Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 20, 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

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

CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion. 6/20/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 Approval of Minutes

1. June 6, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Ordinances
ORDINANCES are legislative acts by the Council, are the most permanent and binding type of Council action as they modify the City Code, and may be replaced only by a subsequent ordinance. An ordinance requires legal advertisement when introduced, and two readings at separate Council meetings. An ordinance is considered "passed to print" when approved for a second reading, and is "passed and adopted" when given final approval by the Council.

2. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25, Section 12.04(b) of Monterey City Code, "Holidays Observed," to add the Juneteenth Holiday (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."

3. Accept Grant of Easement from the United States of America for Storm Drainage Infrastructure Purposes over Portion of the Land at U.S. Navy Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011-003-000) in Monterey, CA, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Grant of Easement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 and Record of NEPA Categorical Exclusion Prepared per 32 CFR 775.6(f)(30))
Other

4. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Council Supporting the Application by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 2nd Quarter 2023 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda This is a separate legal body of the City that oversees the operations of the Ocean View Community Services District desalinization plant. 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 CSD Board Member may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.
6/20/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 6. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjourn to City Council Meeting

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

7. Receive a Report and City Council Feedback on the May 30, 2023 Rental Inventory Monterey Town Hall Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Receive Monterey One Water (M1W) Presentation and City of Monterey Staff Report Regarding M1W Billing Change Proposal (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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

9. Adopting a Resolution Establishing Objective Design Standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and Amending the Plans to Clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District Requirements, Adding Massage Establishment Requirements and Definition, Adding Fence and Wall Requirements, Adding Makerspace Use Classification and Definition, Clarifying Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) Requirements, Adding New Subdivision Minimum Lot Size and Width Requirements, Updating Streetscape Lighting Requirements, and Amending the Utility-Major Definition to Include Water Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)

10. Levy Assessments to Fund the North Fremont, New Monterey, and Cannery Row Business Improvement Districts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
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. 6/20/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 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.

Adjourn to Joint Special Meeting and Establish Quorum of the Planning Commission
Planning Commissioners:

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

11. Receive Report on the Community Survey Report Results, Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites, and Strategies to Facilitate Production of the City’s Regional Share of Housing for the Draft Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjourn to City Council Meeting

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

12. Select Preliminary Housing Opportunity Sites and Strategies to Facilitate Production of the City’s Regional Share of Housing for the Draft Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (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). 6/20/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on his activities or a brief announcement. He may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

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

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

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

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

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

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

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

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

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
4:00 PM 7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Senior Associate Planner, Lieutenant, Building Official, Police Senior Administrative Analyst, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Parks Operations Manager, Finance Analyst, Senior Engineer, Recreation Manager
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as highlighted above, and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Presentation on Ohana, Montage Health’s Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health Center (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
Community Development Director Cole introduced Susan Swick, MD, Executive Director of Ohana, who gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Lorna Moffat, who expressed concern about any tree removal that could be associated with the project.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Robin Domiter, Adam Pinterits, Janine Chicourrat, P. K. Diffenbaugh, Bruce Zanetta, and Lorna Moffat.

CONSENT ITEMS
The Council requested to pull Items 5 and 6. The Council commented positively on the collaborative revisions to the ADU ordinance made at its prior reading. City Manager Uslar clarified for the record that the grant proposed in Item 9 would affect only a small strip of land between two parking lots that was not used for any kind of recreation.

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
2 On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Items 5 and 6:

2. May 16, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved

3. May 24, 2023 Special Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Ordinances

4. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and Amending Section 38-11 “Definitions” (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3664 C.S.

Resolutions

5. Adopt the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Maintenance Strategy Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopt the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Maintenance Strategy
Action: Pulled from Consent, Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-056 and 23-057 C.S.

Senior Associate Planner Schmidt gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Tanja Roos, who spoke in support citing health and environmental benefits, and Lorna Moffat, who shared environmental concerns and asked Council to ask more questions.

Beth Matz, consultant with BFS Landscape Architects, addressed questions about herbicide use, and said tree removal will be focused on invasive species with the primary intent to remove invasive brush that has built up over time. She said that the Audubon Society had been involved in reviewing the plans. She reviewed the anticipated costs for the first phase of the project.

The Council asked the JPA to work on the issue of where displaced homeless people will go.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Nos. 23-056 and 23-057 C.S. to Adopt the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Maintenance Strategy Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopt the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Maintenance Strategy:

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

6. Establish the 2023-24 Appropriation Limit (Gann Initiative) (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. 23-058 C.S.

