportunity by the implementation of plans that will revitalize areas with existing affordable housing by improving services, schools and other community assets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure.

Policies to guide future development and achieve a vision for the community are contained in the City’s General Plan. Two of the seven State mandated General Plan elements—Housing and Land Use Elements—have direct impact on the local housing market in terms of the amount and range of housing choice. The Zoning Ordinance, which implements the Land Use Element, is an important document that influences the amount and type of housing available in a community – the availability of housing choice.

A Housing Element found by HCD to be in compliance with State law is presumed to have adequately addressed its policy constraints. According to HCD, as of January 2023, the City’s Housing Element was found to comply.

Specific to the City, a primary barrier continues to be a shortage of available land with utilities.

Restrictions on water due to limited regional water supply also prevents residential development. All of the City’s water supply has already been allocated to projects. However, some existing properties have water credits that can be allocated to new housing development. The City has also identified underutilized sites with water credits and the location of these areas are mapped in the City’s specific plans.

Other factors make residential development a challenge, such as land feasible due to terrain, presence of endangered species, and financing development, wherein the costs are passed to the consumers.

Also, zoning density limitations and California legal decisions that have prohibited requiring low and moderate-income inclusionary housing as a condition of rental housing entitlement approvals.

The City’s policies allow for the following types of housing for low income and special needs populations:
• Emergency shelters
• Accessory Dwelling Unit
• Transitional Housing
• Supportive Housing
• Residential Care Facilities
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 69, Packet Page 163 Annual Action Plan
2023
60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
• Single Room Occupancy
• Reasonable Accommodation
Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment.

City Policies
The City has traditionally acquired deed restricted units to sell to income eligible first-time homebuyers and makes every effort to continue this practice through its purchase and resale housing programs.

Currently, there are 540 deed-restricted units in the City—80 percent are rentals and 20 percent are for purchase and resale.

In addition to purchase and resale programs, the City has created policies to implement other tools that foster affordable housing that include:
• Inclusionary Housing Program
• Density Bonus Ordinance
• Accessory Dwelling Ordinance
• Short Term Rental Ban Enforcement
When possible, City owned property will be utilized to accommodate affordable units with density bonuses or inclusionary zoning. Ten units have been rented on City leased property at 595 Munras Avenue, two of which are affordable. There are several other projects under development that will include affordable units through the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Projects include 2300 Garden Road that was recently issued a building permit for 64 units of which 13 are affordable. The developer for 2300 Garden Road also obtained approvals for an additional 91 units at 2000 and 2600 Garden Road of which 20% would be affordable units. However, the developer is reconsidering these proposals at this time and staff anticipates entirely new concepts to be submitted in 2023. Older projects such as 2200 North Fremont that included 40 Dwelling Units with eight affordable units through a seven percent Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing have been approved but the developer is no longer actively pursuing building permits. The City also has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a 100% affordable low income project on City leased land behind City Hall. The number of units is in the process of being refined although the developer would like to achieve 36 low-income units.

The city plans to address the lack of water resources that has prevented residential development by requesting additional water allocations from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 70, Packet Page 164 Annual Action Plan
2023
61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
California American Water Company (Cal Am) recently received a Coastal Development permit for a new regional desalination plant, but at present Monterey Peninsula's water resources are limited.

Development requiring a water permit is limited to the water credits associated with the site.

The city has amended its Zoning Code to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance in compliance with State law Government Code Section 65852.2. The ADU ordinance is a state effort to increase affordable housing.

The city has also placed a ban on short-term rental units. Local and State Legislation The State of California has enacted policies to help ameliorate barriers to affordable housing. In 2019, the State signed the following:
• California SB 330: The Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This bill suspends restrictions on housing developments and provides for expedited permitting for housing construction until January 1, 2025. • California AB 1763: amending the Density Bonus Law. This bill creates a density bonus and other concessions and incentives for affordable housing developments. • California AB 13: amending Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, among others, relating to land use. Revising existing legislation that allows ADUs in residential and mixed-use districts, this bill allows more than one ADU per lot.

Additionally, discrimination, including housing discrimination because of a protected class is a violation of federal law and the Fair Housing Act. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing), uncovers increased housing discrimination yearly. Fair housing legal services and fair housing education can assist in the prevention of discrimination against such households.

Discussion:

The Needs Assessment and Housing Market Analysis sections of the Consolidated Plan identified the lack of affordable housing as a key unmet need. The Consolidated Plan acknowledges that land constraints and limited water will make it very difficult to provide enough new housing to address the lack of affordable housing. However, the Consolidated Plan identifies strategies that will support the development of housing with a focus to supply needed EL-I, VL-I, and L-I housing units.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 71, Packet Page 165 Annual Action Plan
2023
62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

This section describes the activities that are planned by the City to implement strategies to maintain and increase the supply of affordable housing, reduce lead-based paint (LBP) hazards, reduce the number of families at poverty level, develop institutional structure, and improve coordination among regional agencies and public service organizations so that identified community development needs might be effectively addressed during the five-year term of the Consolidated Plan.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City continues to fund Safe Place a homeless emergency shelter for youth between the ages of 18- 24 years old. The facility includes a total of 12 beds that has been reduced to 8 beds during COVID.

Typical occupancy is between 4-6 persons according to the Safe Place operator, Community Human Services (CHS). CHS will open a second homeless shelter (Shuman HeartHouse) in summer 2023 with an additional 35 beds for women and families. The City provides funding for both of these homeless shelters in the City as well as funding for a homeless shelter (Casa de Noche Buena) in the adjacent City of Seaside.

As far as new development, there are several projects under development that will include affordable units through the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Projects include 2300 Garden Road that was recently issued a building permit for 64 units of which 13 are affordable. The developer for 2300 Garden Road also obtained approvals for an additional 91 units at 2000 and 2600 Garden Road of which 20% would be affordable units. However, the developer is reconsidering these proposals at this time and staff anticipates entirely new concepts to be submitted in 2023. Older projects such as 2200 North Fremont that included 40 Dwelling Units with eight affordable units through a seven percent Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing have been approved but the developer is no longer actively pursuing building permits. The City also has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a 100% affordable low income project on City leased land behind City Hall. The number of units is in the process of being refined although the developer would like to achieve 36 low-income units. Development continues to be severely constrained due to the lack of water supply and a State issued Cease and Desist Order on new water hookups.

As mentioned previously, the City provides grants to service organizations providing other types of important supportive services to low-income populations to assist in improving the quality of life for the populations they serve.

The City can support economic development, which would include providing support to small businesses; business retention, job training, commercial rehabilitation, and construction, and assisting private and for-profit business. Assistance may include grants, loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance; and providing economic development services in connection economic development Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 72, Packet Page 166 Annual Action Plan
2023
63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
activities.

The City can also support local resources for unemployed persons. The Monterey County Workforce Development Board (WDB) is a one-stop career center operating under state and local Workforce Investment Boards.

Additionally, several outreach meetings are held in Monterey County to promote employment such as Prison to Employment Initiative and the Prison to Employment and Regional Plan. The outreach is in support of the Prison to Employment Initiative, a grant program that included in the Governor’s 2018 Budget proposal and includes $37 million over three budget years for the integration of workforce and reentry services in the state’s 14 labor regions. The goal is to create partnerships between rehabilitative programs within California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the state workforce system by bringing CDCR under the policy umbrella of the State Workforce Plan.

The city continues to support youths in preparing to enter the workforce through its summer job opportunities and volunteering programs. Youths can gain job skills and customer service experience through different jobs, which includes becoming a playground recreation leader, a day camp counselor, and other such positions.

Leveraging other financial resources is another way the City can support economic development. For example, the remaining tax increment finance tool still available under State law is the creation of Infrastructure Finance Districts. The current statute has been advocated due to its ability to support local economic development.

The city could also work to leverage grants from Federal, State and Regional Grant Programs. A variety of these grant sources are transportation related and flow to AMBAG and TAMC. With these funds, enhancements can be made to transit, including alternative modes of travel (both bicycle and pedestrian) as well as economic development.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing As previously mentioned, the City will continue to support the Van Buren Senior Housing project (developed on City-owned land), the Monterey Hotel Apartments (a project solely funded with former redevelopment agency housing funds), and Estrella Apartment (funded by HOME grant), all of which provide housing affordable to low- to moderate-income households.

The City will work to preserve existing housing stock through its Mr. Fix-It grants to low-income households to make minor repairs to improve overall housing quality, Home Safety Grants to income eligible LMI households that apply.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 73, Packet Page 167 Annual Action Plan
2023
64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The city actively promotes its Mr. Fix-It grants to low-income households to make minor repairs to improve overall housing quality, Home Safety Grants to low-income households to make emergency health and safety repairs to meet code, and Home Accessibility Grants. Each rehabilitation project is tested for lead-based paint. When lead-based paint is discovered, the City uses the allocated CDBG funds to abate lead-based paint hazard in connection with these CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation projects. The city will continue to allocate CDBG funding to Mr. Fix-it, Home Safety, and Home Accessibility grant programs in PY 2023.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The city will provide CDBG grant allocations in PY 2023 to service organizations providing important supportive services to homeless and low-income populations to assist in the following:
• Food donation from the Monterey Food Bank
• Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) helps children in foster care • Legal Services for low-income seniors in need
• Food delivery by Meals on Wheels for seniors and disabled seniors • Alliance on Aging that provides tax assistance to low-income seniors • Josephine Kernes Memorial Pool’s therapy program for low-income seniors and disabled persons, and • Fair housing education and counseling on housing and home lending discrimination • Acquisition and rehabilitation of ownership units for resale to low-income first-time homebuyers • Outreach and support for homeless persons and at-risk youth by CHS • Providing homeless services, emergency and temporary housing, and case management for persons with mental illnesses through Interim, Inc.
• Day-center services to homeless women in the city through Gathering for Women • Home rehabilitation to low- to moderate-income residents in the City Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The city is in the process of developing implementation of plans for the SB2 grant. The SB2 grant will help the city to do the following:
• Accelerate housing production
• Streamline the approval of housing development affordable to owner and renter households at all income levels
• Facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower- and moderate-income households • Promote development consistent with the State Planning Priorities (Government Code Section 65041.1)
• Ensure geographic equity in the distribution and expenditure of the funds In addition to SB2, the city will utilize funding from the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) to Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 74, Packet Page 168 Annual Action Plan
2023
65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
provide the following:
• Emergency housing vouchers
• Rapid rehousing
• Emergency shelter construction, and
• Use of armories to provide temporary shelters, among other activities In addition to these efforts, the city will continue to work closely and collaborate with CHSP, the CoC, to implement the Lead Me Home Plan. CHSP partners with include a wide-range of public and private entities that include CA-506—Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties CoC, affordable housing developers, community clinics and health centers, other health care providers, educational institutions, faith-based organizations, housing and homeless services providers, health plans, local government, probation/criminal justice, non-profit agencies, private foundations, public housing authorities, people with lived experience of homelessness, and service providers for families, seniors, survivors of domestic violence, veterans, and youth. Many of these partners mentioned are traditional recipients of the City’s CDBG program. The city continues to work closely and on a regular basis with these providers through the CDBG program’s yearly activities.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The city will continue to coordinate and work closely with the agencies and organizations to deliver services to LMI households, special needs populations, and homeless families and individuals. Objectives and priorities for addressing homelessness in the Lead Me Home plan are, and will continue to be, aligned with the City’s Consolidated Plan. As described, the CHSP works closely in coordination with the CDBG subrecipients receiving allocations listed in the City’s plan: Community Human Services’ program, Safe Place in Monterey, that provides counseling, family reunification, temporary shelter and street outreach for homeless youth; Interim Inc. that provides homeless services, emergency and temporary housing outreach, and case management for persons with mental illnesses; Interim’s Manzanita House provides short-term crisis services as well as emergency placement in Monterey’s Laguna Grande; and the Veterans Transition Center that provides services for homeless Veterans and their families.

Additionally, the City’s Housing Programs office is proactive regarding opportunities to acquire new properties for the development of affordable housing. The City has an interest in ensuring that deedrestricted units remain affordable to low-income households.

Discussion:

See sections above.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 75, Packet Page 169 Annual Action Plan
2023
66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

The below section identifies other program specific requirements. The City of Monterey plans to use at a minimum 70% of CDBG funds to assist low- and moderate-income households.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0
Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 70.00% Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 76, Packet Page 170 Attachment
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 77, Packet Page 171 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday February 28, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday February 28, 2023
3 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

4. Recommend that the City Council Adopt the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26)
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council Adopt the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, with a new amendment to reduce $600 from each of the six recipients receiving $20,000 and awarding that $3,600 to the Josephine Kerns Memorial Pool in addition to their proposed $5,400 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Community Development Director Cole introduced the item, presented the Agenda Report, and answered Commissioner questions.

Chair Fletcher asked who serves on the Committee that reviews public service grants. Ms.

Cole explained the Committee consists of the Planning Commission Chair, a Police Department representative, a Community Development Department representative, and a Staff Consultant.

Commissioner Freeman asked about funds received by Meals on Wheels. Ms. Cole explained.

Commissioner Latasa asked if the funds are Federal. Ms. Cole said the funding is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

Commissioner Latasa suggested reducing each $20,000 allotment by a small amount to allocate more toward the Josephine Kernes Memorial Pool. Ms. Cole confirmed that is possible, saying there is flexibility in how the funds are dispersed.

Commissioner Bluth asked if there is a maximum amount. Ms. Cole said the entitlement amount is designated for the City annually. Housing Consultant Damien Delany added that the algorithm is mainly based on each city’s population and percentage of low- and moderateincome households.

Public Comments
Jacob Schaffer provided background information regarding Meals on Wheels services, clients, and funding.

Natalie Hoy of Community Human Services gave an overview of services provided and ways funding would be allocated if awarded.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 78, Packet Page 172 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday February 28, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday February 28, 2023
4 Lynn Young highlighted details about Josephine Kernes Memorial Pool and services provided there.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Freeman inquired about Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing. Ms. Cole supplied information regarding what they do when they are utilized.

Commissioner Freeman suggested reducing ECHO Fair Housing’s allotment by $3,600 and adding it to the to the Memorial Pool’s, bringing their total to the previously received $9,000.

Commissioner Latasa suggested reducing each $20,000 distribution by $600 would also leave $3,600 available and asked what the Kernes Memorial Pool received previously.

Commissioner Latasa asked why the Subcommittee arrived at $5,400 this cycle. Ms. Cole suggested the focus was more on homeless service needs and how to continue providing these services.

Commissioner Brassfield commended the Monterey Police Department on their exceptional work helping the unhoused and suggested finding ways to grow funds to support that initiative.

He also suggested including statistics for caregiver accomplishments throughout the last year.

Commissioner Bluth suggested methods to make the HUD money go further. Ms. Cole explained other funding sources exist and each social service agency receives funds from multiple sources each year.

Commissioner Dawson asked why the Veterans Transition Center was not included. Ms. Cole said they did not apply.

Commissioner Latasa congratulated the City on receiving an extra $105,000. Ms. Cole explained Grant Leonard, Sara Reid and Eric Palmer ran the Emergency Rental Assistance Program during COVID-19 and few jurisdictions in the Country were able to achieve the spending objectives.

Chair Fletcher asked what the Commission wants to do with the presented numbers.

Commissioner Bluth motioned to approve Commissioner Latasa’s idea of reducing each $20,000 provision by a small amount to limit pain. Commissioner Latasa seconded the motion.

Commissioner Freeman clarified that the motion is to reduce $600 from each of the six recipients receiving $20,000 and adding that $3,600 to the Josephine Kerns Memorial Pool’s suggested $5,400 allotment. Chair Fletcher confirmed that is the motion.

On a motion by Commissioner Bluth, seconded by Commissioner Latasa and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council Adopt the 2023/2024 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, with a new amendment to reduce $600 from each of the six recipients receiving $20,000 and awarding that $3,600 to the Josephine Kerns Memorial Pool in addition to their proposed $5,400:

AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Bluth, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 79, Packet Page 173 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday February 28, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Tuesday February 28, 2023
5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS 5:30 p.m.
***End of Afternoon Session Agenda***
The Planning Commission recessed at 5:27 p.m. and reconvened at 7:01 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
***Evening Session Agenda***
7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING (EVENING)

5. Consider 2600 Sand Dunes Drive; Use Permit Application UP-23-0031 for Structural Alterations to an Existing Hotel Property; Applicant Michael Stanton, Stanton Architecture; Owner ACP MONTEREY HOTEL LLC; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3 ACTION: Approved Use Permit application UP-23-0031 for structural alterations to an existing hotel property at 2600 Sand Dunes Drive as submitted Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Principal Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Brassfield asked if the staircase is a replacement. Ms. Roveri said it is new.

Commissioner Freeman asked if there is an internal stairway inside. Ms. Roveri said there is.

Applicant
Commissioner Brassfield asked how a potential increase in crime would be addressed in the less visible area. Applicant Christina Zimmer said there is onsite security and the stairs are exterior. Commissioner Brassfield suggesting monitoring access to clients and their rooms.

Public Comments
Sharon Dwight said the stairway would be more convenient nearer to the restaurant exit and suggested adding hoods over the parking lot lights as they may project toward drivers.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 80, Packet Page 174 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Receive Reports and Provide Direction on the City’s Housing Program, Legal Framework for Tenant Protections, Vacancy Tax and Rental Registry (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive reports and provide direction on the:
 City’s housing program;
 Legal framework for tenant protections;
 Vacancy tax; and
 Rental registry.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

A vacancy tax and rental registry would be substantial new housing programs. The rental registry would provide additional new information about the location, number, type and rent of existing rental units. Many jurisdictions establish a rental registry to develop rent control regulations.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from receiving the update about current housing programs and the potential for a rental registry in the City of Monterey.

Currently, staff estimates that a rental registry program will require around $400,000 annually in on-going costs. The management, administration, and maintenance of a rental registry program will require two additional full time staff members at a total estimated annual operating cost of $275,000, plus $25,000 for management/supervisory staff time.

Staff also estimates approximately $100,000 in additional initial staff time to develop the program and physically confirm data before launching.

Date: 4/18/2023
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 175 The cost for a specialized rental registry software will be around $25,000 in start-up costs in year one plus an estimated $30,000 annual subscription fee, for a total year one cost of $55,000. The $30,000 subscription fee would continue annually thereafter. Since this is a new program, the City needs to create fees to recover the costs for the program.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may elect not to receive the update.