Finance Director King gave a brief verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-058 to Establish the 2023-24 Appropriation Limit (Gann Initiative):

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

7. Adopt the Annual Reports and Approve Resolutions to Set a Public Hearing Date to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District, the New Monterey Business Improvement District, and the North Fremont Business Improvement District (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-059, 23-060, and 23-061 C.S.

8. Accept and Appropriate $40,000 Grant from the California Automated Permit Processing Program to Implement an Automated Online Solar Permitting Platform for Residential Solar Energy Systems; and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Grant Agreement with the California Energy Commission (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-062 C.S.

9. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the California-American Water Company; Authorize an Increase in FY24 Revenue and an Appropriation of $30,000 in Grant Funds for the San Carlos Beach Landscape Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-063 C.S.

10. Ratify Special Event Use Permit Between the County of Monterey and the City of Monterey for Toro Park Youth Overnight Area for Camp Quien Sabe and Authorize the City Manager To Execute Future Agreements with the County for Camp Quien Sabe (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-064 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
4 Other

11. Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Schedule - Housing Element, Safety Element, Land Use Element, Circulation Element (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received the schedule for the Monterey 2031 General Plan update

12. Appoint William Pyzel as an Alternate to the Building and Housing Appeals Board (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) Action: Appointed William Pyzel to the Alternate seat on the Building and Housing Appeals Board for a term expiring on June 30, 2027
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

13. Adopt a Resolution on Various Reserve Policies (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-065 C.S.

Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Manager Uslar.

Public comment was received from Bruce Zanetta, who provided input on emergency vehicles that he said could act as mobile generators.

The Council discussed the importance of funding fiscal reserves. The idea was proposed to develop a policy relating to vehicle replacement, opinions were expressed both for and against developing a policy. The Council praised staff and said that the reserves will put the City in a better position in the future. Comments were made stating that bonds shouldn't be issued unless absolutely necessary, and that in future years the City should consider dedicating higher percentages to the Sea Level Rise reserve and Economic Uncertainty reserves.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-065 C.S. Adopting Various Reserve Policies:

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

14. Recognize June 2023 as LGBTQIA2S+ Pride Month and Authorize the Pride Flag Display at City Hall Annually During the Month of June (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-066 C.S.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued the matter to the evening session:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
5 RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Item 14 was then taken up at 7:14 p.m. following continued public comments. Mayor Williamson and City Manager Uslar made a brief verbal presentation. Public comment was received from one man in the audience who called out that he supported the matter.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-066 C.S. Recognizing June 2023 as LGBTQIA2S+ Pride Month and Authorizing the Pride Flag Display at City Hall Annually During the Month of June:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson 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 on the closed session was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:49 p.m.

RECESS

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmember Smith absent. *** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Dan Turner, Esther Malkin, Bryan Rosen, and Nina Beety.

Councilmember Smith arrived at 7:10 p.m. during public comment. Following public comment, the Council took up Item 14, which had been previously continued to the evening session.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

15. Adopt the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Operating Budget and Adopt the FY 23/24 Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-067 and 23-068 C.S.

Following Item 14, City Manager Uslar, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, and Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
6 Public comment was received from: Rob O'Keefe, of Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau, who spoke about tourism revenues and the proposed plan to maximize its potential by focusing on business visitors and international market; Esther Malkin, who asked for information on the homeless navigator position; and Richard Ruccello, who raised issues of fairness and equity of City services offered in Council District 4 as compared with those offered elsewhere in the City.

The Council discussed the budget and expressed that it was well-prepared by City staff. Interest was expressed in reopening Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center and it was stated that programming needs to be equitable across the City. It was stated that the Council aimed to reopen the center at the appopriate time after looking carefully at opportunities and programs. It was suggested that the Council should look at having Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) fund projects that don't require heavy lifting from the City's Engineering division. Support was expressed for the Communications Manager reclassification, stating that it aligned with the Council's value driver of transparency and inclusivity in government. Concern was expressed that the City's museums and library felt like an afterthought in the budget, and that pre-pandemic operation hours should return. It was noted that engineering positions should made more competitive. It was suggested to form a Friends of Monterey Sports center group. It was expressed that moving back to a biennial budget would be appreciated.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-067 to Adopt the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Operating Budget and Resolution No. 23-068 C.S. to Adopt the FY 23/24 Salary Schedule:

16. Adopt Recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects for FY2023/24 (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, 15302, 15306, Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 or Initial Study Mitigated Negative Previously Prepared and Certified)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-069 C.S.

Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-069 C.S. to Adopt Recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects for FY2023/24:

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 Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
7 17. Approve Project Description for Cannabis Businesses and Temporary Cannabis Events so that the Community Development Department can Start Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved project description as amended to change the number of events from five to two (those two designated to occur in connection with the California Roots and Rebels and Renegades festivals) (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Attorney Davi.