DISCUSSION:

Housing Program
The City’s Housing Office currently provides a variety of ongoing housing programs with an annual Community Development Block Grant budget of approximately $1.1 million to $1.5 million. These funds are restricted to specific programs and income levels based on Federal regulations. On-going programs include:

Administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programs:
o Public Service grants to non-profits
o Home repair grants and loans to low-income homeowners o Public infrastructure grants to repair City parks and non-profit owned public facilities
Administration of the Purchase and Resale Program for Affordable Home Ownership:
o First-time Home Buyer Program
o Down Payment Assistance Program
:

Administration of the City’s Affordable Rental Housing Program o Management of the HOME-funded Casa De Estrella Apartments Every five years, the City Council adopts a Consolidated Plan evaluating and establishing the community’s housing priorities for low-income households. Annually, the City Council adopts an Action Plan to implement the Consolidated Plan and comply with federal regulations.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 176 Legal Framework
The City has partnered again with Goldfarb & Lipman to provide an informational presentation about rent stabilization measures available to cities in California. The presentation will:
• Provide a legal overview
• Outline policy options:
o Enact a rent control and just cause ordinance
o Build upon the Tenant Protections Act of 2019
o Pass a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance
o Provide landlord-tenant mediation
Vacancy Tax
The City Council has not previously discussed a vacancy tax. Case studies worthy of exploration include the City and County of San Francisco and City of Santa Cruz experiences.

The City and County of San Francisco’s Measure M passed by 54.5%. Annual residential vacancy taxes will cost $2,500 for units 1,000 square feet and smaller and up to $5,000 for units exceeding 2,000 square feet in 2024. Annual revenue generated from the measure is expected to hit $15.4 million by 2026, according to a September report.

The City of Santa Cruz’s Measure N failed in November 2022 with 46% in favor and 54% opposed. The measure proposed the following rates:
 $6,000 per vacant single-family residence;
 $6,000 per residential parcel with six or fewer units, where all units are in use less than 120 days per calendar year;
 $3,000 per vacant residential unit of a condominium or townhome; and  $3,000 per vacant residential unit on residential parcels with seven or more units.

Rental Registry
The City of Salinas has pursued establishing a rental registry since 2018. The City has hosted 22 public meetings and now has a recommendation moving forward through various committees (Attachment 7).

Over the years, the City of Monterey City Council has received updates about rent stabilization measures and discussed whether to create a new program; however, no program has been initiated to date. Copies of the staff reports and minutes are attached. Key dates include:

December 1, 2020: Councilmember Williamson and Vice Mayor Haffa’s Request to Agendize a Discussion about Rent Stabilization Measues Action: Directed staff to bring an extension of the eviction moratorium before the Council within two months, prior to State's eviction moratorium Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 177 ending, and directed staff to dedicate a study session in 2021 to the issue of renter protections
September 29, 2021: Receive Presentation about Rent Control in California and Potential Rent Stabilization Measures that could be implemented in the City of Monterey and an Overview of the City’s Current Housing Program
Action: Received presentation, discussed.

February 23, 2022: Receive a Report on Rent Registry Programs Action: Received report, discussed.

Mayor Williamson has requested that this discussion be placed on an agenda for further discussion. The previous staff reports provide a starting point to understand rental registries. If the Council is interested in developing this program, staff would prepare a more extensive work program including the required start-up staffing requirements and costs.

In summary, the City Council should consider this report and provide direction where appropriate.
(KC)
Attachments: 1. February 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report

2. February 23, 2022 City Council Minutes

3. September 29, 2021 City Council Staff Report

4. September 29, 2021 City Council Minutes

5. December 1, 2020 City Council Staff Report

6. December 1, 2020 City Council Minutes

7. City of Salinas - Rental Registry Background Information

8. City and County of San Francisco - Vacancy Tax Information

9. City of Santa Cruz - Vacancy Tax Information

10. City and County of San Francisco - Vacancy Tax Newspaper Article and Lawsuit
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, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 178 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Grant Leonard, AICP, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Receive a Report on Rent Registry Programs (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a report on rent registry programs A rent registry program could be established to track allowable rent increases, monitor changes in tenancies and rents, and to collect data on rent-stabilized apartments should the City adopt rent stabilization.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Maintaining and increasing access to affordable housing supports the City’s on-going housing efforts, including those intended to serve extremely low, very low and low-income residents.

The City Council has recently adopted value drivers to support its community vision. One of the value drivers states:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region. The Council embraces efforts that provide equitable access to affordable housing, including balanced approaches to increase housing supply, rental resources and assistance, and housing rehabilitation grants to homeless, low-income, senior and disabled individuals.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from receiving the update on the potential for a rental registry in the City of Monterey.

Currently staff estimates that a rental registry program will require around $400,000 annually in on-going costs. The management, administration, and maintenance of a rental registry program will require two additional full time staff members at a total estimated annual operating cost of $275,000, plus $25,000 for management/supervisory staff time.

Staff also estimates approximately $100,000 in additional initial staff time to develop the program and physically confirm data before launching.

The cost for a specialized rental registry software will be around $25,000 in start-up costs in year one plus an estimated $30,000 annual subscription fee, for a total year one cost of $55,000. The $30,000 subscription fee would continue annually thereafter.

Date: 2/23/2022
Item No.: 1.

Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 3 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 179 Since this is a new program, the City needs to create fees to recover the costs for the program.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey staff determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378(b)(5)). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities 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 is a report on PY2015-16 CDBG funded activities and this matter has 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 City Council may elect to not receive the update.

DISCUSSION:

On September 29, 2021, the City Council held a study session on rent stabilization policies that are allowed under state law. The Council requested that staff review the possibility of a rental registry and to determine how many business licenses are issued by the City to apartment owners, as to provide data on rental housing within the City. Staff has been working on this assignment since then.

Legal Background
A number of state laws address regulation of rental housing in California. These laws were discussed in detail at the September 29th, 2021 study session and include Costa-Hawkins, which establishes restrictions on rent control, the Ellis Act which adds additional restrictions on rent control, and the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482), which establishes annual rent caps and provides certain eviction protections.

Rental Registry Background
Cities can adopt ordinances providing for the creation of a rental registry. In jurisdictions with rent control and/or just cause protections, landlords must register covered units and pay an annual fee, which funds the maintenance of the registry and other programmatic costs.

As part of staff’s research, we estimate that out of 483 cities/ counties approximately 16 cities in California have rental registration programs, including:
• Alameda
• Berkeley
Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 4 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 180 • Culver City
• Davis
• Eastvale
• El Cerrito
• Elk Grove
• Fresno
• Los Angeles
• Mountain View
• Sacramento
• San Jose
• Santa Cruz
• Richmond
• Yountville
A rental registry can be used to monitor changes in tenancy of covered units, including initial rents, subsequent rent increases, and evictions. Having a registration requirement could, among other things, require landlords to provide the following information:
● Name of property owner
● Property address
● Number of units in an apartment/housing complex
● Lease start date
● Lease terms
● Rent rate
● Utilities covered by rent rates
● Reasons for non-renewal/eviction
Funding for rental registries most commonly is via annual fees paid by the owners of the rental units covered by the program. Alternatively, a city could reallocate a portion of its in-lieu or development fees, or general funds to administering a rent stabilization program. However, the City has eliminated its in-lieu and development fees to streamline housing development so these funds are not available.

City Rental Market Background
In 2019, the City prepared two housing reports that outlined some of the challenges facing the City’s rental community, the Vulnerable Communities Needs Analysis, and the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Some of the key findings were:
• Monterey is a majority rental community, with 65.9% of housing units occupied by renters.
• Of those rental units, 35.3% are occupied by low or moderate income households. • 50% of the City’s housing units are multi-family.
• 62% of multi-family housing had five or more units.
• 87.6% of the City’s housing stock was constructed before 1990.

Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 5 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 181 The Challenge: Review of Rental Property Data
A rental registry may be used to collect data on all rental units within a city, including apartments, condominiums, single family homes, etc.

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): Staff was not (yet) able to find any data available to accurately determine how many total housing units are being rented within the City. This data would be created once a rental registry is in place, and the City knows how many units are participating in the registry.

However, there is some data available on the number of apartments within the City. During the fall of 2021, City staff reviewed property data for apartment units within the City of Monterey to determine the number of units that would be subject to a rental registry. Data was collected from the City’s Building Department and GIS database, and Chicago Title Company. Staff concluded that not one dataset accurately captures the number of apartment units in the City. Of the datasets reviewed, the City’s GIS database provided the data used for the presented rough estimate of apartments in the City. The data calculated by City of Monterey GIS staff came from:
• Existing address data,
• Census housing count tables,
• City Zoning data, and
• County Assessor's Land Use data.

Chicago Title Company data was used to determine the total number of owners for multi-family units within the City, and whether owners are individuals or corporations.

Due to how the units are coded in the GIS data, residential care facilities and deed restricted affordable housing units were included with the total number of apartments. Staff filtered the data to remove care facilities and affordable housing units. Based on this analysis, staff estimates that there are 6,010 apartments within the City. This estimate approximately corresponds to the estimated number of multi-family units listed in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element, which was estimated from U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Commerce data.

The 6,010 apartment units are divided between 1,048 sites scattered across the City, primarily within the Residential Medium Density Multi Family (R-3) and Planned Community zoning areas. The vast majority of the complexes include fewer than 10 units. Complexes with more than 10 units are required to have a City business license.

Another question asked by Council was to provide data about the breakdown of bedroom unit sizes. Staff was not able to determine the breakdown of bedroom unit size, so it is unknown how many of the estimated apartments are studios, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, etc.

Staff estimates, utilizing data from Chicago Title, that there are 652 owners of multi-family unit developments within Monterey. Of the 652 owners, 542 are individuals or couples, while 110 are corporations. It is clear from a review of the available data, that considerable research, estimated between 12 to 18 months, would be needed to determine more accurate figures for the rental market and a potential rental registry. Prior to starting a registry, the City would need to ensure the data is accurate by “physically confirming” the property data to verify the number Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 6 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 182 of apartments at each address. This would be a substantial work effort to conduct site visits to all the apartment sites in Monterey.

Apartments with Business Licenses
Council also inquired about a status report about business licenses issued to apartment complexes. City Code requires that every person engaged in the business of owning, conducting or operating any apartment house, house court or bungalow containing ten or more rental units, and every person engaged in the business of renting, or letting ten or more apartments, single-family dwellings or other accommodations for dwelling, sleeping or lodging in such place, shall pay an estimated annual license tax for each fiscal year in the amount determined as follows:

A. Gross receipts of $12,500 or less per annum, the sum of $15.

B. Gross receipts in excess of $12,500 per annum, the sum of $15 plus $6 for each $2,500 of gross receipts or fraction thereof in excess of $12,500 per annum.

Data from the City’s Finance Department shows that in 2021, the City issued 48 Business Licenses for rental housing complexes of 10 or more units. The total number of units at these locations is 1,330. These business licenses have generated a total of $112,310.75 in business license tax in Fiscal Year 21-22. The business license revenues are allocated to the General Fund and finance a multitude of existing services.

Although the City issued 48 business licenses in 2021, the City’s GIS data shows that a total of 97 complexes have more than 10 units. As such, there are 49 complexes that may not be in compliance with the business license requirement. The total number of units for all 97 sites is 2,916. Staff will need to further review why all 97 complexes are not securing business licenses.

It is clear that the apartments that require business licenses represent only a portion of rentals within the City because a majority of rentals are in complexes with fewer than 10 units. For this reason, adding additional rental questions to the business license application would yield only partial insights into the rental housing market, while gaining no data on rentals in smaller complexes.

Staffing, Costs and Financing for a Rental Registry
The development and maintenance of a rental registry will create a significant new program for the City’s Housing Programs Office, requiring additional staff to ensure a successful program.

This would also be a multi-year effort. The City of Salinas, which is in the process of implementing a registry, began working in the registry in 2018. Staff estimates that the creation of the program would take 12 to 18 months to include public outreach and field surveys to verify the data plus receiving rental information per qualifying rental unit.

In addition to the time needed to create the registry, there would be on-going monitoring requirements, annual registration periods, increased outreach to the renter community and landlords, and a potential for increased fair housing services such as landlord tenant mediation.

Larger cities with rental registrations, like Alameda and Berkeley, have five to six staff members to manage their programs. For a smaller city, like Monterey, it is conceivable that an additional Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 7 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 183 Housing and Community Development Coordinator and Administrative Assistant would be required to ensure a successful program.

For purposes of researching potential costs of the registration software, the City received a general cost estimate from a company that specializes in rental registry software. The cost estimate includes $25,000 in start-up costs in year one plus a $30,000 annual subscription fee, for a total year one cost of $55,000. The $30,000 subscription fee would continue annually thereafter.

Below is a preliminary program budget based on the above assumptions.

Preliminary Rental Registry Expense Budget
Item Start-Up Costs Annual Cost
Verify Apartments/Addresses $100,000
Registry Software Setup $25,000
Annual Registry Software $30,000
Staff Salaries and Benefits $300,000
Administrative Costs (vehicle,
computers, licensing, office supplies,
training, professional legal services,
etc.)
$60,000
Additional Landlord/Tenant Services $10,000
Total $125,000 $400,000
Financing of rental registries is typically done through a registration fee assessed to landlords during the annual registration process. Other options including increasing the business license cost for apartment complexes of 10 or more units, or using City general funds. The City of Berkeley charges registration fees of between $150 and $250 per unit, while Alameda ranges between $100 and $148 per unit. The City of Salinas is proposing a sliding scale of between $20 and $350 per unit depending on the number of units being registered.

The table below shows an estimated per unit registration fee based on the preliminary budget and the estimated number of rental units within Monterey that would be included in the registry.

This estimate assumes no general funds or business license funds would be used, so the registration fee would cover the full costs of the program.

Registry Budget Number of Units Per Unit Registration Fee $400,000 6,010 $66.55
Funding for the $125,000 in start-up costs and $400,000 in annual costs would need to be identified prior to moving forward.

Effect of Registries on the Rental Market
As noted before, a rental registry would provide new data about the rental housing market in Monterey. As such, a registry does not affect the rental market like rent control or rent stabilization measures do.

Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 8 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 184 Staff reached out to staff at cities that already have rental registries, including Alameda and Berkeley, and the City and County of San Francisco, to determine what the net effect of a registry is. The feedback received was that registries had either a positive impact or no noticeable impact. Positive impacts include increased maintenance of rental properties because of better reporting of concerns. Staff from cities that have established registration programs also shared that there is no loss of rental properties from property owners removing the rental from the market. In general, when a multi-family rental unit is sold, the new owners continue to use it as a rental property.

For the property owners, a registration program would result in a new regulatory requirement and fee to operate rental housing. Therefore, a rental registration program would add more administrative work and costs for landlords and property managers. This fee is also typically passed onto the renters.

The net effect of a registry would be to increase transparency into the rental market, and potentially improve conditions at rental units where maintenance problems are reported, and increase regulatory requirements and fees for property owners. Rental rates for renters may also increase.

Public Outreach and Engagement
Starting a rental registry would be a significant new program for the City. It would also be of considerable interest to the City’s renter population, rental property owners, and property management companies. As noted earlier, the City of Salinas began discussing a rental registration program in 2018, and moved to approve it in January 2022 after years of a collaborative public engagement process that included establishing a Housing Policy Technical Advisory Committee to provide feedback to staff on development of the registration program. In order to respect our community and gain the community’s input on a rental registry, the City of Monterey would need to conduct an active public engagement campaign before moving forward with a rental registration program.

Conclusion
As discussed at the September 29, 2021 Council Study Session, the City has the ability to pursue rent stabilization policies, including establishing a rental registry. A rental registry would provide new data about the City’s existing rental housing and about trends in the rental market.

In order to create and monitor a new rental registry that would provide new data on the rental housing market, the City would need to commit sufficient financial and staff resources to the new program. Prior to starting a registry, the City would need to ensure the data is accurate by “physically confirming” the property data to verify the number of apartments at each address.

This would be a substantial work effort to conduct site visits to all the apartment sites in Monterey. Establishing the registry would also require acquisition of new software for the operation of the database, estimated at $25,000 plus an annual fee of $30,000. As such, there would be initial start-up costs for staffing to verify the data and then $25,000 for software. This would be followed by an estimated $400,000 (first year) in annual costs for staff, software, administrative costs, and possible landlord/tenant services.

Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 9 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 185 The City would also need to identify a funding source for the creation and operation of the rental registry program. At this time, the City’s does not have surplus housing funds to finance development of a registry, so funding would need to come from annual fees paid by the owners of the rental units covered by the program, or the city could establish a development impact fee, or general funds to administer the program.

Finally, prior to developing a rental registration program, the City would need to engage in a robust public engagement process to ensure the community has ample opportunity to provide feedback to staff on concept of establishing a rental registration program for the City.

A rental registry has little impact on rent ceilings without accompanying local rent control measures, which would exceed current State laws.

AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, established a statewide cap on annual rent increases and provided additional eviction protections related to just cause and no-fault evictions. Annual rent increases are now restricted to 5% plus the local Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 10%, whichever is lower. Certain properties are exempt from the Act such as housing built within the last 15 years and single family homes. The Act does not prohibit the City from passing more protective rent control and eviction protections that build upon the protections in the Act.

In other words: starting the work on a rental registry could foreseeably lead Council to consider further measures with respect to rent control and subsequent enforcement actions.

KC/GL
e: Housing Outreach List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 2/23/2022, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 10 Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 186

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
4:00 PM

ZOOM TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, City Clerk, Administrative Analyst (Housing), Assistant City Attorney This meeting was held with teleconference attendance only, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-015 C.S.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. She called the roll with Councilmember Albert temporarily absent due to computer issues, and he rejoined the meeting at 4:06 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

1. Receive a Report on Rent Registry Programs (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received report, discussed
Housing Analyst Leonard gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with City Manager Uslar, Assistant City Attorney Salameh, and Community Development Director Cole.

Public comment was received from: Jean Rasch, who stated that housing issues are a natural sector for government involvement; Eloise Shim, who said that a rental registry would not hold landlords accountable or balance power between landlords and tenants; Gabriella SchlesingerJames, who expressed hesitation about a rental registry and said that the Council should already understand their constituents' housing-related needs and issues; Robert Evans, who said that the data is worth collecting and asked how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would fit into the picture; Tom Rowley, who saiid that owners would resist registering and that there is no magic solution to housing problems; Esther Malkin, who asserted that a correlation exists between rent issues and homelessness and stated that the rental registry fee was a scare tactic; Scott Dick, who said that property owners take all the risk, and provided thoughts on the City of Salinas' rental registry model and outreach conducted; Berbara Meister, Monterey Bay Aquarium, who spoke about the ripple effect that workers' financial struggles have on the economy; Jeff Davi, who suggested the Council hold meetings about rent control if that is the goal; and Laurie Hambaro, who suggested a regional approach, greater advertising of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C43CB9A-FB1B-45E0-A8EA-809048E12F56 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 187 City Council Minutes February 23, 2022
2 ECHO Housing advocacy program, and referred to details of the City of Pacific Grove's business licensing requirements for landlords.

The Council discussed the concept of a rental registry. On question, Housing Analyst Leonard and Assistant City Attorney Salameh clarified that the data collected could be distributed in aggregated reports that would not disclose any personally identifiable data. On question, Housing Analyst Leonard stated that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could be included if desired by the Council.

It was stated by the Council that one apparent goal of some rental registries was related to code compliance, and the question was posed whether the City has enough code compliance. A concern was shared that once a bureaucracy is put into place, it can become expensive and can be complicated to dismantle, and the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) were cited as examples. As an alternative to a database, it was proposed to determine what the problem is and then focus on solutions to that problem. It was stated that the proposed program could be considered "mission creep." It was stated that sustainable water is a missing piece of the puzzle that would allow the private sector to add more housing units. It was stated that rent control can make rental problems worse.

It was noted that two-thirds of residents are affected by and involved in the rental market, and that there was justification for the City's involvement from both an economic point of view as well as from the angle of the Council's adopted value driver, "Quality of Life." It was stated that the driving force behind interest in a registry was not code enforcement, but rather the exploding cost of rent. It was stressed that the data that could be collected would be beneficial, but not at the cost cited by staff to run the program. It was suggested to expand the business license collection process to include data collection, and it was suggested that City staff report back to the Council about what would be involved in changing the number of rental units that would require a business license. It was urged that the Council should refocus its intention on rent stabilization and what the City can do to make rents more affordable and encourage employers to provide housing for their essential workers.

It was urged that the Council address issues identified by the renter community in a timely matter for those residents who have been waiting for so long for solutions. In favor of a registry, the question was posed that without adequate data, the Council would have a difficult time pursuing rent stabilization. Stated benefits of a registry included up-to-date contact information for public safety and code compliance purposes and allowing the City to track its rental stock. It was proposed that the City could provide sample leases on its website. It was suggested that if a registry were adopted, it should track all rental units of every size. It was stressed that noncompliant rental businesses not up to date with their business license fees should incur enforcement action.

City Manager Uslar summarized the Council's requests to staff as follows: to look into the City's business license tax and to what degree the City can retool the process to get data, to look at what other cities are doing with respect to business license tax and the ideal number of units that should require paying the tax, and to look at adding a voluntary questionnaire along with the business license process that can produce an annual snapshot of rent-related information.

He stated that he heard a consensus from the Council that they were not ready to implement a rental registry. It was confirmed by the Council that the City Manager's summary was accurate, and it was added that the Council would like staff to work on identifying problems and whether DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C43CB9A-FB1B-45E0-A8EA-809048E12F56 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 188 City Council Minutes February 23, 2022
3 maintenance and code compliance programs need improvement, including collecting hard data on the number of complaints, to make sure everyone has a safe, livable dwelling.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C43CB9A-FB1B-45E0-A8EA-809048E12F56 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 189 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Grant Leonard, AICP, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Receive Presentation about Rent Control in California and Potential Rent Stabilization Measures that could be Implemented in the City of Monterey, and an Overview of the City’s Current Housing Program (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Presentation about Rent Control in California and Potential Rent Stabilization Measures that could be implemented in the City of Monterey, and a general overview on the City’s current housing program.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Maintaining and increasing access to affordable housing supports the City’s on-going housing efforts, including those intended to serve extremely low, very low and low-income residents.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from receiving the presentation about rent control in California and the potential rent stabilization measures in the City of Monterey. It is unknown what the financial impact would be to develop and implement a rental control program within the City, although the cost would likely be substantial and require increased staff levels to manage the new program.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may elect not to receive the presentation.

Date: 9/29/2021
Item No.: 2.

Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 190 DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey currently experiences both high housing costs and a low inventory of affordable housing units. Further exasperating this condition is the Peninsula’s shortage of available water for development and the restriction on California American Water’s (Cal Am) ability to set new water meters.

Background
In 2019, the City prepared two housing reports that outlined some of the challenges facing the City’s rental community, the Vulnerable Communities Needs Analysis and the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
• The majority of Monterey residents are renters, with 65.9% of housing units occupied by renters.
• Of the 65.9% of housing units occupied by renters, 35.3% are occupied by low or moderate income households.
• 50% of the City’s housing units are multi-family
• 62% of multi-family housing had five or more units
• 87.6% of the City’s housing stock was constructed before 1990 Data that was used to inform the Vulnerable Communities Needs Analysis and the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice showed that:
• The average rental cost for a studio was $1,289
• The average rental cost for a 1-bedroom was $1,734
• The average rental cost for a 2-bedroom was $2,236
• 51.8% of renters reported experiencing housing problems, such as living in overcrowded conditions or living in substandard conditions
• 23.6% of renters were severely cost burdened by rent
According to RentCafe.com, the current average rent in Monterey is $2,263, and rents have increased by 6% over last year. Although this is unofficial, aggregated data from an online source, it does reflect the upward trend in rents for Monterey. Forthcoming 2020 Census data will provide official data on rental rates within the City.

Presentation Overview
Based on a suggestion by Council Member Williamson, the Council tasked staff to organize and present a study session about various aspects of rent control.

The City partnered with Goldfarb & Lipman to provide an informational presentation about rent stabilization measures available to cities in California. The presentation will:
• Provide an overview of rent control and just cause for eviction • Provide an overview of legal landscape
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 191 o Review of city’s police powers
o Limitations on rent control ordinances
• Explain the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act and Ellis Act • Explain the Tenant Protection Act of 2019
• Outline policy options:
o Enact a rent control and just cause ordinance
o Build upon the Tenant Protections Act of 2019
o Pass a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance
o Provide landlord-tenant mediation
• Discuss other Rent Control considerations:
o How to fund the program?
o Who monitors compliance?
o What kinds of education and outreach are provided?
• Discuss Rental Registries
o Data required
o Monitoring and updating
Existing Housing Programs
The City’s Housing Programs Office currently provides a variety of ongoing housing programs with an annual Community Development Block Grant budget of approximately $1.5 - $2 million.

These funds are restricted to specific programs and income levels based on Federal regulations. On-going programs include:
• Administration of the Community Development block Grant (CDBG) programs o Public Service grants to non-profits
o Home repair grants and loans to low-income home owners o Public infrastructure grants to repair City parks and non-profit owned public facilities
• Administration of the Purchase and Resale Program for affordable home ownership o First-time Home Buyer Program
o Down Payment Assistance Program
• Administration of the City’s Affordable Rental Housing Program • Management of the HOME funded Casa De Estrella Apartments For decades, the City has been suggesting and implementing a variety of housing programs and measures. Similarly, in 2018, the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership addressed a multitude of housing issues and solutions. A comparative status of these efforts is outlined in Attachment 1 and reflects the decisions made by Monterey City Councils.

In addition to the regular housing programs, the Housing Programs Office has undertaken several special projects including:
• Administration of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program • Updating the City’s Housing Element by 2023
• Working with non-profit developers to redevelop four City-owned properties to provide 150 new affordable units within Downtown Monterey.

The Housing Programs Office currently has three full time employees to administer the programs and special projects. Adding a new and complicated program, such as rental stabilization regulations, would require adding additional staff to manage the new program.

Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 192 Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation about rent control in California and the potential rent stabilization measures in the City of Monterey.

KC/GL
Attachment: 1. Monterey Bay Economic Partnership Recommendation and City of Monterey Policy
e: Housing Interest List
Property Management Companies
All Business Associations
All Neighborhood Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments.

Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 12 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 193 ATTACHMENT 1
№10/13
Policy Matrix
MBEP Recommendation and City of Monterey Policy

1. Scale All Fees by Square Foot, Not Per Unit Done
In 2020, the City of Monterey repealed Monterey City Code section 33-29, which established the City’s only impact fee, for Parks. The City also sent letters to regional agencies to change their fee structures.

2. Defer Development Impact Fees Until Certificate of Occupancy Done The City‘s Park Fee was its only development impact fee, and the City repealed it in 2020 and sent letters to regional agencies to change their fee structures.

3. Enhanced Bonus Density Provision
MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy Done Allow a preference for subsidy
vouchers in the inclusionary
housing units
Requires policy direction from Council.

Current Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance does not address vouchers.

The City started an economic study as
required by State law in 2019 but
halted this effort due to the drastic
economic changes of COVID that
would invalidate the study effort. Staff
does not anticipate updating the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance until
the economic situation is more stable.

Future Work
Effort –
waiting for a
more normal
economic
situation for
valid study
required by
State law
Allow market rate developers the
option to pay in-lieu fees and
require acceptance of subsidy
vouchers
Current Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance allows an in-lieu fee but the
fee has not been established. The City
started an economic study as required
by State law in 2019 but halted this
effort due to the drastic economic
changes of COVID that would
invalidate the study effort. Staff does
not anticipate updating the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance until the economic
situation is more stable.

Future Work
Effort –
waiting for a
more normal
economic
situation for
valid study
required by
State law
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 13 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 194 Create a rental bonus –
jurisdictions structure an
additional bonus on top of
inclusionary housing bonuses for
project that are guaranteed to be
rental projects.

Requires policy direction from Council. Requires
policy
direction

4. Reduce Parking Requirements
MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy Done Greatly reducing – ideally
eliminating entirely – parking
minimums in downtown zones,
combined with parking districts
where needed.

In 2015 the Council adopted the
Downtown Specific Plan, which
reduced the parking requirement to:
• Minimum 0.5 spaces per residential
unit
• Maximum 2 spaces per residential
unit
• Shared parking allowed
• In-lieu fees allowed
X
Reducing parking requirements
in other locations served by
walkable amenities and public
transit.

The City Council adopted the North
Fremont Specific Plan and the
Lighthouse Area Specific Plan but
parking requirements were not reduced
in these planning areas due to public
concerns.

Current Parking Requirements:

Lighthouse:
• 1 space per residential unit
• Shared parking allowed
• In-lieu fees allowed for smaller
lots only
North Fremont:
• 1.5 spaces per residential unit
• Each unit shall have assigned
space
• No shared parking allowed
• No in-lieu fees allowed
Cannery Row:
• 1 space per residential unit
• In-lieu fees allowed
X
(considered
but not
adopted)
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 14 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 195 Reducing parking requirements
in other locations served by
walkable amenities and public
transit
Completed for Downtown Monterey as
described above.

X
Making a working bonus density
ordinance, so that the lower
parking requirements required by
state bonus density law are
available to projects that can
work financially.

City amended its Density Bonus
Ordinance
X
Incentivizing commercial property
owners to share existing parking
with nearby residential projects
where appropriate.

As stated above, parking options are
already offered as follows:

Downtown: Shared parking allowed
Lighthouse: Shared parking allowed
North Fremont: No shared parking
allowed
Cannery Row: No shared parking
allowed
X
(partially
adopted
except for
North
Fremont)

5. Reducing Commercial Space Requirements
MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy
Allow housing behind and above
any first-floor commercial/retail
space, requiring at most only a
certain depth of commercial
space along the primary street
frontage.

Outside of core downtowns, allow
street frontage space to be a
construction type and design that
can allow for conversion between
residential use, live-work space,
and retail uses, allowing demand
to drive use over time.

Policy changes under consideration.

This is a lower priority for the Planning
Office at this time.

Under
consideration
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 15 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 196

6. Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing
MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy Done The Monterey Bay Region should
look at best opportunities for
generating revenue to subsidize
more affordable housing
production – not taxes- such as
dedicating a portion of Transient
Occupancy Taxes, Cannabis
Revenues, or establishing a
Commercial Linkage Fee as
several San Francisco Bay Area
cities have done. UC Berkeley’s
Urban Displacement Project
(http://www.urbandisplacement.or
g/policy-tools-2 ) has catalogued
affordable housing policies
including housing related funding
measures across the Bay Area.

TOT funds: Requires policy direction
from Council. This should most likely
be an assignment to the City’s Finance
Department if pursued.

Cannabis Revenues: Cannabis sales
are being considered and use of
revenues can be considered as part of
that effort.

Commercial linkage fee: Requires
policy direction from Council. This
should most likely be an assignment to
the City’s Finance Department if
pursued.

Requires
policy
direction
Cannabis
Ordinance
Underway
Requires
policy
direction

7. Comprehensive Pro-ADU Policies
The City Planning Commission has completed its deliberations on a proposed new ordinance that will be reviewed by the City Council in October 2021.

MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy Done Annual production goals, with
continued policy change as
success relative to the goals is
evaluated
Goals could be established in
upcoming Housing Element Update.

Consider as
part of
Housing
Element
update
Significantly lower impact fees for
ADUs, including avoiding water
and sewer fees due to the
property already having such
connections.

The City has repealed the Parks Fee. X
Deferral of all impact fees until
Certificate of Occupancy.

The City has repealed the Parks Fee. X
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 16 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 197 No owner occupancy
requirements.

Revised State law does not allow
owner occupancy of ADUs until 2025.

Owner occupancy is required for junior
accessory dwelling units.

New ADU Ordinance will be reviewed
by the Council in October 2021.

X
Further lowering parking
requirements
New State law basically eliminates
parking requirements for accessory
dwelling units in Monterey.

New ADU Ordinance will be reviewed
by the Council in October 2021.

X
Easy online tool for assessing a
property’s eligibility and
requirements under zoning rules.

New online tool would need to be
developed once ordinance is adopted.

Ordinance is scheduled for Council
review in October 2021.

Will
Implement
After ADU
Ordinance
Adopted Fall
2021
Sustained public education Sustained public education effort will be initiated when new ordinance is
adopted. New ADU Ordinance will be
reviewed by the Council in October
2021.

Will
Implement
After ADU
Ordinance
Adopted Fall
2021
Actively working with local
lenders to encourage the
financing of ADUs
Staff will pursue working regionally with
other cities to encourage lenders to
finance ADUs once ordinance is
adopted. New ADU Ordinance will be
reviewed by the Council in October
2021.

Will
Implement
After ADU
Ordinance
Adopted Fall
2021

8. Update Traffic Analysis
MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy DONE California is moving toward
analyzing traffic impacts in the
“vehicle miles traveled”
framework rather than the “level
of service” framework.

City adopted new Vehicle Miles
Traveled Policy in compliance with
State Law.

X
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 17 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 198

9. Zoning for Density, Including Optimizing Height Limits & Density Calculations.

MBEP Policy Recommendation City of Monterey Policy
Setting height limits in
downtowns and other denser
areas to the financially efficient
heights for 3-over-1 (i.e. three
residential stories built over one
commercial story) and 5- over-2,
roughly 50 and 85 feet
respectively.

City amended its height limits as part of
the Downtown Specific Plan to allow 3
over 1.

Current height limits in the downtown
include:

Alvarado District: 4 stories
East Village District: 3 stories
Pearl District: 3 stories
All other districts: 2 stories
X
Requiring only modest upperstory setbacks, and especially in downtowns, allowing high FAR
(floor area ratio) – in these
locations a FAR limit is often not
needed at all given that total lot
coverage after setbacks,
articulation requirements, and
height limits are observed is often
ideal.

No FAR maximums are required in the
Downtown, North Fremont, and
Lighthouse areas.

The Lighthouse Specific Plan requires
12-foot 3rd story setbacks
The North Fremont Specific Plan
requires15’ upper story setbacks along
Bruce Lane and 5’-10’ first story
setbacks for residential uses adjacent
to a street
Cannery Row:
• Waterside FAR – 2
• Opposite side of Waterfront – 3
• 10’ side streets only
X
Removing units-per-acre density
limits, instead limiting density by
height, FAR, and parking
requirements. This enables
projects to build more, smaller
units in the same building size.

City amended the Downtown Specific
Plan to remove the per site density limit
and instead there is an overall cap for
the district.

The height standard now limits density.

Parking requirements have also been
minimized.

X
Reducing the commercial space
requirements is also a core part
of optimizing zoning. Outside of
core downtown areas, allowing a
part of a mixed-use project’s
ground floor to be residential.

Policy changes under consideration.

This is a lower priority for the Planning
Office at this time.

Under
consideration
Council Special Meeting, 9/29/2021, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 18 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 199

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER AND TELECONFERENCE

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert*, Haffa*, Smith*, Williamson*, Roberson*

Absent: None
* Participated remotely via Zoom videoconference
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Finance Director, Human Resources Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Senior Administrative Analyst, Administrative Analyst (Housing), General Services Superintendent

CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020 and Section 42 of Executive Order N-08-21 issued by Governor Newsom on June 11, 2021, the meeting was conducted with a hybrid combination of telephonic/video participation (via Zoom) and in-person attendance in the Council Chamber.

Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually and the safety rules for in-person attendance. She called the roll and the full Council was present, with all members attending remotely by Zoom videoconference.
*** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

CONSENT ITEMS
City Clerk Klein stated that a member of the public had requested to pull Item 1 from the Consent items.

Resolutions

1. Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Execute an Intergovernmental Support Agreement Amendment with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey on Behalf of the Presidio Municipal Services Agency to Extend the Contract Term and Establish 5th Option Period (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ***PMSA***
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 21-102 C.S.

A brief verbal presentation was made by Mayor Roberson and City Manager Uslar.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 49072719-12C6-4E2E-9317-ECB538FC4DFF Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 200 City Council Minutes September 29, 2021
2 Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who spoke against amending the agreement.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 102 C.S. to Authorize the City Manager or his Designee to Execute an Intergovernmental Support Agreement Amendment with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey on Behalf of the Presidio Municipal Services Agency to Extend the Contract Term and Establish 5th Option Period:

STUDY SESSION

2. Receive Presentation about Rent Control in California and the Potential Rent Stabilization Measures that could be Implemented in the City of Monterey, and an Overview of the City’s Current Housing Program (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation, Discussed
Housing Analyst Leonard introduced outside counsel Karen M. Tiedemann, Goldfarb and Lipman, who gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Demetrius Kastros, in favor of affordable housing on the peninsula; Dorit Gersh, Jason Reed, and Mike Rodriguez in support of rent stabilization; Luis Osorio, Nicholas McIlroy, Lindsey Knight, Veronica Miramontes, and Hector Azpilcueta in favor of rent control and tenant protections; Nelson Vega, who said that a community problem should not be blamed on landlords; Sasha Kingsley, Gabriela Chavez, and Morgan Ivens-Duran requesting continued conversations and to listen to renters; Tom Rowley, Scott Dick, John Tilley and Jeff Davi, on the relationship between the need for water and the need for housing; Brandon Naylor and Jason Asmus, in favor of lowering the barriers of entry for homeowners; Paula Pelot and Laurie Hambaro in favor of establishing a rental registry; Darlene Ruiz and Laura Pratt, who asked questions; and Esther Malkin, JoAnna Daum, and Gabriella James, who shared thoughts on the local rental market.

The Council recessed at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened at 9:41 p.m.

Ms. Tiedemann and Housing Analyst Leonard answered questions asked by commenters and the City Council.

The Council discussed the matter. It was suggested that the existing business license application process for landlords renting more than ten units could be used to collect information for a rental registry. It was stated that a rental registry would be the best way to obtain needed data, and could raise revenue to support housing programs. It was posed that perhaps a permit would be needed for a landlord to evict, to avoid people and children being evicted unnecessarily. It was proposed to find out more about rental registries and how much one would cost. It was stated that 20% affordability is not sufficient to meet the needs of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 49072719-12C6-4E2E-9317-ECB538FC4DFF Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 27, Packet Page 201 City Council Minutes September 29, 2021
3 most vulnerable people in the community and that the City needs both protection for renters and production to supply more housing.