Public comment was received from: Anthony Gonzales, who said that location should be part of the application process and that residents and property owners should be involved in deciding on locations; Esther Malkin, who expressed that the price point at retail cannabis shops will be an important factor for residents and added that there is local interest in cannabis lounges; Joey Espinoza, of Monterey County NORML, who raised questions about the ranking methodology, suggested revising the requirements relating to retention of surveillance video and free samples, and asked for clarification regarding tax to be owed by distributors; Kelly Violini, of North Fremont Business District and Monterey Fairgrounds, who thanked the Council and staff for their work and expressed that she hoped the process would continue to move forward; Dan Sheehan, of Good Vibez Presents, who spoke in support of adding a cannabis retail component to his existing festivals California Roots and Rebels and Renegades, which he stated would bring the City additional revenue.

On question from the public, City Attorney Davi clarified that the event slots reserved for the California Roots and Rebels & Renegades festivals were reserved but that those festivals would still have to apply. She stressed that the matter before the Council at this meeting was to determine the approved project description so that the Community Development Department could begin their California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. She said that the location component was a policy decision and that the idea to leave it for after the ranking process had been modeled after the successful West Hollywood process and was intended to provide for greater equity. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that limited police resources were the reason staff recommended limiting the remaining three cannabis events to one-day events.

The Council discussed the matter. Concern was expressed about police resources and it was suggested to start out with the two known events and revisit additional events in the future if appropriate.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council extended the meeting to 11:00 p.m.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to approve the Project Description for Cannabis Businesses and Temporary Cannabis Events so that the Community Development Department can Start Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended to change the number of events from five to two (those two designated to occur in connection with the California Roots and Rebels and Renegades festivals).

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes June 6, 2023
8 The Council suggested to bring back a discussion about social equity as a component to the program, dedicating a percentage of the revenues to social equity issues. Concern was expressed that revenues from cannabis retail may not be as impressive as the City hoped, and that the City should not promote the use of marijuana due to health concerns.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Smith recognized the anniversary of D-Day, the military invasion of Normandy, and urged that everyone honor the memories of ,and sacrifices made by, those soldiers. He suggested that the Council host a Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) staff member to present the Highway 156/Castroville Boulevard Interchange project at a future meeting.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar announced the upcoming launch of the World's Toughest Row event in which teams would row from Monterey to Kauai. He announced the upcoming Juneteenth holiday and a Buffalo Soldiers ceremony at the Lower Presidio Park. He encouraged all to join in this year's Summer Reading Program at the Monterey Library.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 13 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25, Section 12.04(b) of Monterey City Code, "Holidays Observed," to add the Juneteenth Holiday (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to amend Monterey City Code section Sec. 25-12.04(b), “Holidays Observed,” to add the Juneteenth holiday.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Because the Council has already agreed with employee bargaining groups to add the Juneteenth holiday as an observed City holiday, it should be codified along with the other observed holidays in Monterey City Code sec. 25-12.04(b).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The only fiscal implication associated with codifying the already-approved Juneteenth holiday is the modest cost for the newspaper publication required for every ordinance pursuant to the requirements of Monterey Charter Sec. 4.4.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project.

Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None considered.

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 14 DISCUSSION:

Background
Although the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 declared all enslaved people in Confederate States to be legally free, enslaved people were not freed in Confederate-controlled areas of Texas until June 19, 1865, by General Order No. 3 issued by U.S. Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger in Galveston.1
June 19th has been celebrated as “Juneteenth,” “Juneteenth Independence Day,” “Freedom Day, and “Emancipation Day,” with prayer, family celebrations, parades, and festivals. Texas was the first state to recognize Juneteenth as a holiday in 1980,2 and President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law on June 17, 2021, establishing the federal holiday.

Emancipation Day celebration, June 19, 1900 held in "East Woods" on East 24th Street in Austin.

Photo Credit: Austin History Center.
1 https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/juneteenth-original-document 2 https://www.nytimes.com/article/juneteenth-day-celebration.html Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 15 Recommendation
During recent labor negotiations with employee bargaining groups, the City Council agreed to add the Juneteenth holiday to the list of holidays observed, because the City recognizes the deep and disturbing history of racial injustice in our country; commemorates the liberation of formerly enslaved African Americans; celebrates the richness of Black culture; emphasizes the importance of providing a welcoming, respectful community; and celebrates and values human rights, respect, inclusivity, diversity, and equity. Staff recommends that Council now pass a first reading of an ordinance amending Monterey City Code’s list of Holidays Observed to add Juneteenth.