The Council discussed what an appropriate timeline might be for staff to present more detailed information about rental registries. It was tentatively agreed by Council that two months would be acceptable. Concerns were expressed about the City’s potentially committing to new initiatives given the status of the budget and staff's existing workload. It was commented that the City should be intentional about reaching out to diverse communities on housing topics and keep a mindset of diversity, equity, and inclusion in these discussions. ***Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda)*** Public comment on the closed session was received from Tom Rowley and Gabriela Chavez, who asked the Council to consider moving toward district-based elections.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 10:32 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
cs1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(e)(2) (Chris Shake and Sabu Shake, Jr. - Wharf Concession 33 (formerly Scales) - Under Consideration: Terms and Conditions for Surrendering Property/Building (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: On a roll call vote of 3-2, with Councilmembers Haffa and Williamson voting no, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel cs2. Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) Related to Notice of California Voting Rights Act Violation by the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, District 12 Received on September 25, 2021 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjoiurned at 11:05 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 49072719-12C6-4E2E-9317-ECB538FC4DFF Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 28, Packet Page 202 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Tyller Williamson, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Vice Mayor
SUBJECT: Councilmember Williamson and Vice Mayor Haffa’s Request to Agendize a Discussion about Rent Stabilization Measures (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council hear Councilmember Williamson and Vice Mayor Haffa’s request on whether or not to agendize a discussion about rent increase restrictions.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This request is consistent with City Council’s direction to bring Councilmembers’ requests to agendize a matter of business to the full Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

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:

None.

DISCUSSION:

Rent Stabilization Measures
Urgency Ordinance 3623, Section 6(a), states that during the moratorium, a landlord shall not increase rent for residential tenants with a substantial decrease in household income or substantial medical expenses. This moratorium expired on September 30, 2020. We are requesting to adopt a new urgency ordinance to implement a temporary rent freeze moratorium Date: 12/1/2020
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/1/2020, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 237 Attachment 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 29, Packet Page 203 for those affected by COVID-19 for three months and restrict total increases for six months thereafter to 2%.

Study Session
Around 64.2% of residential units in the City of Monterey are occupied by renters. We are requesting a study session to review and discuss the following renter protection policies:
creating additional restrictions beyond AB1482, establishing a Rental Registry, and implementing a Rent Board.

1. The City of Monterey should look into creating additional restrictions beyond what AB1482 has already put into effect. Currently, the state limits annual rent increases to no more than 5% plus the local consumer price index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. To provide protections for the 51.8% of renters in the city reporting cost-burden housing problems, the city should consider restricting the rent increase to protect tenants while providing a fair return to the landlord, which may be an adjustment based on the CPI annually.

2. The City of Monterey should strongly consider establishing a Rental Registry. Rental registration requires the landlords in the city to register and provide essential information to the city. This information is then used to enforce current rent control or stabilization regulations. Cities in the Bay Area like San Jose, Berkley, East Palo Alto, and Richmond maintain rental registries for the purpose of rent-control enforcement.

3. A Rent Board is a body charged with enforcing the rent ordinances, hearing tenant and landlord complaints, and considering landlord property specific petitions to increase rent.

Council appointed commissioners formulate policies and hear appeals on cases filed from tenants and landlords. In the city of San Francisco, the several petitions that tenants can file with the Rent Board include: decrease in services, wrongful eviction, utility passthrough, and illegal rent increases.

These are simply recommendations and a starting point for a larger discussion about protections for the majority of families residing in Monterey. We look forward to the long overdue dialogue with our colleagues and neighbors.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this agenda item, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are posted at https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments within 72 hours of the meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/1/2020, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 238 Attachment 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 30, Packet Page 204

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
4:00 PM 7:00 PM

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, Parks and Recreation Director, City Clerk, Fire Chief, Interim Recreation and Community Services Manager, Traffic Engineer, Deputy Human Resources Manager, Parking Superintendent, Senior Administrative Analyst, Associate Planner
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, this meeting was conducted with telephonic/video participation only by all parties. ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. Administrative Assistant Salameh explained to the public how to participate in the meeting and provide public comment.

ROLL CALL - 2018-2020 CITY COUNCIL
City Clerk Klein called the roll with all Councilmembers present.

ELECTION CERTIFICATION AND COUNCIL INSTALLATION

1. Adopt a Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election on November 3, 2020 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-179 C.S.

Public comment was not received on the matter.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-179 C.S. Declaring the Canvass of Returns and Results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election on November 3, 2020:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 31, Packet Page 205 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
2 2. Installation of 2020-2022 Monterey City Council (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Mayor Clyde Roberson, Councilmember Dan Albert, and Councilmember Alan Haffa were installed
Councilmembers Albert and Haffa and Mayor Roberson took the Oath of Office. Each made brief remarks. Gratitude was expressed to the voters, committees, family members, friends, members of the community, and City staff.

3. Appoint the Vice-Mayor for 2021 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed Councilmember Tyller Williamson as Vice-Mayor for 2021 Public comment was not received on the matter.

On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council appointed Councilmember Tyller Williamson as Vice-Mayor for 2021:

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Marta Kraftzeck and Tony Tollner.

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

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted the CONSENT ITEMS except Items 7, 8, and 10:

4. November 17, 2020 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 32, Packet Page 206 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
3 Award of Construction Contracts

5. Award Electrical Contractor Job Order Contract 2021 in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,000,000 to Jensco Inc. dba JM Electric ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-180 C.S.

6. Award Electrical Contractor Job Order Contract 2021 Presidio Municipal Services Agency (PMSA) in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to Jensco Inc. dba JM Electric ***PMSA*** (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061; Excluded from NEPA per Title 32 CFR 651 Appendix B Categorical Exclusion (e) (1)) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-181 C.S.

Resolutions

7. Amend Resolution 19-115 to Change the Position Control List, Amend Resolution 20-150 to Change the Full-Time Salary Schedule, and Amend Resolution 16-249 to Change the PartTime Salary Schedule for Parking Division Reorganization Savings (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from consent; Adopted Resolution No. 20-182 C.S.

Public Works Director Wittry gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received on the matter.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-182 C.S. to Amend Resolution 19-115 to Change the Position Control List, Amend Resolution 20-150 to Change the Full-Time Salary Schedule, and Amend Resolution 16-249 to Change the Part-Time Salary Schedule for Parking Division Reorganization Savings:

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

8. Award a Professional Services Agreement for Design Services to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Del Monte and Casa Verde Recreation Trail Crossing Intersection Improvement Project in the amount of $173,612.45 ***CIP/NCIP*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Pulled from consent; Adopted Resolution No. 20-183 C.S.

Traffic Engineer Renny shared information from the agenda report and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received on the matter.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 33, Packet Page 207 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
4 On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-183 C.S. to Award a Professional Services Agreement for Design Services to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Del Monte and Casa Verde Recreation Trail Crossing Intersection Improvement Project in the amount of $173,612.45:

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

9. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution 19-007 to Extend the Pre-Commitment of .086 Acre Feet of Water to 704 Foam Street to January 17, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-184 C.S.

Other

10. Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's Recommendation to Update the Ballpark Advertising Program Regulations and Specifications, and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Ballpark Advertising Program Agreements with (1) Monterey Pony Baseball/Softball, Inc. and (2) Save Our Sports (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from consent; Approved as amended to reflect a one year period for signs Interim Recreation Services Manager Leon and City Manager Uslar answered Councilmembers' questions.

It was suggested by Council to leave signs up for a full year, and that if weatherization of temporary signs were a concern, then perhaps the signs could be more permanent.

Public comment was received from Michael Groves, who spoke in support of using sturdy modern banners for a year-long period.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Albert, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission's Recommendation to Update the Ballpark Advertising Program Regulations and Specifications, and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Ballpark Advertising Program Agreements with (1) Monterey Pony Baseball/Softball, Inc. and (2) Save our Sports, as outlined in the agenda report, but with the time period extended to one year (instead of six months).

An amendment was proposed by Councilmember Williamson to monitor the condition of signs and ensure that they did not deteriorate and affect the environment. In response, it was stated that existing language in the program documentation already covers the scenario in question.

The amendment was not incorporated into the motion.

The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call:

PUBLIC HEARING

11. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance Extending Ordinance No. 3626 to Comply with State Law and to Create a Maximum Height Limit of Sixteen Feet for Accessory Dwelling Units (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, California Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3633 C.S.

Public comment was not received on the matter.

On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 3633 C.S. Extending Ordinance No. 3626 to Comply with State Law and to Create a Maximum Height Limit of Sixteen Feet for Accessory Dwelling Units:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment was not received for the closed session.

RECESS
Recessed at 5:24 p.m. to closed session

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:02 p.m.
*** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberson led the Pledge.

ROLL CALL - 2020-2022 CITY COUNCIL
City Clerk Klein called the roll with all Councilmembers present. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reminded the public how to participate in the meeting and provide public comment.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Lorna Moffat and Jean Rasch.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 35, Packet Page 209 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
6 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Klein announced the following:
cs1. MAHONEY, DANIEL vs. CITY OF MONTEREY, et al. WCAB No.: ADJ4160592: Fwd:

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case: MAHONEY, DANIEL vs. CITY OF MONTEREY (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to their legal counsel

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)

12. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Amending the City Code to Create a Definition of Cannabis and Cannabis Products (38-11), Create an Industrial Use Classification of Agricultural Testing Laboratory (Including Cannabis Testing) (38-16), Conditionally Permit Agricultural Testing Laboratory Use in I-R Zoning District (38-40(B)), Create Supplementary Regulations for Cannabis-related Agricultural Testing Laboratories (38-41), and Exempt Licensed Cannabis Testing Laboratories (22-39(a))
Action: Passed ordinance to print as amended
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt gave the staff presentation. City Manager Uslar answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who spoke in favor of allowing cannabis testing laboratories in Monterey.

It was suggested by Council to change the language from hours of operations and activities from "shall be" to "should be limited," and that a required period of retention for records should be specified. It was noted by City Attorney Davi that the California Business and Professions Code requires records be kept for a specific amount of time. The Council stated that the details should be in the ordinance, and City Attorney Davi confirmed that the language could be added to the wording about business surveillance. On question, Police Chief Hober said he would be comfortable with one year of retention.

It was noted by the Council that it is confusing and difficult to reconcile the fact that on cannabis related matters, "Federal law is enforceable despite State law.” On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council passed to print the 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Amending the City Code to Create a Definition of Cannabis and Cannabis Products (38-11), Create an Industrial Use Classification of Agricultural Testing Laboratory (Including Cannabis Testing) (38-16), Conditionally Permit Agricultural Testing Laboratory Use in I-R Zoning District (38-40(B)), Create Supplementary Regulations for Cannabis-related Agricultural Testing Laboratories (38-41), and Exempt Licensed Cannabis Testing Laboratories (22-39(a)), as presented with an amendment to require one year retention of records:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 36, Packet Page 210 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
7 13. Deny an Appeal (AP-20-0248) and Approve the Personal Wireless Facility Use Permit Amendment UP-20-0171, to Allow Modifications to an Existing Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) Facility on the Rooftop of the Portola Hotel and Spa Building located at 2 Portola Plaza; Applicant: James Phillips, MasTec Network Solutions for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T); Owner: Custom House Hotel, LP; VAF – Visitor Accommodation Facilities Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-185 C.S.

Mayor Roberson asked the Council to disclose any ex parte communications, and nothing was disclosed.

Community Development Director Cole gave a brief introduction. Jerry Hittleman, contract planner with Rincon Consultants, gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. City Attorney Davi reported that during a brief period, Mayor Roberson lost the ability to turn on his camera and microphone, but could hear everything being said in the meeting. After this period Mayor Roberson was able to turn his camera and microphone on.

Lee Afflerbach, radiofrequency (RF) engineer with CTC Technology & Energy answered technical questions asked by the Council.

It was noted by Council that public safety is a high priority of wireless infrastructure and will benefit from the 4G connectibility thanks to FirstNet.

On question, City Attorney Davi said that judicial remedies could apply if the Council makes a decision that doesn't have substantial evidence to support their findings, with associated cost of time and money.

On question, Community Development Director Cole said that the wireless provider would need to get permission from the City to change the technology used by the antennas, for example from 4G to 5G. City Attorney Davi said that it is important that the Council analyze the application that is before them, which is for 4G connectivity.

The applicant was given 15 minutes to speak. Applicant James Phillips, MasTec Network Solutions, said that the City contracts directly with FirstNet for any monthly services subscribed to by Fire, Police, EMS, and such services. He said that AT&T is a host for equipment at the existing site on behalf of FirstNet. He stated that the application is a 4G application and AT&T has no intention at this time to use the site for 5G technology. He said that multiple small cells would have to be deployed to enable 5G, which he said would be more focused on an intersection. He commented that placing a 5G network on top of the hotel would allow for great connections on the roof of the hotel and not much more.

As part of the applicant presentation, Bettye Saxon, AT&T, clarified that FirstNet is a governmental agency, and said that FirstNet has their own capability to look into a system and see how the network is working. She said that in the case of emergency, FirstNet customers have priority in the network and that their calls will go through first. She listed some of FirstNet’s contracts: Cal Fire, Cal OES, CHP, and locally, City of Monterey Police and Fire, Pacific Grove, Del Rey Oaks, and the Monterey Airport, which she said were just a few examples. She said that the network contractually needs to work at its optimum level. She said that this year, the network was tested more than ever before with many people working and schooling from home. She said that AT&T was able to ramp up through wireless technology so that families without wired connections were able to connect successfully to necessary DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 37, Packet Page 211 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
8 schooling. She said that the City of Monterey needs to continue to upgrade its network for purposes of FirstNet connectivity as well as education.

On question from Council, Mr. Phillips said that AT&T has feedback from its cellular sites to determine the performance of each site. He said that if the coverage area at a site falls, AT&T is notified and engineers go out to make sure that the site is working properly, and that it is in their best interest to continually monitor to ensure that the directions of the antennas do not change. He said that lots of time is spent in the early stages of construction to verify where the antennas need to be pointed. Bill Hammett, engineer with Hammett & Edison, said that the application conforms with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) limits.

The appellant was given 15 minutes to speak. Appellant Nina Beety said that she may need additional time for her presentation and stated that she is already disadvantaged because the project directly affects her disability. She said that she did not see included in the Council packet the plans, radio frequency (RF) reports, and other information that the Planning Commission used for their decisions. She said this information is critical for the Council to make their decisions instead of just receiving minutes and the staff report. She said that in the recent Montage Health antennas matter, the Council received all of these reports. On question, Community Development Director Cole directed Ms. Beety to the section of the Council packet that included the RF reports in question, which she noted were attached as exhibits “A” through “G” to the Planning Commission resolution.

Ms. Beety continued. She referenced Monterey City Code section 38-211, Authority of Appellate Body, and said that the City Council should consider the record and additional evidence provided, and find whether an error was made. She stated that a substantial error was made in the Planning Commission decision and by staff and the consultant, as well as many irregularities. She said that she has provided ample documentation and evidence, including her most recent letter, in which she said she went through various findings that she said were required to be made by the Wireless Ordinance but were not made, and additional findings that she said were made in error. She said that the Planning Commission members claimed that their hands were tied but provided no evidence about why they believed it. She said that if it was based on input from a formal legal consultant that no longer works for the City, she stated that the firm has come under fire for conflicts of interests. She said that the Planning Commissioners were unfamiliar with ordinance requirements and federal rules. She said that one commissioner said he didn't see how the Planning Commission could deny the project, and that he said the applicant had done everything asked of them and all the boxes were checked, but she stated that all the boxes were not checked. She said that staff had omitted findings required by the Wireless Ordinance from the Planning Commission’s resolution.

Ms. Beety continued. She said that the project’s roof areas would exceed FCC exposure limits in violation of the Wireless Ordinance. She said that first responders, as she said was noted during the Planning Commission hearing, could be harmed by these rooftop exposures with safety measures that she stated had not been clearly or realistically discussed. She asserted that some rooms and balconies could exceed FCC limits and that the applicant would not discuss changing the angle of the antenna to reduce exposure to the rooms, and she said that the Planning Commission didn't pursue it. She said that CTC said in their August 17 letter that their calculations of exposure levels from 180-degree sector antenna indicate that demonstrating full FCC emission compliance from the site configuration was, at best, borderline. She said that earthquake settling, vibration, corrosion, or other events, could result in the antennae being out of compliance now or in the future. She said that CTC warned about possible exposure violations on a public walkway, and she said that this was not addressed by the Planning Commission and that the walkway was not identified. She said that the public corridor from Del Monte to Custom House Plaza and an interior atrium and exterior courtyard DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 38, Packet Page 212 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
9 below the 180-degree antenna could be exposed to high levels of radiation from the antennas overhead but she stated that this wasn't explored or discussed. She said that no signs will warn people about this.

Ms. Beety continued, stating that hotel guests on balconies could be exposed to the 100% level of radiation. She said that people with pacemakers, insulin pumps, or other devices that could suffer from interference could be affected and that the FCC doesn’t take into consideration these populations. She stated that staff members would be exposed daily to high levels of RF as they are cleaning hotel rooms and balconies and using utility rooms, and she referred to a photo that she said showed an open doorway from a utility room with linens looking out to an antenna. She stated that exposure of hotel staff to RF was not discussed. She said that the applicant did not provide estimated exposure numbers other than at the ground level. She said that some RF percentages were provided and that they were averaged instead of using peak exposure numbers possible for each frequency. She said that the penetrative qualities of frequencies were never addressed. She stated that lower frequencies go inside a building much more easily and that this was never addressed. She said that no information was provided about RF emissions from the rear of the antennas toward the hotel. She said that assurances were made that levels would comply, but she said that two national studies found high numbers outside of compliance with FCC limits and stated that the FCC does not police this. She said that this was for the general emissions coming from the face of the towers. She said that once the project is up and running and post-construction assessment is done, exposure levels will be anything the company wants. She said that the RF engineer omitted cumulative exposure, and she said it was misstated that there are no nearby wireless facilities.

She said that the same statement was made about the Hyatt Regency despite the location of the Naval Postgraduate School across the street as well as other companies’ facilities that she said were on the Hyatt Regency. She said that the Marriott has many antennas and that other wireless emissions exist in and around the Portola Plaza Hotel.

Ms. Beety continued. She said that CTC provided faulty analysis of cumulative emissions and corrected the RF engineer’s statement poorly. She said that CTC only talked about cumulative levels at the site at the Portola Plaza Hotel and completely omitted areas adjacent to the Marriott and Pacific Street that she said would be subject to high cumulative exposure from both facilities. She said that she drew a map and drew out different azimuths from these beams, and said that it was frightening to see that these areas were never addressed. She stated that the building directly across from the Marriott would be in the intersection of beams from the Portola and the Marriott. She said that the surrounding few buildings would receive high levels of radiation as well as the buildings above Pacific Street and that these were never addressed.