NR/cbk
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
e: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 16 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMENDING CHAPTER 25, SECTION 12.04(B) OF MONTEREY CITY CODE, "HOLIDAYS OBSERVED," TO ADD THE JUNETEENTH HOLIDAY
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on June 19, 1865, Union troops freed enslaved African Americans in Texas over two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation; WHEREAS, June 19th has since been celebrated as “Juneteenth,” “Juneteenth Independence Day,” “Freedom Day, and “Emancipation Day”; WHEREAS, Juneteenth was established as a legal public holiday by the U.S. Congress’ passage of the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, on June 16, 2021; WHEREAS, during recent labor negotiations with employee bargaining groups, the City Council agreed to add the Juneteenth holiday to the list of holidays observed, because the City recognizes the deep and disturbing history of racial injustice in our country; commemorates the liberation of formerly enslaved African Americans; celebrates the richness of Black culture; emphasizes the importance of providing a welcoming, respectful community; and celebrates and values human rights, respect, inclusivity, diversity, and equity; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project; NOW, THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 25, Section 12.04(b)(1) is hereby amended to add the following as a new observed holiday, listed as a lettered item between Memorial Day and Independence Day:
“Nineteenth day of June (Juneteenth)”
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 17 2 SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 18 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., Public Works Director
Prepared By: Tricia Wotan, CFM, Environmental Regulations Manager SUBJECT: Accept Grant of Easement from the United States of America for Storm Drainage Infrastructure Purposes over Portion of the Land at U.S. Navy Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011-003-000) in Monterey, CA, and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Grant of Easement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 and Record of NEPA Categorical Exclusion Prepared per 32 CFR 775.6(f)(30)) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Grant of Easement from the United States of America for storm drainage infrastructure purposes over a portion of the land at U.S. Navy Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011-003-000) in Monterey, California, and for the Mayor to sign the Grant of Easement agreement.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Government Code §27281, which requires a certificate or resolution of acceptance by the City Council to record deeds conveying an interest in real property, such as an easement.

The storm drain pipe with drainage outlet to Del Monte Lake was constructed at this location in 1972. The City has maintained this infrastructure pursuant to a 50-year easement granted on June 14th, 1973, due to expire this year. Renewing the easement would formalize the existing easement for another 50-year term with the U.S. Navy. The City would be able to continue to access, maintain, and repair the storm drainage infrastructure as necessary for another 50 years.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

In lieu of payment, the City will provide in-kind consideration in the form of work to divert and deliver runoff rainwater via the storm drain pipeline to Del Monte Lake, allowing the Navy to use the water to irrigate the installation’s golf course.

There are no costs associated with the recordation of the Easement Deed and Agreement since recording fees are waived for the City pursuant to Government Code section §27383.

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 19 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.

Naval Support Activity Monterey determined that the proposed action is within the scope of the following CATEX: (30) Renewals and minor amendments of existing real estate grants for use of government-owned real property where no significant change in land use is anticipated. None of the exclusions from reliance on a CATEX apply in this case. Therefore, the proposed action is excluded from the requirement for further NEPA analysis.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the resolution. This is not recommended as it would immediately impair the City’s ability to readily drain this Palo Verde Avenue drainage of storm flows to Del Monte Lake per existing infrastructure configurations. This, in turn, may cause localized flooding if not maintained or kept in a good state of repair.

Should the Council desire or need to redirect Palo Verde drainage to another location in the future, Public Works may be directed to develop a Civil engineering project to redesign the drainage in this vicinity and consider making notice to the Navy to release the covenant. Until such time, existing drainage patterns and this Palo Verde storm drainage easement are recommended to be maintained and managed in coordination with our U.S. Navy partners.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey owns the public storm drainage infrastructure within the City. The subject City storm drain pipe is partially located within U.S. Navy property at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey (Figure 1). In 2022, Navy staff contacted the City to learn if the City Engineer desired to renew the storm drain easement; in doing so, the Navy shared all related documentation with the City, demonstrating that the existing easement and agreement had a 50-year term. The prior deed and agreement with the Navy is dated June 14th, 1973 (Ag-11415).

To continue this utility easement into the future, the Navy requires the City to enter into a new Easement Deed and Agreement with the Navy at the aforementioned property to formalize the City’s existing right to maintain and repair the public storm drainage infrastructure connecting drainage from Palo Verde Avenue to Del Monte Lake.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 20 Figure 1: City Storm Drain Line, U.S. Navy, Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011-003-000) The property owner, U.S. Navy, has proposed to enter into a new Easement Deed and Agreement with the City for the City to access the property for storm drainage maintenance and repair purposes for another 50 years. The easement is approximately 10 feet wide and 98 feet long on one parcel (Figure 2), generally in the same configuration as the last 50 years.

Del Monte Lake
(U.S. Navy)
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 21 Figure 2: Screen capture of a portion of the attached plat map illustrating the storm drain easement on Navy property.

Deeds conveying an interest in real property, such as an easement, cannot be recorded without a certificate or resolution of acceptance by the City Council (Government Code §27281).

Accepting the storm drainage easement will not place any additional burden on the City. The easement will run with the land, meaning that the City will be allowed to access the storm drain to conduct future maintenance and repairs regardless of who owns the underlying fee title to the land for the next 50 years.

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Grant of Easement from the United States of America for storm drainage infrastructure purposes over a portion of the land at U.S. Navy Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011- 003-000) in Monterey, California, and for the Mayor to sign the Grant of Easement.

TW/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Legal Description and Plat Map
e: Megan Lestage, Senior Realty Specialist, U.S. Navy
Michael Fitzgerald, Facilities Management Director, Public Works, U.S. Navy (NSAM) 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, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 22 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES OVER A PORTION OF THE LAND AT U.S.

NAVY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL (APN 013-011-003-000) IN MONTEREY, CA,

AND FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE GRANT OF EASEMENT
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of June 1973 the City of Monterey accepted an easement from the Department of the Navy for a portion of land at the US Navy Naval Postgraduate School (APN 013-011-003-000) with a 50-year term;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey owns the public storm drainage infrastructure within the City, and the subject City storm drain pipe is partially located within U.S. Navy property at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey;
WHEREAS, the storm drain pipe with drainage outlet to Del Monte Lake was constructed at this location in 1972, and the City has maintained this infrastructure and will continue to maintain this infrastructure into the future; WHEREAS, the Navy requires the City to enter into a new Easement for the City to continue to maintain and repair the public storm drainage infrastructure connecting drainage from Palo Verde Avenue to Del Monte Lake;
WHEREAS, Government Code section 27281 requires that deed conveying an interest in real property, such as this easement, to a government agency for public purposes may be accepted for recordation only with the consent of the agency evidenced by a resolution; WHEREAS, in order to accept title to any real property interest, such as this easement, the City must authorize acceptance and recordation of the easement with the County Recorder; 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; and, WHEREAS, Naval Support Activity Monterey determined that the proposed action is within the scope of the following CATEX:(30) Renewals and minor amendments of existing real estate grants for use of government-owned real property where no significant change in land Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 23 2 use is anticipated. None of the exclusions from reliance on a CATEX apply in this case.

Therefore, the proposed action is excluded from the requirement for further NEPA analysis.

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:

1. The City of Monterey hereby accept the easement, as described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

2. The City of Monterey hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, all documents necessary to effectuate such transfer and acceptance of said property, including but not limited to the Grant of Easement.

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, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 24 Reviewed & Accepted
Cadastral
0525/2023
A
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 25 Reviewed & Accepted
Cadastral
05/25/2023
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 26 Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, P.T.O.E, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Council Supporting the Application by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting the application by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The grant application for the Monterey County Vision Zero Action Plan submitted by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) would support regional efforts to improve transportation safety and access for people of all modes and abilities.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to authorizing the Mayor to sign this Letter of Support ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter of support.

DISCUSSION:

When the US Legislature adopted HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), it established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), a discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years. The SS4A program funds local initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is applying for the second grant funding cycle for the Action Planning Grant Program. The City of Monterey was awarded a grant from the same program in the first funding cycle.

The SS4A Action Planning Grant will support TAMC’s development of a regional Vision Zero Action Plan for Monterey County. The Vision Zero Action Plan would result in a coordinated effort among member agencies and stakeholders to eliminate traffic-related serious injuries and fatalities through a Safe Systems Approach. This project supports the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy, focusing on zero roadway deaths.

The City of Monterey supports TAMC’s application for a Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan to strategically plan and develop improvements to make safe, accessible, and equitable roadways where all users feel comfortable.

The creation and adoption of a Vision Zero Action Plan, through the SS4A action planning grant process, will provide future grant funding opportunities from the SS4A Implementation Planning Grant Program and future cycles of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for TAMC and potentially improve grant program competitiveness for all member agencies and stakeholders including the City of Monterey.

This letter would be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council and addressed to the US Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg.

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting the application by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan.

MG/mb
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 Attachments: 1. Draft Letter of Support
e: Janneke Strause, Transportation Agency for Monterey County 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, 6/20/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 ATTACHMENT 1
CITY HALL • MONTEREY • CALIFORNIA • 93940 • 831.646.3760 Website • www.monterey.org
June 20, 2023
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Subject: Letter of Support for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

The City of Monterey supports the application of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan.