She said that in the photo it only addressed what happens at the site of the Portola Plaza, which she said will not be affected by the Marriott antennas. She said that CTC repeatedly urged, as she said they did tonight, that the City get RF evaluations because of possible high exposure levels before the project becomes fully operational, to ensure that the facility, as installed and maintained, complies with FCC guidelines. She said that the ongoing maintenance portion was dropped in the Planning Commission hearing and cannot be required according to the FCC.

She said that it's an issue that they urged should be assessed frequently, and that if compliance cannot be compelled by the City, the City will never know what is coming out of the towers.

Ms. Beety continued. She asked if people would be in the hotel when testing is being done.

She stated that tourism impacts were ignored. She stated that there would be impacts to disabled people who come to the City, and to tourists who are EMF sensitive or have medical implants and devices. She said that liability to the City was not adequately addressed. She stated that false names were provided on the application which were only now being somewhat corrected. She stated that the City had been sold a system that is supposed to deal with people who are in danger or sick, and she stated that the system makes per personally sick. She said DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 39, Packet Page 213 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
10 that the existing facility already installed two miles from her house sends frequencies through the walls and windows and that she became sicker on the day it was installed. She said that the Portola Plaza facility is closer and double the power of the existing facility, and would affect her ability to use and enjoy her home and would block her access to downtown Monterey, Pacific Grove, and New Monterey. She said that the antennas appear to have no backup power beyond short term battery backup and would not function in many emergencies. She said that once batteries run out there would be no FirstNet, and she said therefore it is not an emergency system but an expensive, foolish system that she said would not protect the public but would unnecessarily exposes the public to RF radiation. She said that it's redundant, and that the City had a system before this was adopted. She stated that Los Angeles County firefighters opposed the FirstNet system and identified that it would be a public hazard. She referred to firefighters in a pilot study who she said experienced severe neurological impacts from living near a facility that put out a fraction of the emissions that she said the proposed facility would emit. She said that the firefighters received exemptions from two state bills on the basis of health, which she said she had previously provided to the City in an affidavit.

Ms. Beety continued. She said that the City has a symbiotic relationship with FirstNet that she said may add to the City’s liability. She said that there had been no public notice, no public hearing, and no due process before the FirstNet contract was adopted. She said that City officials knew there would be residents harmed by increased exposure but failed to adhere to ADA or Fair Housing considerations. She said that there had been no competitive bid for the FirstNet contract even though Verizon also has a system and the City had services previously through an unknown provider. She said this would be an expensive change that would likely necessitate new equipment and pose risk to first responders. She said that it would be a substantial change to the human environment and should have been reviewed under CEQA.

She said that it doesn’t appear to be regulated under the TCA and that it is not a personal wireless service and therefore the City may have even more latitude to regulate. She said that a letter from the Department of the Interior on FirstNet identified serious harm to birds relating to this new system.

Ms. Beety continued. She said that three Planning Commissioners voted to deny the project due to serious reservations, which she said was admitted in the staff report. She said that Commissioner Brassfield questioned how emergency responders would be protected from high radiation levels on the roof. She said that Commissioner Latasa said that the location of the 180-degree beam wasn’t acceptable from a health perspective due to levels in adjoining rooms.

She said that the vote ended in a tie and that Commissioner Reed went into a tirade against the three commissioners, telling them to take their jobs seriously, which she said they tried to do by evaluating the evidence. She said that City staff offered the Planning Commission little guidance about next steps on the tie vote. She said that Commissioner Latasa finally announced he was changing his vote under duress, and that Commissioner Dawson silently followed when the roll call was taken, resulting in a 5 to 1 vote approving the project. She said that the Commission was not forced to approve the project if the findings could not be made.

Ms. Beety continued. She said that the public has a right to information, but that the applicant stated that if exposures were lower than 100% of FCC limits, then the carrier has satisfied threshold conditions for preemption, and stated that as a result the applicant did not provide emission levels on different parts of the hotel. She said that compliance is dependent on factors including deflection, resonance, metal surfaces, and asserted that factors that create hot spot conditions for individuals and factors can cause exposures to exceed computer estimations. She said that exposures can cause Interference with medical devices. She stated that the public has the right to know estimates of peak exposure and not get blown off by applicants hiding exposure estimates. She said that the figures came from the applicant, not from an independent third party. She said that CTC is reportedly also a network planner as well DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 40, Packet Page 214 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
11 as a provider of assessment, and she said that it was the firm recommended and/or used by the City’s former legal consultant. She said that the City's planning consultant made numerous errors in his analysis that she said was reviewed by staff and the City Attorney. She said that he has made errors in past hearings and stated he has lied about Ms. Beety and the text of laws.

Ms. Beety continued. She alleged that City staff and its consultant continue to deny her her legal rights, and to state that she is not entitled to ADA or Fair Housing protections and that she is not disabled. She said that they refuse to comply with state and federal obligations toward her as a disabled person. She said that this was the latest in serial discrimination by City against her since 2008, which she said had taken place through a series of policies and actions that she stated is effectively taking her home and permitting assault and battery. She said that they had displayed contempt and indifference for her suffering and made a mockery of Monterey’s statement about caring for all residents. She said that staff did not include her demand letter from October 27 which she stated she would include in the record for this meeting. She said that this is a continuation of a pattern and practice of disappearing her disability and herself from consideration. She said that the Planning Commission and City Attorney also ignored access requirements under the ADA for the Portola Plaza Hotel as a place of public accommodation under Chapter 126 Section 12182. She said that she has been patient and reasonable to the City for years to no avail, and alleged that City staff have refused to comply with their obligations toward her and have mischaracterized and reworded her words and requests and retaliated against her.

Ms. Beety continued, stating that she would place in the record a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act conference report, which she read aloud: “The conference agreement creates a new section 704 which prevents Commission preemption of local and State land use decisions and preserves the authority of State and local governments over zoning and land use matters except in the limited circumstances set forth in the conference agreement. … Actions taken by State or local governments shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless services. It is the intent of this section that bans or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities not be allowed and that decisions be made on a case-by-case basis.” She stated that she was asking the City Council for a decision and that this hearing was on one case. She said that no hands were tied in the Council’s ability to make a decision.

Ms. Beety continued, stating that she would share details about issues that she had with the staff report. She said that her house is one and a half miles away from the site, not two miles.

She said that her house is two miles from the Hyatt Regency FirstNet antennas and that those antennas are only half the radiated power of the proposed Portola Plaza Hotel antennas. She said that when the Hyatt Regency antennas were activated, she got sicker and that she continues to worsen. She said that the ones that are half a mile closer and approximately double the power will sicken her further. She stated that her access to the City is blocked, stating that downtown will be blanketed and that her access to City streets, City services including City Hall, her bank, the post office, and any downtown events is impossible. She said that traveling on Pacific Street to go to Pacific Grove, or to go to the beach, or drive on Del Monte, will be impossible and her coastal access is being denied.

Ms. Beety continued, stating that the service program and activity being provided by the City is the review and permitting of this proposal for which she stated that the City has been given authority by Congress. She stated that the consultant’s arguments are not on point and not grounded in any plain reading of applicable statutes or the concepts explained by the Department of Justice in their Appendix C to Part 35 Title II rules or State Civil Code 54(a) and

54.1(a)(1). She said that ADA regulations are for all disabled people, that disability is defined broadly, and that neither Mr. Hittleman nor City staff defines disability. She said that ADA DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 41, Packet Page 215 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
12 provides examples only. She said that Mr. Hittleman and staff made repeated nonsensical statements about EMF and ADA and challenge the ADA, and she said that they do so to avoid their obligation to comply with ADA and equivalent State rules. She said that the City ignores the Telecommunications Act itself, which she said doesn’t supplant other federal and State and local laws, and she referred to and appeared to quote from Section 601 regarding applicability of consent decrees and other law, Section 414 regarding remedies in the Act not being exclusive, the ruling of G. v. Fay School, and Section 255 from the 1934 Communications Act regarding access by persons with disabilities.

A concern was voiced by the Council that the appellant had gone over her time limit by a few minutes. It was stated that Ms. Beety had spoken for about 17 minutes. In the interest of fairness for the pre-established parameters that had been set for the public hearing, Mayor Roberson requested that Ms. Beety bring her comments to a close within no more than two additional minutes, and Ms. Beety agreed.

Ms. Beety said that Mr. Hittleman lied about what she said and about fair housing, and said that he and staff have failed to read ADA and the Amendments Act. She said that people are recognized as disabled, not conditions. She said that staff can’t read or is indifferent to what Congress laid out and the Department of Justice codified. She said that she qualifies as disabled because she meets the definition in ADA act. She stated that ADA and ADAA define disability and do not have a list of recognized disabilities. She referred again to Part 35 Appendix C. She requested that the Council direct staff to stop challenging ADA. She stated that she is disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity as it is defined, and said that therefore under Fair Housing and the Fair Housing Amendments Act the City cannot discriminate against her in housing. She stated that neither Mr. Hittleman nor staff responded to appeal issue number three or number four, and said that their sole aim seems to be deny her civil rights.

Mayor Roberson asked Ms. Beety to conclude her comments. Ms. Beety said that the situation affects her disability and her ability to live in the City and to live in and use her home. She said that the City is sickening her by its policies and practices. Mayor Roberson gave Ms. Beety one additional minute with which to conclude her verbal presentation.

Ms. Beety said that under CEQA the issue is inappropriate because the facility has a footprint of several miles due to a coherent signal, and she said that it is a very large land use project, not a small structure. She said that this very large facility will cause a substantial change to the human environment and will have an effect on migratory birds and she said that CEQA review would be appropriate. She said that the wireless ordinance requires that facilities comply with FCC guidelines and that the only way this can be ascertained is with a post-construction RF assessment that she said should be conducted. She concluded by saying that the compliance issue is serious, and that the ADA issue and her right to housing are serious, and she asked the City Council that they address all of the identified issues, find that the approval by the Planning Commission was in error, and deny the facility.

Mayor Roberson stated that the City Council had also received the written comments provided by Ms. Beety.

The Council recessed at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m.

Mayor Roberson stated that the emails received from the public on the subject have been read and are in the public record. He opened public comments and set a three-minute time limit.

Lorna Moffat, Danielle Gregorio, and Jean Rasch spoke in support of approving the appeal and denying the use permit amendment. With no further requests from the public to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 42, Packet Page 216 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
13 The applicant was given the opportunity to provide a rebuttal. Bettye Saxon thanked the City Council for the opportunity to bring the application back to review. She said that AT&T believes they have supplied everything that was required on the application checklist, and that the application is complete and in compliance, and she asked Council to deny the appeal so that AT&T may move forward to provide better wireless coverage for the area, for first responders, citizens, and students. She said that she sat on the task force for the Monterey County Office of Education and that the number one request to carriers was what could be done to improve access to students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the carriers were able to accomplish improved access through the use of wireless technology. Bill Hammett, Hammett & Edison, said that studies that his firm did and that CTC conducted were cumulative and considered all potential sources nearby, and stated that the calculations were not done at the ground only but were done at specific locations in the hotel and other buildings nearby. He said that it is not an issue for medical devices, which he said have standards that they meet that provide robust operation at levels equal to the standard, and he said that all levels that such devices would be exposed to at the site would be lower than the standard. Regarding reflecting surfaces, he said that in 35 years his firm had never found a single site where levels exceeded what they had calculated. He said that a 2.56 reflection factor was recommended by the FCC as just one of several conservative factors that he said were included. He said there were no issues with metal roofs or reflections. He said that the issue of FCC compliance was well established, and would be happy to take questions.

The rebuttal continued. Applicant James Phillips, MasTec Network Solutions, said that if Bill Hammett had come to him early in the process and told him that the levels would be exceeded, then it would have been his job to inform AT&T that a redesign would be necessary. He stated that Lee Afflerbach and Bill Hammett are licensed engineers and that it is a small group of RF engineers in the world. He said that if Mr. Hammett says a facility is safe to build, he can build it, and likewise if Mr. Hammett says it's not safe to build, it's not safe. He said that if anyone questions Mr. Hammett’s report, he would like to see their resume to compare qualifications.

Regarding the Hyatt location, he said that the theoretical study came in at 7%, and a field study with the RF measuring tool came in at less than 0.1%. He said that the numbers in the RF studies were at 100% of the maximum capability of the cell site, and that even if AT&T wanted to they would never be able to turn it up past this level. He stated that AT&T and MasTec have a quality system in place to ensure that technical standards and structural categories are met at installation, and that at every cell installation there is a video audit recorded for the entire installation, with tools on top of the antenna giving a digital read on every direction that the antennas are pointing, and that these are checks and balances to ensure performance and accuracy. He said that building officials and inspectors must sign off on the scope of work and confirm that it was done per plan. He said that demand for cell phone technology has increased exponentially in the last 10 years, and that demand from the public is what requires these upgrades, which he said were a necessity in order to meet obligations so that important services such as 9-1-1 and Google maps would work.

The Council took up discussion of the matter.

On question from Council, Mr. Afflerbach said that there is no place that people can be where the exposure level would be above 100%, and that the only way such exposure could happen would be on the roof or on a ladder in front of the antennas. He said that a fire truck ladder could get that high but it's not a conceivable, practical situation and that anything beyond 95 feet would not be able to exceed FCC levels. He said that CTC does not work for the industry, but strictly for municipal and nonprofit organizations, and that multiple staff members including himself calculated the levels independently. He stated that Bill Hammett did the same on his end, and that the calculations were done with a lot of detail. He said he was very confident that DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 43, Packet Page 217 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
14 in no way would the exposure exceed FCC numbers and he stated that actual measurements made with equipment in the field were well below the calculated values. He recommended, and said that it would behoove all, to complete a proof of performance/proof of construction to confirm that standards are met. He addressed questions about preventing overexposure when people need to go near the site, and said that there are locks people can't get through, areas with warning signs, and disabling methodology in place. He said that when repairs are done, the equipment is either turned off or down. On the same subject, Bill Hammett said that there are signs present including identification of the carrier and a site designator, with a 24-hour number to call to arrange for site shutdown. He said that part of the lease arrangement should codify that procedure. Bettye Saxon said that AT&T has protocols such that any time there is maintenance or an issue with the sites, they are turned down, and the workers who are authorized to work at the sites know exactly when to enter into the area. Regarding intruders, she stated that there is a warning system. She said those systems are tied to the network and that AT&T would receive a warning and investigate and know to shut it off. She said that a regular person would not be up on the roof.

The Council posed questions about the appeal, including whether the City can ignore the FCC and what the consequences would be of doing so, and what findings, if any, would support denying the project. City Attorney Davi stated that the legal job before the City Council was to look at the City Code and ensure that the applicant has met all of the standards required by the City Code, and that if it doesn't meet those standards, there would be a basis for the denial and the Council would need to pinpoint the deficiencies it sees and why. She said that the Council does not have the authority to deny an application based on health effects as long as it complies with FCC emission standards.

It was commented by Council that State and federal mandates are a cause of frustration and that the City can only do what it can do legally. It was stated that the court costs would be high if the Council were to be taken to court for their decision. It was stated that the Council did not want to expose anyone to something that is detrimental to their health. It was stated by Council that they did not find justified findings to deny the project.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Haffa, to adopt Resolution No. 20-185 C.S. to Deny an Appeal (AP-20-0248) and Approve the Personal Wireless Facility Use Permit Amendment UP-20-0171, to Allow Modifications to an Existing Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) Facility on the Rooftop of the Portola Hotel and Spa Building located at 2 Portola Plaza; Applicant: James Phillips, MasTec Network Solutions for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T); Owner: Custom House Hotel, LP; VAF – Visitor Accommodation Facilities Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation.

The Council continued to discuss the matter. In support of the motion it was stated that there were no aesthetic impacts and no historical impacts associated with the application and no grounds on which to deny the project. Appreciation was expressed for significant public participation received. It was stated that the Council is not in favor of corporate overreach, and that the community members’ work reading carefully through the reports was appreciated. It was stated that the appellant’s position relates to health and other arguments. It was stated that the application complies with City Code, California Public Utilities Commission regulations, Federal Communications Commission, siting and radiofrequency regulations, development standards, noise, security, compatibility, RF compliance, and was consistent with the City's General Plan and was compliant with all specific conditions. It was stated that, given reports showing that the facility will at most affect someone in a public space at a level of 72%, the Council was not seeing the health impacts.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 44, Packet Page 218 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
15 It was stated that the Council has heard many of these appeals and each time starts with a clean slate with regard to the decision, but their understanding of the terminology improves over time. It was stated that particular attention was paid to three locations on the site and how they are pointed, and that the validation of alignment and the technical nature of the work was intriguing. It was stated that there is a standard that the FCC requires and that the evidence demonstrated that the RF would be well below the ceiling for exposure levels. It was stated that the Council went through all of the appellant's points and could not find evidence that the community would be placed at risk. It was stated that there was no evidence, cause, or reason to lawfully find the authority to support denial of the use permit amendment. It was stated that the applicants and staff report did an adequate job of addressing the 20 points of the appeal.

The Council stated that local control keeps being taken away and will have to be won back through Congress or the FCC. It was stated that it will remain to be seen whether the new administration will be more permissive.

The motion carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call:

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

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

14. Receive Update and Provide Feedback on the City’s Commercial Cannabis Roadmap (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation, discussed, and provided feedback City Manager Uslar gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Tom Rowley and Sal Palma, who spoke in favor of the planned approach. Concern was expressed by Tom Rowley and Esther Malkin that it will be difficult to gather community input from residents who are not online.

The Council discussed the matter.

On the subject of outreach, it was noted that stakeholders contacted will need to include military and education communities. On question, City Manager Uslar shared details of his vision for town hall meetings. It was requested by Council that the City send postal mail notices letting people know the meetings will take place. It was stated that the public should be engaged in other ways than only neighborhood associations. Concern was stated about how to get full public input due to COVID-19 limitations, and it was requested that staff inform Council if they have a difficult time achieving engagement.

On the subject of timing, it was stated that the proposed timeline is good, and the hope was expressed that the Council would have a clear idea of the community’s stance by July or August of 2021. It was questioned how City departments will work together simultaneously on the subject. It was stated that the matter should be decided one way or another sooner than later, because it has serious implications for the budget.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 45, Packet Page 219 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
16 It was stated that discussing cannabis zoning will be an important discussion. Concern was stated that rent prices may be driven up by cannabis businesses and local businesses can suffer as a result. It was stated that Monterey is in a unique situation with a lot of visitors, and it would be good to find the right locations.

On the subject of public opinion, it was stated that the public has moved further and further in the direction of cannabis legalization. Statistics were cited regarding majority votes from both Monterey County and City of Monterey voters on Proposition 64 in the 2016 election. On the other hand, it was stated that people may have voted to legalize cannabis but may not want it in their community, so it will be important to receive community input.

It was stated that the Council has not yet made a decision to get in this business, but has made a decision to ask the community what they think. It was suggested not to start talking about modeling for revenue, or prioritizing how to spend the money, but to listen to the community. A current advisory from the community is more valuable than the Prop. 64 vote from 2016.