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County is seeking $800,000 in Safe Streets for All planning funding which will fund the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan. The Project, located in Monterey County, will lead a coordinated effort among member agencies and stakeholders to eliminate traffic-related serious injuries and fatalities through a Safe Systems Approach. This project supports the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy focusing on zero roadway deaths.

The City of Monterey supports TAMC’s application for a Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Action Plan because it is committed to safe, accessible, and equitable roadways where all users feel comfortable. We support a coordinated effort because our residents travel across the county for work and recreation and only together can we accomplish safe streets throughout Monterey County.

The City of Monterey would like to thank USDOT for its consideration of this Project.

Sincerely,
Mayor Tyller Williamson
On behalf of the Monterey City Council
cc: Todd Muck, Executive Director, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared by: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 2nd Quarter 2023 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognizes City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements for the second quarter of 2023.

VALUE DRIVER:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Recognizing employees at City Council meetings is consistent with City policy.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

All funding associated with recognizing City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements has been budgeted as part of the FY 2022/23 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is fortunate to have many retirees and staff who are career employees and have served the community for decades. The Mayor and City Council will recognize City employees who have retired with 20 years of service or greater, in addition to employees who have reached their work anniversary with 20, 25, 30, or 35 years of service.

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 32 Milestone Anniversaries in 2023 2nd Quarter:
 Gina Russo, Assistant Human Resources Director, Human Resources – 20 years of service*
 Christopher Meixelsperger, Park Maintenance Craftworker, Parks and Recreation Department– 25 years of service*
The staff members marked with an asterisk (*) chose not to be publicly recognized during the meeting.

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, 6/20/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 33 Community Services District
Agenda Report
№06/11
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Services District Board of Directors receive a report on the Ocean View Community Services District.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey approved the Ocean View Plaza Project (“Project”) located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565, and 570 Cannery Row in June 2004. Subsequently, the City of Monterey requested that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) review the establishment of a Community Services District (CSD) for the project site that would own, operate, and maintain the proposed desalination plant once constructed. This CSD was formed pursuant to Community Services District Law (Government Code section 61000 et seq.,) to own and operate a desalination plant to provide residential and commercial water to the Project.

LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-27 on December 27, 2005, approving the formation of this CSD. The Monterey City Council was subsequently appointed as the District Board and must meet quarterly according to requirements of Government Code section 61044.

In November 2019, the California Coastal Commission denied requests for coastal development permit extensions. The Coastal Commission voted that there were changed circumstances from its original coastal development permit issued in 2008 related to water supply and coastal hazards/sea level rise.

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 In January 2020, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC, sued the Coastal Commission over its denial of the permit extension request as described in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000165. On November 30, 2021, AquaLegacy Development LLC intervened in that action, which has been stayed pending resolution of the appeals in related litigation in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 16CV001078, in which the court entered a judgment on March 4, 2021 that AquaLegacy is vested with title to the property. In May 2023, the appellate court issued the following ruling in a 36-page unpublished decision:

1. In H049160, AquaLegacy v. Canrow, the March 21, 2021 judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing Canrow, upon appropriate motion or other appropriate procedure, to obtain an order for 36 reformation of the trustee’s deed recorded November 19, 2014, to correct the error identifying Medallion Silver, LLC as the trustee.

2. In H048978, Ruby Falls v. AquaLegacy, the March 21, 2021 judgment is reversed.

3. In H049062, AquaLegacy v. Canrow, the March 21, 2021 judgment is affirmed.

4. In H049368, AquaLegacy v. Canrow, the August 12, 2021 order awarding attorney fees to AquaLegacy is reversed.

The City is reviewing the foregoing decision.

The City originally approved the vesting tentative map for the project on June 1, 2004. The map approval has been extended by operation of law to June 1, 2025, and may be further tolled. cc: Save Our Waterfront, 781 Terry Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Cannery Row Association
LAFCO of Monterey County – Local Agency Formation Committee, POB 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 New Monterey Neighborhood Association
David Balch, Esq.

Anne Mudge, Esq.

Neill Bower, Esq.

Paul James Beard, Esq.

Stephanie Lai, Esq.

Aaron Gruber, Esq.

Dylan Crosby, Esq.

Bob Faulis
William Coffee, Esq.

David Bowie, Esq.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Receive a Report and City Council Feedback on the May 30, 2023 Rental Inventory Monterey Town Hall Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a report on the May 30, 2023 Rental Inventory Monterey Town Hall Meeting, receive City Council feedback, and receive public input.

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.

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.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct financial impact from receiving an update on the Rental Inventory Monterey town hall meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 36 Subsequent environmental review will occur based on the approved scope of work/project description.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City could decline to receive this report at this time.