It was stated that if there were questions regarding support for cannabis, it would be best to direct staff to hire an independent agency to conduct a survey as the City did for past ballot measures. It was stated that the maximum public input would be achieved through an advisory vote of the people.

It was stated that the Council wants to hear from residents, not the cannabis industry or advocates. It was stated that there are concerns about administration and law enforcement impacts. It was stated that lives have been destroyed by cannabis use.

REQUESTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS TO AGENDIZE NEW MATTERS

15. Councilmember Williamson and Vice Mayor Haffa’s Request to Agendize a Discussion about Rent Stabilization Measures (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Directed staff to bring an extension of the eviction moratorium before the Council within two months, prior to State's eviction moratorium ending, and directed staff to dedicate a study session in 2021 to the issue of renter protections Councilmembers Williamson introduced his personal intern, Jenna Tobin, who presented the staff report. Councilmember Haffa cited evidence that people are suffering due to the economy that has been impacted by COVID-19 and said he is concerned there will be a massive eviction wave as soon as the State moratorium ends, which would have a deterimental effect on the community. Councilmember Williamson clarified that an urgency ordinance for rent increases was requested for the next Council meeting, and a study session was requested for 2021 for further discussion and research on topics and policies that could protect Monterey's renters.

The Council discussed the matter. It was suggested that the State would be likely to extend their moratorium on COVID evictions, and that the City's rental assistance program might help address that issue, which was described as immediate.

On the issue of broader renter protections, it was stated that Proposition 21 lost in California. It was stated that the immediate priority was to restore the economy and the City and that the Council would be hesitant to have staff spend a great deal of time and money on another initiative. Concern was expressed about the cost of monitoring and creating lease registries. It was stated that the City must get back on its fiscal footing. It was stated that property owners are being careful with tenants and there is not currently urgency to evict tenants.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 46, Packet Page 220 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
17 The City staff’s workload was acknowledged. It was noted that the Council had prioritized housing as its number two priority.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who spoke in favor of protection for renters, and from Scott Dick, Monterey County Association of Realtors, who spoke against rent control.

The Council spoke favorably about agendizing an urgency ordinance for COVID-19 related evictions if the State does not extend theirs.

Comments were made by Council against agendizing a study session on broader renter protections, with reasons cited including the need for COVID-19 relief, restrictions on local actions, premature timing, lack of support for rent control, the demand on staff, and consideration of other items already in the works. It was stated that before the Council would be willing to agendize the proposed study session, data would be needed on how many property owners are raising rents at this time. It was stated that evidence was needed and that the Council must be judicious.

In favor of agendizing the study session, it was stated that the renter community will not be satisfied by the Council not being willing to have a conversation. It was stated that people of color, people in poverty, women, and households with children are being disproportionally negatively affected by current conditions. It was stated that there is no independent, verified information on whether rents are being raised, and that would be one of the benefits of a rental registry paid for by landlords at a certain level. It was suggested to have staff come back to Council with information about what would be involved in a rental registry.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council directed staff to agendize:
 prior to State's eviction moratorium ending, in the next two months, extension of an eviction moratorium, and
 a study session dedicated to the issue of renter protections in 2021:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Albert thanked City Clerk Klein for her work on the election.

Councilmember Smith referred to the City’s 250th anniversary, reminding all of the history that the City has been through and stating that the best years are yet to come. He thanked the community and congratulated the newly reelected Mayor and City Council.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar reported that $415,000 has been spent on rental assistance that has benefited 150 participants.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 11:23 p.m.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 47, Packet Page 221 City Council Minutes December 1, 2020
18 Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8ADB8275-D6D1-42E9-8AF0-090E8AD73022 Attachment 6
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 48, Packet Page 222 Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

HOUSING AND LAND USE COMMITEE
DATE: MARCH 28, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: BEATRIZ TRUJILLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
TITLE: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGISTRATION
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

It is recommended that the HLUC support the approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Housing) of the Salinas Municipal Code to amend Section 1 to incorporate the regulation of residential rental units, a Resolution amending the City of Salinas Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services, and the establishment of a Residential Rental Registration enterprise fund.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has adopted the Salinas Plan and the Alisal Vibrancy Plan which both call for a Rental Registration and Inspection Program. Rental registration programs are often used by local jurisdictions as a tool to promote community health and safety through the identification of residential rental units and corresponding up to date emergency contact information. This minimally collected information is also vital in supporting cities in assessing current rental housing stock and future rental housing need, develop and implement required Housing Elements in support of the additional production of rental units, and to provide a robust platform to provide much-needed Fair Housing services and supports, such as linkages to mediation assistance, access to potential rental supports and landlord incentives, and relevant information regarding applicable legislation and regulations and locally available resources.

Since 2018, staff have convened 22 meetings with a broad, representative group of community stakeholders to discuss various proposals and solicit feedback on potential program models, mandates, service components, and funding sources. Based upon the results of these community consultation efforts, as well as the particular guidance received from the Housing Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a proposed program model initially focusing on a Residential Rental Registration has been developed. Additional TAC recommendations included the deferral of any rental inspection component until appropriate safeguards and resources are in place to prevent potential displacement or support required relocation. The proposed Residential Rental Registration Program that would result from an adopted Ordinance is designed to incorporate additional costneutral landlord and tenant benefits and appropriate dedicated staffing.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 49, Packet Page 223 Page | 2
BACKGROUND:

The proposed Rental Registration Ordinance is derivative of community feedback offered and inclusive of preferred service concepts brought forward from the City’s publicly engaged and adopted Salinas Plan in 2018. Initially conceptualized as a Rental Registration and Inspection Program (Salinas Plan Item NR05) with the expressed intent of helping to improve the quality of the City’s rental stock and a potential revenue source for Code Enforcement staff. Following adoption of the Salinas Plan, the City engaged its author, the National Resource Network (NRN), to assist in the design of an initial program. In August 2019, as part of this work, NRN held a community meeting to solicit public input on the proposed program. Based upon initial feedback received and concerns brought forward regarding potential displacements that might result from a proposed inspection component, the City opted to establish a Housing Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of community advocates, housing developers, property managers, and private sector professional organization representatives to assist in formulating an equitable, acceptable model.

Upon its inception, CDD staff convened several progressive meetings with the TAC from December 2019 through to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. Concurrent to these initial TAC discussions in February 2020, Council also adopted the Alisal Vibrancy Plan (AVP) and its recommendation to establish a Rental Registration and Inspection Program (Items HN 2.2a, 3.1a).

Following a reduction of Covid cases and relaxation of widely imposed contact restrictions, TAC discussions resumed in April 2021 and continued through December 2021. On January 18, 2022, staff presented a proposed model for the rental registration program outlining the program’s design, fees, and budget and received direction from Council to draft an ordinance based on the proposed model.

DISCUSSION:

Following direction provided by Council in January 2022, staff, in consultation with external counsel, moved forward to create a first draft of the proposed Residential Rental Ordinance. TAC members received an initial presentation of the draft Ordinance on July 27, 2022 and were encouraged to share and solicit input from additional stakeholders and provide written comment in anticipation of additional discussions with the Community Development Department Director and CDD Housing and Code Enforcement Division staff. And presented it to the TAC on July 27, 2022. To support the efficient acceptance in consideration of feedback, TAC members were encouraged to solicit input from additional stakeholders and provide written comment in anticipation of an additional discussion with the Community Development Director and CDD Housing and Code Enforcement Division staff on August 23, 2022. To facilitate general awareness and solicit additional public input, CDD Housing Division staff also presented information in a series of four (4) public meetings held in February and March 2023.

Throughout the development of the Residential Rental Registration Ordinance, TAC and AVP stakeholders have provided varying opinions and levels of support for a Residential Rental Registration Ordinance and program. Assumed stances have essentially aligned with one of the following options:

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 50, Packet Page 224 Page | 3
• support for the implementation of a full-service Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program as recommended by in the City’s adopted Salinas Plan and AVP • no support for any type of program whatsoever – whether Registration only or Registration and Inspection
• support for a limited Residential Rental Registration Program with no inspection component.

The proposed Ordinance and Resolution represents a consensus of compromise from TAC members representing both landlords and tenants within the City’s jurisdictions.

Ordinance Overview

CDD’s Housing and Community Development Division will assume administrative responsibility and provide Residential Registration Program staffing as part of its Fair Housing services. Following an initial start-up period and the use of previously dedicated funding approved by Council, fees will be collected in accordance to the Ordinance’s proposed Fee Schedule and subsequent applicable revisions of the City’s Fee Schedule for program-restricted uses and supports, thus eliminated the need for any General Fund support.

Units Requiring Registration:

All residential rental properties including single family and multi-family residences and non-owner occupied Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Vacant, on-market, units will require registration in anticipation of imminent occupancy.

Exempted Units:
• Subsidized Residential Rental Units/Affordable Deed Restricted Units • Owner-occupied ADUs
• Mobile Home Spaces
Required Information Collected:
• Landlord name, address, phone number and email
• Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) and Street Address of each rental unit • Number of bedrooms and bathrooms and square footage of each rental unit • Business License number, where applicable
• Property Manager name, address, phone number and email, if applicable

Optional Information Collected:
• Monthly rent charged for each rental unit and specific utilities included, if applicable • General occupancy status of each rental unit (vacant or occupied) • Rental subsidy (housing voucher, etc.) received for each rental unit, if applicable

Fees:

The proposed Resolution related to fees associated with implementation of a Residential Rental Registration Ordinance would establish an initial, annual fee structure with amounts based upon the total number of rental units associated with an individual parcel.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 51, Packet Page 225 Page | 4
Number of Units per
Parcel
Annual Registration Fee
1 $20.00
2-4 $35.00
5-9 $60.00
10-24 $75.00
25-49 $120.00
50-99 $225.00
100+ $350.00
*A Late Fee of 10% per month may be applied for failure to register applicable units within established application and renewal periods Rental Registration Program
CDD’s Housing and Community Development Division will assume administrative responsibility and provide Residential Registration Program staffing as part of its Fair Housing services platform.

Following an initial start-up period and the use of remaining available funding previously allocated by Council, the proposed Fee Resolution and schedule are intended to create a cost-neutral program supported by the collection of annual fees that would then be directed back to support the Program’s staffing, systems and services, thus eliminating the need for any General Fund support. However, based upon perspective obtained from other jurisdictions, initial years of implementation of similar programs in other jurisdictions have often resulted in lower than anticipated revenues and additional sources of funding may be necessary. In consideration of a potentially low collection of initial revenue, staff have identified other potential fundings sources, such as CDBG, that may be leveraged in support of initial operations.

Budget:

Description Proposed
Budget
Planning Manager – (0.05 FTE) $11,497.33
Community Development Analyst – (1.0 FTE) $158,720.21
Administrative Analyst – Housing (1.0 FTE) $119,488.51
Software & Systems Supports $10,000.00
Tenant/Landlord Services & Resources $100,000.00
Total $399,706.05

Implementation timeline:

The proposed Rental Registration Program is planned to operate in tandem with the City’s July 1- June 30 fiscal year calendar under the initial implementation timeline.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 52, Packet Page 226 Page | 5
Year 1 Implementation
FY 2023-24
Year 2 Operations
FY 2024-25
Registration July 1 – September 30, 2023 July 1 – July 31, 2024 Late Notice Issuance October 1 – November 14, 2023 August 1, 2024 Late Fee Assessment November 15, 2023 September 14, 2024 ATTACHMENTS:

Ordinance – Residential Rental Registration
Resolution – Residential Rental Registration Fees and Enterprise Fund PowerPoint – Residential Rental Registration
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 53, Packet Page 227 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITY OF

SALINAS SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES TO

INCORPORATE APPLICABLE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGISTRATION FEES,

AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL

REGISTRATION ENTERPRISE FUND WITH CORRESPONDING REVENUE AND

EXPENSE BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS

FOR A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING

THE APPROPRIATION OF ALL RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGISTRATION FEES

COLLECTED TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL REGISTRATION ENTERPRISE FUND

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City of Salinas ("City") has broad authority to maintain the public peace, health and safety of its community and preserve the quality of life for its residents and may make and enforce all regulations and ordinances using its police powers to do so; and WHEREAS, according to the Monterey County Analysis of Impediments of Fair Housing Choice, published in 2019, 54.9 percent of Salinas residents are renters and an essential part of our community; and
WHEREAS, in 2019 Council established a Housing Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist staff in formulating a viable Ordinance and related program model; and
WHEREAS, throughout the period of January 2020 to December 2021 staff convened a total of sixteen TAC meetings to solicit input and receive feedback in regard to proposed regulation, program design and services; and
WHEREAS, on January 18th, 2022, staff presented a proposed rental registration model, and received direction from Council to draft an ordinance based on the proposed model; and WHEREAS, it is Council’s intention to create a cost-neutral, self-sustaining Residential Rental Registration Program supported by the collection of annual registration fees; and WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution is subject to review and revision from City Council to ensure cost recovery; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code 66018, a public hearing was duly noticed on March 17th, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on April 4th, 2023, the City of Salinas is adopting and codifying Ordinance Number _____ (N.C.S.) establishing Residential Rental Registration fees in Chapter 17, Article 1 of the Salinas Municipal Code; and
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 54, Packet Page 228 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby amends the City of Salinas Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services to incorporate applicable Residential Rental Registration Fees attached as Exhibit A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the establishment of a Residential Rental Registration enterprise fund with corresponding revenue and expense budget in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a Residential Rental Registration Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby authorizes the appropriation of all Residential Rental Registration fees collected to the Residential Rental Registration enterprise fund,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the adoption of the proposed Residential Rental Registration fees is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is not a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of April 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 55, Packet Page 229 3 EXHIBIT A

RESIDENTAL RENTAL REGISTRATION FEES
Residential Rental Registration Fees
Number of Units Annual Registration Fee
1 $20.00
2-4 $35.00
5-9 $60.00
10-24 $75.00
25-49 $120.00
50-99 $225.00
100+ $350.00
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 56, Packet Page 230 1378\26\3267651.3
ORDINANCE NO. _______ (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SALINAS ADDING CHAPTER [XX] OF THE

SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF ALL

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF SALINAS WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City of Salinas ("City") has broad authority to maintain the public peace, health and safety of its community and preserve the quality of life for its residents and may make and enforce all regulations and ordinances using its police powers to do so; and WHEREAS, the City, with direction from the City Council, has developed goals, objectives, policies, and action programs that directly address the City's housing needs; and WHEREAS, according to the Monterey County Analysis of Impediments of Fair Housing Choice, published in 2019, 54.9 percent of Salinas residents are renters and an essential part of our community; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2018, the National Resource Network presented the Salinas Ten-Year Plan to the City Council, providing a series of recommendations designed to allow the City to maintain long-term fiscal solvency, maintain its key services, and address the housing affordability crisis; and
WHEREAS, one recommendation contained in the Salinas Ten-Year Plan is to establish a feasibility study for a residential rental registry and inspection program; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the FY 2020 – FY 2024 Consolidated Plan ("CP") for housing in August 2020, and indicated in the CP that engaging in "Fair Housing and tenant/landlord activities" was of high priority to the City; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently track residential rents, and there is no current source for obtaining that information specific to the City, making it difficult to ascertain the effect of rents and housing conditions on the potential displacement of residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed City Staff to conduct a study session on November 27, 2018, to gather the perspective and information necessary to address housing conditions and housing affordability in the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 26th, 2019, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration that would require owners of residential rental properties to provide the City with basic annual information regarding Residential Rental Units, including optional information; and
WHEREAS, the City through a series of 22 meetings has made diligent efforts to engage, collaborate and solicit input from community stakeholders regarding the Residential Rental Registry Program; and
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 57, Packet Page 231 1378\26\3267651.3
WHEREAS, on January 18th, 2022, staff presented a proposed rental registration model, and Council directed staff to draft an ordinance based on the proposed model; and WHEREAS, City staff will continue to collaborate with a variety of stakeholders, including landlords and tenants, to identify potential program services and opportunities to collect data; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the Residential Rental Registry Ordinance codified in Chapter 17 is adopted pursuant to the City's police power authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALINAS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Amendment of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 17 of the Salinas Municipal Code is hereby amended to update Article I, "Residential Rental Registry" to read as follows:

CHAPTER 17 – HOUSING
ARTICLE 1 – Residential Rental Registration
Section 17-01.01 – Findings and Purpose
a) Findings.

The City Council finds and declares as follows:

1. The City has a substantial government interest in regulating the relationship between Landlords and Tenants in order to increase, certainty, stability and fairness within the rental market.

2. The City finds that this Ordinance requires only the registration of Residential Rental Units and the collection of fees associated with the registry.

3. The Ordinance codified in this Chapter is being adopted pursuant to the City's police power authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare. b) Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to adopt regulations for Landlords to register their residential rental units and provide related information to the City on an annual basis. The registration process will allow the City to collect, monitor and analyze the characteristics of the residential rental units and actual rents in Salinas. Collected data will be presented in an annual report to the City Council. The registration fees collected pursuant to this Chapter will be used to provide services, including referrals to mediation and legal Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 58, Packet Page 232 1378\26\3267651.3
services, education opportunities, and landlord/tenant resources, to Landlords and Tenants in the City. This Chapter supports the City's housing goals and protects public health, safety, and welfare for the residents of Salinas. This Chapter and its implementation are intended to protect the privacy of individual Tenants and the proprietary information of Landlords, the public release of which could result in a competitive disadvantage.

Section 17-01.02 – Definitions
a) Business License means the license required of Landlords pursuant to Salinas Municipal Code Chapter 19 – Licenses.
b) City means the City of Salinas.
c) Department shall mean the Community Development Department of the City of Salinas. d) Effective Date of this Chapter shall be May 19, 2023. e) Community Development Director means the director of the Community Development Department of the City of Salinas or their designee. A designated representative may include City staff and/or a Party or organization contracted by the City to provide the necessary services to implement the procedures contained in this Chapter. f) Landlord means an owner, lessor, or sublessors who receives or is entitled to receive Rent for the use and occupancy of any Residential Rental Unit or portion thereof, and includes any legal entity or other individuals, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors that comprise or represent the Landlord. g) Rent means a fixed period for compensation paid by a Tenant at fixed intervals to a Landlord for the possession and use of a Residential Rental Unit as defined by the rental agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant. Rent excludes pass-through costs and ancillary costs paid separately to the Landlord for parking, storage, utilities, water, garbage, or any other fee or charge associated with the Residential Rental Unit. h) Residential Rental Registry Fees means the fee required to be paid by a Landlord pursuant to Section 17-01.04.
i) Residential Rental Registry Information means the information required to be submitted to the City by the Landlord pursuant to this Chapter. j) Residential Rental Unit means a habitable structure offered for Rent and used as a place of permanent or customary and usual abode of a Tenant. Residential Rental Units include a single-family residence, an accessory dwelling unit, a building, a group of buildings or Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 59, Packet Page 233 1378\26\3267651.3
a portion of a building used and/or designed as dwellings. A Residential Rental Unit shall not include:

1. Unpermitted conversions of garage, sheds or other accessory structures.

2. Housing accommodations in hotels, motels, group housing, supportive housing, transitional housing, general residential care, and bed and breakfasts as those terms are defined in Division 2 of Article 1 of Chapter 37 of the Salinas Municipal Code.
k) Tenant means any renter, tenant, subtenant, lessee or sublessee of a Residential Rental Unit, or any group of renters, tenants, subtenants, lessees, or sublessees of a Residential Rental Unit, or any other person entitle to the use of occupancy of such Residential Rental Unit, or any successor of any of the foregoing.