DISCUSSION
On April 18, 2023, the City Council gave direction to the Housing Office to begin the process of drafting the legal framework for a rental inventory database.

On May 30, 2023, the City hosted a town hall meeting on Rental Inventory Monterey. The meeting was well attended in person and on Zoom with more than 150 participants. The poll showed there was a fairly good mix of renters, property owners, property managers, and real estate agents:

A video playback of the town hall meeting may be viewed via this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUcLL71UHOY
Round-table discussion topics included:

What are your initial thoughts about the rental inventory? What information is most useful to include in the rental inventory? What information would you like to see omitted from the rental inventory? What questions or concern still need to be addressed?
Feedback from the discussion included:

1. What are your initial thoughts about the rental inventory?  Not sure how it would help
 What information (if any) will be made public?
 Concerns about added costs – breakdown the $400,000 cost  Invasion of privacy of renter & owner – names, lease info, etc., property / rental status
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 37  Burden of cost (landlord and tenant)
 Rent increase on everyone every year – added fees to cover program falling to renters, leaves no choice for landlords but to charge extra  Creating a senseless bureaucracy (& costly)
 Landlords sensitive to increased costs – pass to renters  Invasion of privacy
 The only information we’re comfortable sharing is what is on Zillow  Monetary compensation for hacked information from inventory.  The only information we’re comfortable sharing is what is on Zillow / Redfin. As such, what is the benefit of incurring the $400,000 charge / debt to create a rental inventory?
 Is $400,000 every year or just the first year?
 Building inventory will incur cost and do nothing to increase available housing  This would raise rent
 Whose idea was this locally?
 What are other cities doing and how is it going?
 What would the enforcement mechanism be for the inventory?  What is the purpose of the inventory?
 Whether the city has studied small vs. large landlords  How does this help inventory?
 Moving too fast
 Haven’t exhausted other options
 Unclear what the benefits are?
 What questions will the inventory answer?
 Why are rents high because City raises fees?
 How will the registry provide affordable housing?
 Time suck and distraction to staff
 Does not consider the money landlords put into their buildings.  Don’t understand how this affects renters and if there will be fees to renters  Concern about privacy information – address and rental price  Cost of program is better spent by increasing city worker salaries so they can afford to rent here
 Could cause collusion among property owners to increase rents  Why are we doing this if it doesn’t solve the problem  Expense on landlords not being heard, there’s another side of the equation  Will landlords recoup loss?
 Turnover rate is important for renters to see.
 Definition of short – term rentals?
 Data gives us information to make responsible decisions about the community.  What are the potential benefits to renters.
 How can I opt out of being known by the tenant? Property manager is the go between.
 Makes me feel uncomfortable.
 Why do they need a copy of the lease – private contract.  What happens if correct information isn’t provided? Prosecution? Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 38  Suspicious about what information is used for.
 What are the consequences if we don’t provide information?  Creates division between owners and tenants.
 Creating inventory doesn’t solve the issue of not enough inventory.  How many employees will run the program?
 Not necessary – landlord / renter wouldn’t use it.
 Fair market more powerful.
 The ability to have market rent helps local renters.
 Feels socialist.
 Concerned about stability.
 Strengthen renter / landlord relationship.
 Could help health / transparency.
 How can the City mitigate risk to property owners?
 Don’t pass on costs to owners, trickle down to renter.  Right to charge rents, privacy
 Scarcity problem, solve water?
 Don’t record rent / increases.
 No more government involvement.
 Proper noticing – MC Weekly
 Is there a way to access realtor.com?
 Pay to have access to MLS, why should others have access to this information if they have access to the MLS
 Is rental inventory assisting with credit / background checks to find good renters, already pay realtor for this service
 What problems are we trying to solve? If the problem we all agree on is affordable housing, this is not the solution.
 Private information that is not protected puts military members and others at risk  The owner should have a choice
 Burden of cost
 Rent increase on everyone every year – added fees to cover program falling to renters, leaves no choice for landlords but to charge extra  Creating senseless bureaucracy and it’s costly
 Hurts renters
 Property management costs will increase
 Negatively impact sales of homes / lowers values
 Destroys privacy for landlords & renters
 Ignores law of supply & demand
 Prevents renters from negotiating rents with landlords because prices will be public  Does not consider money that the landlords put into their buildings  Don’t understand how this affects renters and if there will be fees for renters  Concern about privacy information -address and rental price Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 39