Section 17-01.03 – Registration of Residential Rental Units a) Initial Registration. A Landlord must register every Residential Rental Unit that is subject to the provisions of this Chapter within forty-five (45) calendar days of the Effective Date of this Chapter. Registration must be completed using forms provided by the City. The forms provided by the City shall include a secure internet website with an interface for submitting the information required by this Chapter. Registration is complete only when all required information has been provided to the City and all outstanding fees and penalties, if applicable, have been paid. Upon completion of the initial registration of a Residential Rental Unit, the City shall issue a registration statement which shall include the renewal date for the registration of the applicable Units. The City may issue a citation and impose a late penalty should a Landlord fail to register their Residential Rental Units within forty-five (45) calendar days of the Effective Date of this Chapter. b) Renewal. Unless a registration statement provides otherwise, registration of Residential Rental Units shall expire on June 30 of the same year when registration statement was issued. Registration of Residential Rental Units shall be renewed annually between July 1 and July 31, or by the date stated on the registration statement. Registration statements shall expire annually on June 30 or the date on the registration statement. The City may issue a citation and impose a late penalty should a Landlord fail to register their Residential Rental Units by July 31.
c) Residential Rental Registry Information. At minimum, the following information below shall be provided as part of initial and renewal registration of a Residential Rental Unit.

Failure to provide information required or providing false information shall be a violation of the Salinas Municipal Code, chargeable as a misdemeanor or infraction.

1. The name, mailing address, phone number and email of the Landlord; Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 60, Packet Page 234 1378\26\3267651.3

2. The street address and/or Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of each Residential Rental Unit for rent or lease;

3. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each Rental Unit, including square footage, for rent or lease;

4. The Business License number, where applicable, to each Residential Rental Unit; and

5. If applicable, the name, address, phone number and email of Property Manager Additionally, landlords will be asked to provide the following optional information:

1. The current amount of the monthly rent charged for each Residential Rental Unit, identifying whether the monthly rent includes specified utilities (water/sewer, refuse/recycle, natural gas, electricity, etc.);

2. The occupancy status of each Residential Rental Unit (e.g., vacant or occupied);

3. Whether or not the unit’s monthly rent is subsidized (e.g. housing voucher or another subsidy).
d) Termination of Exemption. When a Residential Rental Unit that was exempt from this Chapter becomes governed by this Chapter, the Landlord must register the Residential Rental Unit with the City within forty-five (45) calendar days after the City provides notice that the exemption has ended.
e) Registration Amendment. A Landlord shall notify the City if there is a change to the registration information for any Residential Rental Unit. A Landlord shall contact the City within forty-five (45) calendar days of change in a Residential Rental Unit's ownership or management, or a change in the owner's or manager's contact information. f) Administrative Regulations. The Community Development Director may promulgate administrative regulations and operational procedures to implement the provisions of this Chapter.
g) Collecting and Keeping Confidential Residential Rental Registry Information.

1. The City Council recognizes that the Residential Rental Registry Information, if publicly disclosed, could reveal the rent that a Tenant pays for a Residential Rental Unit or proprietary information of a Landlord could create a competitive disadvantage for every Landlord required to comply with this Chapter.

The City Council also recognizes that the Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250, et seq.) generally requires that the City make available to the public information in its possession that relates to the conduct of the public's business.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 61, Packet Page 235 1378\26\3267651.3
The Public Records Act contains a number of exceptions intended to protect the privacy of individuals and the proprietary information of businesses that is in the City's possession only because of a legal requirement to provide it to the City in connection with a regulatory program. Subject to Section 17-01.03(g)(4).

City Council declares that the Residential Rental Registry Information shall be received in confidence, and that the public interest in nondisclosure of the Residential Rental Registry Information clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Section 17-01.03(g) identifies limited Residential Rental Registry Information that shall be made available to the public.

2. The City Council anticipates that Residential Rental Registry Information will be kept in a secure database. The database containing Residential Rental Registry Information shall be created and maintained such that it can generate reports containing only the following, individually or in combination: (a) the number of Residential Rental Units per building expressed as a range of the number of Residential Rental Units per building; (b) the number and type of rooms in a Residential Rental Unit, with the Rental Units grouped by number of bedrooms and not listed individually; (c) the size of Residential Rental Units, expressed in square feet; (d) the Rent for Residential Rental Units, classified only by size of Residential Rental Units in square feet and number and type of rooms; (e) average Rent for Residential Rental Units by size of Residential Rental Units in square feet or number of rooms for any period of time covered by the Residential Rental Registry Information; or (f) the average length of occupancy or vacancy of Rental Units, classified only by size of Rental Units in square feet or number and type of rooms. The Residential Rental Registry Information listed in this paragraph shall be the only Residential Rental Registry Information released in response to a request made under the Public Records Act. The City will not disclose Residential Rental Registry Information for Residential Rental Units in a manner that identifies the building in which they are located or the Rent for any individual Rental Unit. Residential Rental Registry Information shall not include identifying information regarding an individual Tenant or Landlord.

3. The Community Development Director may generate additional reports from the Residential Rental Registry Information database for the purposes of this Chapter.

Such reports shall be released to the public only if kept in the normal course of City business and only after redacting any Residential Rental Registry Information that would improperly intrude into personal privacy of Tenants or reveal Landlord proprietary information that could result in a competitive disadvantage.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 62, Packet Page 236 1378\26\3267651.3

4. The Community Development Director, in consultation with the City Attorney, may authorize the release of other Residential Rental Registry Information that would be otherwise confidential if they determine that the release is legally required or the public interest in disclosure would clearly outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure.

Section 17-01.04 – Rental Registry Fees
a) Rental Registry Fees. Each Landlord shall pay the required Residential Rental Registry Fee as set forth in Resolution No________. The fees established in Resolution No. _______ shall be integrated into the City's Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services by resolution, as required by Section 4 of Chapter 11B of the Salinas Municipal Code.

The Residential Rental Registry Fee shall be imposed annually for each rental property owned by the Landlord. The Residential Rental Registry Fees required by this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any general business license tax that might be required by Chapter 19 of the Salinas Municipal Code. The fees shall be used to defray the reasonable costs associated with the implementation and administration of this Chapter, including costs of maintenance of a residential rental registry database, enforcement of the registration required by this Chapter, outreach, education, and other related services as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 17-01.05 of this Chapter.

b) Late Fees; Penalties. A Landlord's failure to pay the annual Residential Rental Registration Fees required by this section shall result in the City taking the following actions:

1. Issue a delinquency notice to the landlord that provides up to forty-five (45) calendar days to pay the amount due.

2. If not paid within forty-five (45) calendar days following the issuance of the delinquency notice, the City shall assess a penalty of ten (10) percent of the Residential Rental Registry Fee, due and payable with the compliance fee on the first day of the month following the due date provided in the delinquency notice.

3. For every forty-five (45) calendar days thereafter that the Residential Rental Registry Fees remain unpaid, the City shall assess a penalty of ten (10) percent of the Rental Registry Fee. If the Rental Registry Fees remain unpaid within onehundred eighty (180) calendar days following the issuance of the delinquency notice, the Landlord shall be subject to a citation described in Division 1 (Administrative Citations) of Article 5 of Chapter 1 – General of the Salinas Municipal Code.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 63, Packet Page 237 1378\26\3267651.3
The City may collect any past due Residential Rental Registry Fees and late payment penalties by use of all available legal means, including, but not limited to, means available for the collection of judgments, liens, and actions for recovery of money.

The City also may recover its collection costs.
c) Residential Rental Registry Fees Pass-Through. A Landlord may not recover any portion of the Residential Rental Registry late fees, or any associated late penalties, from Tenant(s).
d) Exemptions. This section shall not apply to the following Residential Rental Units:

1. Subsidized Residential Rental Units. One hundred percent of Residential Rental Units in the housing developments are restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable to persons and families or very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes.

2. Accessory Dwelling Units. Legal accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and secondary dwelling units, if the primary dwelling is owneroccupied. If the primary dwelling is presently or has previously been held out for rental, then both units are subject to this Section 17-01.04.

3. Mobile Home Spaces. A lot or space of land in a Mobile Home Park where a Mobile Home is or may be located. Mobile Home and Mobile Home Park shall have the same meaning as the definitions of "mobile home" defined in Section 798.3 of the Civil Code and "mobile home park" defined in Section 798.4 of the Civil Code, respectively, as those sections may be amended from time to time, or their successor code sections.

Section 17-01.05 – Provision of Services
a) In addition to being used for the administration and enforcement of the residential rental registration requirement, the Residential Rental Registry Fees provided for in Section 17-01.04 of this Chapter shall be used by the Community Development Director for the provision of services to Landlords and Tenants in the City. These services may include, without limitation, the following:

1. Website content to landlord/tenant services and resources;

2. Referrals to landlord/tenant resources which may include dispute resolution services through website content and a dedicated phone line and email; Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 64, Packet Page 238 1378\26\3267651.3

3. Education and outreach to landlords and tenants, such as handouts, mailings and webinars, about rights and obligations; and

4. Any other services for Landlords and Tenants as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director.
b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), nothing in this Section 17-01.05 is intended to authorize the Community Development Director to establish a rental housing inspection program or to provide rental housing inspection services without the prior approval of the Council.

Section 17-01.06 – Miscellaneous
a) Annual Review. The Community Development Director shall annually prepare a report to the Council assessing the effectiveness of the program established under this Chapter and may recommend changes.
b) Business License. All Landlords shall possess a Business License, as required by Salinas Municipal Code Chapter 19 – Licenses, for any Residential Rental Unit subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Submission of Residential Rental Registry Information shall be a prerequisite to a complete application for a Business License required by Section 19-9 of Chapter 19 of the Salinas Municipal Code.

Section 17-01.07 – Enforcement
a) Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction and may be subject to the penalties prescribed in Section 1-01.08 of the Salinas Municipal Code. b) In addition to an Administrative Remedy or penalties available to the City, in law or equity, the City may enforce the terms of this Chapter through the administrative citation procedures provided in Division 1 (Administrative Citations) of Article 5 of Chapter 1 – General of the Salinas Municipal Code.
c) The City Attorney may bring a civil action to seek redress for any violation(s) under this Chapter on behalf of the City. In any such relief, the City shall recover all civil penalties prescribed in Division 1 (Administrative Citations) of Article 5 of Chapter 1 – General of the Salinas Municipal Code, and any other relief the court deems proper.

SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Approval of this ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the general rule which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 65, Packet Page 239 1378\26\3267651.3
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.

SECTION 5. Publication. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) calendar days from the passage thereof, the ordinance or a summary thereof shall be posted or published as may be required by law, and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of its adoption.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 4, 2023, and passed by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ADOPTED AND ORDERED published at a regular meeting of the City Council held on [XX], 2023 and passed by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 66, Packet Page 240 Residential Rental Registration
Community Development Department
April 4, 2022
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 67, Packet Page 241 Executive Summary
o Rental registration programs are tool for jurisdictions to:
 Promote community health and safety
 Collect vital information about rental stock
 Develop & implement Housing Elements
 Boost Fair Housing services and resources for landlords and tenants o Call to enact from both the Salinas Plan and AVP
o 22 stakeholder meetings since 2018
o Housing Policy Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
 Initial deferment of an inspection component
 Support of cost-neutral, self-sustaining program with dedicated staffing Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 68, Packet Page 242 Background
2018
Salinas Plan - called for
Rental Registration and
Inspection
2019
AVP – called for Rental
Registration and Inspection
National Resource Network
Community Feedback
TAC Meeting: Dec
2020
TAC Meetings: Jan, Feb,
Mar
Proposal - Rental
Registration only
2021
Program Research
Stakeholder Feedback
TAC Meetings: Apr, May,
Jul, Nov, Dec
2022
Staff - Proposed a
Residential Rental
Registration Model
Draft ordinance
TAC Feedback: Jul, Aug
2023
Ordinance final draft
Outreach and Feedback:

Feb, March
Adoption: April
Implementation: July
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 69, Packet Page 243 Ordinance Overview
Units Requiring Registration: Exceptions:
 All residential rental properties
o single family and multi-family
residences
o non-owner occupied Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs).
 Vacant, on-market, units will require
registration in anticipation of imminent
occupancy
• Subsidized Units
• Affordable Deed Restricted Units
• Owner-occupied ADUs
• Mobile Homes
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 70, Packet Page 244 Online registration portal
Information to be collected
Required: Optional:
• Landlord name, address, phone number and email
• Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) and Street Address
• Number of bedrooms, bathrooms and square footage
If applicable:
o Business License Number
o Property Manager name, address, phone number
and email
• Occupancy status
• Rental subsidy, if applicable
• Monthly rent and specific
utilities included, if applicable
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 71, Packet Page 245 Fees
Number of Units on a Parcel Registration Fee
1 $20.00
2-4 $35.00
5-9 $60.00
10-24 $75.00
25-49 $120.00
50-99 $225.00
100+ $350.00
A Late Fee of 10% per month may be applied for failure to register applicable units within established application and renewal periods
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 72, Packet Page 246 Program Budget
Description Proposed Budget
Planning Manager – Housing (0.05 FTE) $11,497.33
Community Development Analyst – Housing (1.0 FTE)* $ 158,720.21 Administrative Analyst – Housing (1.0 FTE) $119,488.51
Software & software admin $10,000.00
Landlord-Tenant Services and Resources $100,000.00
Total $399,706.05
In consideration of a potentially low collection of initial revenue, City CDBG funds may be leveraged in support of initial operations.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 73, Packet Page 247 Benefits
• Centralized repository for emergency
contact information
• Tenant and landlord resources
• Mediation services
• Dedicated staffing
• Supports the assessment and
development of current and future
affordable housing
• Closed-loop linkages to other
available City services and programs
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 74, Packet Page 248 Implementation Timeline
Year 1 Implementation
FY 2023-24
Year 2 Operations
FY 2024-25
Registration July 1 – September 30, 2023 July 1 – July 31, 2024 Late Notice Issuance October 1 – November 14, 2023 August 1, 2024 Late Fee Assessment November 15, 2023 September 14, 2024 Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 75, Packet Page 249 Outreach
Past outreach effort:
 2 meetings with Monterey
Association of Realtors
 1 meeting with housing advocates
 2 pop-ups with community
members
On Going Awareness Campaign
 Pop-ups
 Surveys
 Community meetings
 Soft launch with stakeholders
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 76, Packet Page 250 Recommendation
It is recommended that the HLUC support the approval of an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Housing) of the Salinas Municipal Code to amend Section 1 to incorporate the regulation of residential rental units, a Resolution amending the City of Salinas Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services, and the establishment of a Residential Rental Registration enterprise fund.

Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 77, Packet Page 251 Questions & Comments
Attachment 7
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 78, Packet Page 252 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 79, Packet Page 253 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 80, Packet Page 254 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 81, Packet Page 255 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 82, Packet Page 256 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 83, Packet Page 257 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 84, Packet Page 258 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 85, Packet Page 259 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 86, Packet Page 260 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 87, Packet Page 261 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 88, Packet Page 262 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 89, Packet Page 263 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 90, Packet Page 264 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 91, Packet Page 265 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 92, Packet Page 266 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 93, Packet Page 267 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 94, Packet Page 268 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 95, Packet Page 269 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 96, Packet Page 270 Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 97, Packet Page 271 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 1/10 Most Popular
UCLA’s acceptance rate
has plunged in recent
years. These charts

1. What Sierra hikers can
expect this summer after
California’s onslaught...

2. Another rare weather
system is headed for
California. Here’s a

3. Bay Area braces for yet
another storm. Here’s
what's different this time

4. What GPA is needed to get
into UCLA and UC
Berkeley? Here’s the

5. Why prices on one
category of S.F. homes are
dropping dramatically —

6. An underwater
was newly disco
California coast

7. BAY AREA // SAN FRANCISCO
S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax Carolyn Said
Updated: Feb. Updated: Feb. 1133, 22002233 33:0077 p.m.

Total Wine & More
Total Wine & More
Discover Our Broad Selection of Wine & Spirits.

Store info Directions
Subscribe Sign In
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 98, Packet Page 272 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 2/10 A consortium of San Francisco landlords and property owners filed a lawsuit last week challenging the city’s new tax on vacant residences as unconstitutional and a violation of state law.

Proposition M, “The Empty Homes Tax,” passed by 54.5% of voters in November, imposes a tax on property owners for each unit left vacant for more than 182 days in a given year, starting in 2024. It applies to buildings with three or more units, not to single-family homes or duplexes.

A pedestrian looks up at a “For Rent” sign in a window on Hayes Street in San Francisco, Calif. A group of landlords and property owners sued to block the implementation of San Francisco's voter-approved vacancy tax.

Nick Otto, freelance / Special to The Chronicle
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 99, Packet Page 273 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 3/10 The taxes start at $2,500 for units smaller than 1,000 square feet and go up to $5,000 for units over 2,000 square feet. They escalate over each subsequent year a unit is vacant, and later are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.

The measure’s goal was to help alleviate the city’s punishing housing crisis by motivating property owners to rent their units, according to proponents.

But the lawsuit said that was misguided.
“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.

Total Wine & More
Total Wine & More
Discover Our Broad Selection of Win
Spirits.

ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
More for you
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 100, Packet Page 274 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 4/10 Supervisor Dean Preston, who championed Prop. M, dismissed the case as a frivolous lawsuit filed by “real estate lobbyists” displaying “a great sense of entitlement when it comes to broadly popular and essential reforms.”
“San Francisco voters delivered a clear mandate that it is completely unacceptable to have tens of thousands of vacant homes as more than 4,000 people are living on our streets,” Preston said in a statement. City data shows 61,473 empty homes in San Francisco as of October, although that includes units that are on the market but have not yet secured tenants, as well as ones for sale.

S.F. voters approve a tax on vacant residential units
Read Now
Are S.F. landlords sitting on tens of thousands of empty homes? Vacancy tax could put debate to rest Read Now
Total Wine & More
Total Wine & More
Discover Our Broad Selection of Win
Spirits.

ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 101, Packet Page 275 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 5/10 The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by several small landlords, along with the San Francisco Apartment Association, a trade group which represents about 2,800 landlords who own more than 65,000 residential units in the city; the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, a nonprofit that advocates for property owner rights; and the San Francisco Association of Realtors.

California law also would prohibit enforcement of Prop. M, the lawsuit said. “The right not to o “The right not to offffer residential units for rent is also enshrined in preemptive s er residential units for rent is also enshrined in preemptive state law, speci tate law, specififically the Ellis Act,” it said. cally the Ellis Act,” it said.

Drought Map
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 102, Packet Page 276 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 6/10 The lawsuit said some San Francisco property owners choose to keep their rental units vacant because they wish to avoid the “burdens” imposed by the city on landlords, such as rent control, eviction laws, registration and notice requirements, relocation payment mandates and “severe restrictions on an owner being able to live in, or allow Updated to include drought zones while tracking water shortage status of your area, plus reservoir levels and a list of restrictions for the Bay Area’s largest water districts.

Track water shortages and restrictions across Bay Area
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 103, Packet Page 277 3/27/23, 10:52 AM San Francisco's vacancy tax challenged in court https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-vacancy-tax-lawsuit-17779273.php 7/10 Carolyn Said, an enterprise reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, covers transformation: how society, business, culture, education and other institutions are changing. Her stories shed light on the human impact of sweeping trends. As a reporter at The Chronicle since sweeping trends. As a reporter at The Chronicle since 11999977, she has also covered the on-demand industry, the foreclosure crisis, the dot-com rise and fall, the California energy crisis and the fallout from economic downturns. , she has also covered the on-demand industry, the foreclosure crisis, the dot-com rise and fall, the California energy crisis and the fallout from economic downturns.

Email
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of use and acknowledge that your information will be used as described in our Privacy Policy. an immediate family member to live in, a unit they own if it is occupied by a tenant.” In other cases, the suit says, landlords may wish to rent out their units but haven’t been able to find tenants in a changing market without slashing rents, which would lock them in to those lower rents “indefinitely” because of rent-control laws.

Although Prop. M offers a one-year exemption from the vacancy tax while property owners await building permits, the lawsuit noted that the city often takes far longer than a year to approve such permits.

Preston said the same groups made a similar argument when they sued to challenge a law he wrote to ban evictions during the pandemic. A San Francisco Superior Court judge rejected their arguments in August 2020 and upheld the anti-eviction law as “a permissible exercise” of the city’s power to regulate evictions “to promote public welfare.”
Reach Carolyn Said: [email protected]; Twitter: @csaid

VIEW COMMENTS
Top of the News
Attachment 8
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 104, Packet Page 278 Ballot Title:

AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 3.38 TO

THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN EMPTY HOMES TAX, A

PARCEL TAX ON VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ Summary:

If approved by the voters, this initiative would add Chapter 3.38 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, establishing a tax on residential parcels that are in use less than 120 days within a calendar year (“vacant parcels”). This would be a special tax, i.e., the City could use the revenue only for purposes specified in the measure. The tax would apply to various types of vacant properties, including single-family and multi-family residential parcels, condominiums, and townhomes.

The measure would require each owner of a residential parcel to submit an annual declaration to the City regarding the vacancy status of their property. The City would also be required to establish a process to annually audit properties declared “in use” to verify vacancy status.

Making a false declaration as to a property’s vacancy status would constitute a misdemeanor.

Other violations of proposed Chapter 3.38 would be charged as infractions for the first two violations in a one-year period, and misdemeanors for three or more violations in the same time period.

The following annual tax rates would be established, subject to an annual CPI adjustment:
 $6,000 per vacant single-family residence;
 $6,000 per residential parcel with six or fewer units, where all units are in use less than 120 days per calendar year;
 $3,000 per vacant residential unit of a condominium or townhome; and  $3,000 per vacant residential unit on residential parcels with seven or more units.

An owner would be permitted to claim an exemption from the tax in a number of enumerated circumstances, including demonstrable hardship, as defined, where the owner has experienced a significant medical event, construction activities are active or pending, where the property is affected by natural disaster, and other circumstances as specified.

The use of tax revenue would be restricted to specified purposes, including financing affordable housing construction, purchasing existing units for the purpose of maintaining or converting them to affordable housing, providing restroom and hygiene services to the homeless, and paying the costs of administering the tax and for independent audits of the use of tax revenues.

An Empty Home Tax Oversight Committee would be established to oversee the administration of the tax and to make recommendations to the City Council for improvement of zoning and land use designations in the interest of creating affordable housing. The Committee would have up to nine members, including three members who must be renters, two low-income individuals, two with financial expertise, one UCSC student, and one unionized city employee. The measure would require the City Manager or designee to provide clerical assistance, administrative support and technical assistance, and to attend Committee meetings.

This measure would authorize the City to adopt rules and regulations for implementation and administration of the tax. A simple majority of voters is required to pass the measure.

Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 105, Packet Page 279

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE N

ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX ON VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
If approved by the voters, Measure N would add Chapter 3.38 “Empty Homes Tax” to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, establishing a tax on residences that are in use less than 120 days within a calendar year. This would be a special tax, i.e., revenue could be used only for purposes specified in the measure. The tax would apply to various types of vacant properties, including single-family and multi-family residential parcels, condominiums, and townhomes.

The measure would require each owner of taxable residential property to submit an annual declaration to the City regarding the vacancy status of their property. The City would also be required to establish a process to annually audit properties declared “in use” to verify vacancy status. Making a false declaration as to a property’s vacancy status would constitute a misdemeanor.

Other violations of proposed Chapter 3.38 would be charged as infractions for the first two violations in a one-year period, and misdemeanors for three or more violations in the same time period.

An owner would be permitted to claim an exemption from the tax in a number of enumerated circumstances, including demonstrable hardship, as defined, where the owner has experienced a significant medical event, where construction activities are active or pending, where the property is affected by natural disaster, and other specified circumstances.

Use of tax revenue would be restricted to specified purposes, including financing affordable housing construction, purchasing existing units for the purpose of maintaining them as or converting them to affordable housing, paying the costs of administering the tax and for independent audits, and up to five percent of revenue for providing restroom and hygiene services to the homeless.

This measure would authorize the City to adopt rules and regulations for implementation and administration of the tax. A simple majority of voters is required to pass the measure.

Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 106, Packet Page 280 The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure N.

Date: August 18, 2022 s/Tony Condotti, City Attorney
Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 107, Packet Page 281

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE N
Santa Cruz is the most expensive small city in the country. Skyrocketing housing costs and stagnant wages are pushing our teachers, artists, public servants, and our children out. We are in a housing affordability crisis that risks losing what makes Santa Cruz special: its people.

There are estimated to be over 1000 homes in the city of Santa Cruz that are empty for the majority of the year. Empty homes hollow out our neighborhoods and community while reducing opportunities for people to find housing.

This Measure places an annual tax of $6000 per single family home, $3000 per condominium, and $3000 per residential unit for parcels with more than 7 units. Properties used for 120 days per year will not be taxed. ADUs will not be taxed.

The money raised will be used to create affordable housing for lower income levels. These units are not being created by most of the development planned and underway. The need for affordable units far exceeds supply. Subsidizing the creation of affordable housing by creating an annual revenue stream will help more people find safe stable housing and help close the supply gap.

Our teachers, childcare providers, city/county workers, elders and community need affordable housing to ensure our town and economy keeps thriving. This measure creates an annual revenue stream by providing property owners the opportunity to step up and fund affordable housing. They can choose to live on their property for 120 days a year, rent it, or if they choose not to use their property, they can support creating affordable housing.

We have an opportunity to help keep Santa Cruz inclusive and thriving. Please vote Yes on Measure N to fund a meaningful part of the solution to our housing affordability crisis. s/ Sibley Simon - Housing Santa Cruz County Board Member s/ Rachel Kippen - Environmental Educator
s/ Ayo Banjo - Housing Equity Advocate
s/ Walt Wadlow - Municipal Water Professional
Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 108, Packet Page 282 VOTE NO ON MEASURE N. It’s intrusive, extreme, and punitive. It creates new bureaucracy and costs. It won’t lower rent or reduce homelessness.

NO ON MEASURE N’S INTRUSIVE HOMEOWNER REGISTRY AND AUDITS. Measure N will invade the privacy of every homeowner. It requires every homeowner to register with a government agency. Measure N creates a public registry of every homeowner and enables random audits. Only by registering and proving that you live in your home can you avoid a $6,000 per household tax.

NO ON MEASURE N’S EXTREME, PUNITIVE FINES. Even residents living at home still face penalties if they mistakenly register late or fail to comply with random audits by the new government department. Every day you’re late, you’re liable for a misdemeanor and $1,000/ day fine. These criminal penalties are extreme and wrong.

NO ON MEASURE N’S COSTLY, BUREAUCRATIC NEW BOARD. Measure N creates a new unelected City board with broad powers, supported by the new agency that will audit how we use our homes, define how homeowners prove they’re home, and decide penalties. Neither the City Council nor the Mayor will have any power over the new board’s proceedings. The city estimates that $1 million of its existing budget will be diverted to start the new bureaucracy.

Any revenues generated are very uncertain, and there is no guarantee that the expenses of the new agency will be covered in the future. It is likely to cause expensive lawsuits against the City.

NO ON THE UNWORKABLE, DIVISIVE MEASURE N. Addressing affordable housing in Santa Cruz needs to be done, and isn’t easy. This divisive measure won’t build meaningful new housing and will saddle us forever with something that won’t work.

NO ON THIS POORLY CONCEIVED HOUSEHOLD TAX. It creates more problems than it could ever solve.

David J Terrazas
Former Mayor, Attorney
Donna Meyers
Santa Cruz Councilmember, Former Mayor
Ryan Coonerty
County Supervisor
Pete Kennedy
Santa Cruz Planning Commissioner
Renee Golder
Santa Cruz Councilmember
Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 109, Packet Page 283 Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure N
Vote YES on Measure N. It is fair, reasonable, effective and respects property owners. An expert tax lawyer made certain Measure N is in line with other successful local tax measures, conforms with best practices, and avoids extreme penalties.

Only housing units left vacant for more than 8 months will be taxed. Additional exemptions are available and ADUs are not taxed. If your house is your primary residence, you will not be taxed.

Homeowners are part of the broad coalition supporting Measure N.

Every homeowner is already registered with the County on the tax assessor roll which is not public. Measure N won’t change that.

Measure N uses the exact same enforcement and penalties as taxes currently in effect in Santa Cruz.

Tax Oversight Committees exist locally for school parcel taxes and Measure D (2016). The Committee, modeled directly on these committees, has zero decision-making authority, and is only required to review and make public relevant reports and yearly fiscal audits.

Yearly operating costs are up to the city and reimbursed by the tax.

The declaration process for property owners is easy, simple, and fast. It is used in other places and keeps costs low. Property owners just need to answer “yes” or “no” to using their property for 120 non-consecutive days.

The City’s Fiscal Impact Report states Measure N will raise millions to advance equity by funding the creation of affordable housing.

Vacancy taxes work around the country and will work in Santa Cruz.

Let’s work together for thriving neighborhoods and a vibrant community. Vote YES on Measure N.
s/ Kayla Kumar – Nonprofit Director
s/Sandy Brown – Santa Cruz City Councilmember
s/ Ann Simonton – Former Chair Santa Cruz Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women
s/ Cyndi Dawson – Chair Santa Cruz Planning Commission
Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 110, Packet Page 284 Rebuttal to the Argument for Measure N
Measure N won’t help housing – but it will leave everyone with lasting negative consequences.

It’s frustrating that the proponents of N have taken such an intrusive, punitive, and extreme approach in Santa Cruz. As they freely admit in their argument, Measure N would hang a $6,000 tax over every household and then force everyone to prove every year that they do not owe the money. It’s unworkable and wrong. People should be able to come and go freely from their own homes without government monitoring or control.
- Everyone will be subject to audits to prove they live in their home. Audits can be done every year, and can require evidence showing three years of occupancy.
-Everyone will be subject to a new government bureaucracy monitoring the use of their own home. -Everyone will have to register and report every year or face fines. The measure provides that it can be a crime to fail to report how many months you live in your home. - All of Santa Cruz will be guilty until proven innocent if Measure N passes.

We need real solutions to housing affordability and homelessness. We should not impose intrusive burdens on citizens to verify year after year they live in their own homes. We do not need to invite further government control into our homes.

Santa Cruz deserves a better approach to our housing challenges. Please join our broad coalition in voting NO on N.

Mark Mesiti-Miller
William Ow - The Old Wrigley Building
Michael Polhamus - Government and Economics Teacher
Jane M. McKenzie - Financial Advisor, Women’s Surfing Legend Lynn Renshaw - Founder, Santa Cruz Together
Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 111, Packet Page 285 Measure N (Empty Home Tax) Fiscal Impact Statement - City of Santa Cruz Measure N would amend the City of Santa Cruz municipal code to add Chapter 3.38 which establishes a special tax on residential parcels that are in use less than 120 days within a calendar year (“vacant parcels”).

The annual tax rate would be $6,000 per single family residence, $6,000 per parcel with six or fewer units and $3,000 per parcel with seven or more units. Based on factors such as property owner exemptions estimated to range from 34% to 60%, should this measure be approved by the voters, it would result in annual revenue between $2.5 and $4.1 million.

The Measure would create a Committee charged with community oversight of the tax and to make recommendations to the City to improve zoning and land use designations to better support the creation of affordable housing. The revenue from this tax would be deposited into a special revenue fund, the Empty Home Tax Fund, and could only be used for purposes listed in the ordinance – primarily preserving existing affordable housing and funding new affordable housing options with 5% of the revenue going towards homelessness services.

Costs to administer this Measure are estimated to be approximately $450,000 with dedicated staffing to support the Oversight Committee, tax administration, collection, and housing project management. In addition, there are estimated one-time startup costs of $534,000 for database infrastructure, web development and administrative costs.

Attachment 9
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 112, Packet Page 286 Attachment 10
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 113, Packet Page 287 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMPLAINT – REVERSE VALIDATION PROCEEDING CASE NO. ___________________ [CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 860, ET SEQ.] Page 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

NIELSEN MERKSAMER

PARRINELLO GROSS & LEONI LLP
Christopher E. Skinnell, Esq. (S.B. No. 227093)
Hilary J. Gibson, Esq. (S.B. No. 287862)
2350 Kerner Boulevard, Suite 250
San Rafael, California 94901
Telephone: (415) 389-6800
Facsimile: (415) 388-6874
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ERIC DEBBANE; ANDREW DEBBANE;
ROBERT FRIEDLAND; NATASA ZEC; SAN
FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION;

SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN
FRANCISCO INSTITUTE; SAN FRANCISCO

ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ERIC DEBBANE; ANDREW DEBBANE;
ROBERT FRIEDLAND; NATASA ZEC; SAN
FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION;

SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF SAN
FRANCISCO INSTITUTE; SAN

FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF

REALTORS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
JOSÉ CISNEROS, in his official capacity as
the Tax Collector or the City & County of
San Francisco; ALL PERSONS

INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF
Proposition M on the November 8, 2022
ballot, imposing a “vacancy tax” on
residential properties, and other matters
related thereto; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO

INVALIDATE ILLEGAL
SPECIAL TAX (CODE CIV.

PROC. § 863; GOVT. CODE §
50077.5)

CALENDAR PREFERENCE

REQUIRED BY STATUTE
(CODE CIV. PROC. § 867)
Attachment 10
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 114, Packet Page 288 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMPLAINT – REVERSE VALIDATION PROCEEDING CASE NO. ___________________ [CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 860, ET SEQ.] Page 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit is brought in the public interest to challenge the City & County of San Francisco (“City” or “San Francisco”)’s planned enforcement of Proposition M, a residential “vacancy tax” measure that received a narrow majority of the votes cast on the Proposition by the City’s voters at the November 2022 election.

True and correct copies of the relevant pages of the November 2022 ballot pamphlet related to Proposition M, including the text of the measure, are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that propertyowners’ “power to exclude [others from the property] has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner’s bundle of property rights,” and is protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435 (1982). As a necessary corollary of that holding, the Court has also, in Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), and other cases, held that the government cannot compel a property-owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating that Clause. Id. at 528 (state could regulate the economic relationship between a property-owner and the tenant that the owner voluntarily agreed to lease property to, but “[a] different case would be presented were the statute, on its face or as applied, to compel a landowner over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy” (emphasis added)).

3. Relying on Yee, California’s First Appellate District has likewise held that property-owners cannot be compelled to continue renting property that they no longer wished to rent. Cwynar v. City & Cty. of S.F., 90 Cal. App. 4th 637, 658 (2001) (plaintiffs stated a physical takings claim against a San Francisco regulation that precluded them from evicting tenants so that they could use the property). And the New York Court of Appeals (that State’s highest court) has squarely addressed, and struck down as an unlawful physical taking, a New York law that was substantively identical to the one challenged in this case—an “anti-warehousing” law that required landlords to “rent up” Attachment 10
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 115, Packet Page 289 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMPLAINT – REVERSE VALIDATION PROCEEDING CASE NO. ___________________ [CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 860, ET SEQ.] Page 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
vacant apartments or face stiff penalties. Seawall Associates v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 92, 104, 542 N.E.2d 1059 (N.Y. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 976 (1989) (“the loss of possessory interests, including the right to exclude, resulting from tenancies coerced by the government would constitute a per se physical taking”).

4. The right not to offer residential units for rent is also enshrined in preemptive state law, specifically the Ellis Act, which provides, “No public entity, as defined in [Government] Section 811.2,[1] shall, by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance or regulation, compel the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease, except for guestrooms or efficiency units within a residential hotel” if said hotel guest rooms meet certain criteria not at issue here. See Govt. Code § 7060(a).

5. For various reasons, a number of property-owners in San Francisco own residential units that are vacant. In some cases, this is by choice. For decades, the City has imposed a series of ever-more restrictive constraints on the owners of residential rental properties. These include, of course, rent control; increasingly stringent just cause for eviction laws; registration requirements; elaborate notice requirements; relocation payment requirements; relocation demands in the tens—or even hundreds— of thousands of dollars; severe restrictions on an owner being able to live in, or allow an immediate family member to live in, a unit they own if it is occupied by a tenant; and innumerable other requirements. And over the past few years, during the COVID19 pandemic, property-owners’ ability to even collect rent has been narrowly constrained at times, while the burdens of being a landlord remained in full effect. In response to these ever-increasing burdens, a number of property-owners in the City have understandably determined not to subject themselves to these burdens, declining 1 Government Code § 811.2 provides, “‘Public entity’ includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.” Attachment 10
Council Regular Meeting, 4/18/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 116, Packet Page 290 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMPLAINT – REVERSE VALIDATION PROCEEDING CASE NO. ___________________ [CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 860, ET SEQ.] Page 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
to rent out the units that they own. Some owners choose to keep units vacant for other reasons—for example, small property-owners who reside on the property and don’t wish to share the property they live on with a stranger, or those who wish to hold a unit open and available for a son or daughter or other close relative to move into at a future point, without the hassle and often-considerable expense of evicting a tenant (if such an eviction is even possible under San Francisco’s strict rules).

Monterey City CouncilApril 18, 2023

Monterey City Council
April 18, 2023