2. What information is most useful to include in the rental inventory?  SF, year built, renovations
 Renters Rental history / references
 Helpful to whom?
 Emergency contact for property
 Section 8 housing data comparison
 Insurance information / property tax
 Number of water meters
 Live onsite
 Market value of property
 Income of tenant / minimum wage
 Only what is already publicly available
 Turnover rate available to public
 How has rent increased or changed year over year?
 If all information is publicly available, why pay the government for a database?  Nothing
 Aggregated data only
 Only number of bedrooms / baths and SF
 Rent amount
 Owner names, not corporation name – name of owners who own corporation that owns the property

3. What information would you like to see omitted from the rental inventory?  Everything but emergency contact
 Mortgage status
 No names / ethnicity / personally identifiable information  Turnover rate
 The lease
 Mandatory participation
 Names and contact information
 Everything
 Social Security Number
 Rental price
 Everything
 Renter’s history
 Omit anything other than basic inventory information like number of bedrooms / baths
 Copies of leases and rental agreements
 Terms of lease
 How do we include those that would like to rent but can’t afford it – how do we get to know who they are?
 Not sure we want a rental registry
 Study / survey that is anonymous rather than a rental registry.  The general cost per SF of renting in different parts of the city  Anything that would require regular reporting
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 40

4. What questions or concerns still need to be addressed?  Concerned about displacement due to owners selling property (condo, owneroccupied unit)  Should know what program is first before comments
 Lack of transparency
 Lack of ability to public input
 Will this really benefit anyone?
 How does the military affect the market?
 If registry is used for rent control, ordinance is terminated  Focus on new housing
 Seattle is a good study – 2020
 State Farm no longer insuring
 Rent control protects current renter, not future
 What stage in this are we in?
 What information will be public via PRA request?
 Will landlords sell property instead of dealing with inventory, will property come off the market?
 Has there been an analysis to show how this is beneficial & to who?  Penalty for noncompliance?
 How to tell who’s not complying?
 How do we solve the real problem?
 Incentive for compliance
 Vacancy taxation
 Why spend money on short term rental consultant / enforcer if the rental inventory staff can do both jobs?
 Sunset provision / when will it end
 Cap / limit for programmatic costs
 Citywide vote on any ordinance regarding rental inventory / control.  How does it consider differing costs?
 Is there a landlord protection element?
 What would the enforcement mechanism be for the inventory?  What is the purpose of the inventory?
 What are the effects on the larger market – net loss of housing units?  Is compliance mandatory – is there a reward for compliance?  How does this help the landlords?
 When will rent control be initiated?
 The city should address the fact that two people spoke at a City Council meeting and said that rent registries did not work in their cities and properties sold.  Can keep track of evictions
 Who pays the landlord when renters don’t pay rent?
 If I sell my property because of government overreach (rent control & rent registry) rents, will go way up due to new mortgage & property taxes?  How does this help tenants?
 Impacts to individual small landlords that may rent just one property.  What is the annual cost of the rental registry?
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 41 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
Attachment: Town Hall Meeting Presentation Slide Deck
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 42 Town Hall Meeting
May 30, 2023
Rental Inventory
Monterey
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 43 Ground Rules
● Please listen respectfully to each speaker.
● Please refrain from outbursts (boos, applause, etc.). ● Please speak into the microphone.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 44 Agenda
● Presentation
● Small Group Discussion
● Report Out
● Next Steps
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 45 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 46 Word Cloud
● What one word comes to mind when you think
about a rental inventory in Monterey?
● What are the most important types of information
to collect to make a rental inventory useful?
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 47 Background
On April 18, 2023, the Council hosted a public meeting on tenant protection options and directed staff to begin work on a rental registry and return to Council in the future with more information on rent stabilization options (4-1 vote).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 48 Why are we here?
We are here to provide an opportunity to collaborate on the best way to build and manage a proposed rental inventory.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 49 What is a rental inventory?
A rental inventory is an online database that provides
a secure platform for gathering essential and precise
information pertaining to specific rental properties.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 50 What is the purpose of establishing
an inventory?
Information provided in the rental inventory may be used to update local policies, enforce regulations, ensure
compliance with safety codes, and track changes in the
rental housing market.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 51 What information is typically collected?
● Contact information
● Leases, including price of rent, services, and utilities ● Unit characteristics (number of rooms, bathrooms, etc.) ● Rent increases
● Occupancy rates
● Tenant turnover
● Compliance (business license, etc.)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 52 How is information collected
and stored?
● Property owners typically upload relevant information into a secure software database provided by the City.
● The City will provide technical assistance at City Hall to help property owners upload information.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 53 How will the inventory be funded?
● City staff will propose a fee for Council to consider that will cover the costs of implementing the program.
● This fee would then be charged to rental property owners and potentially passed onto tenants.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 54 What did we learn from other cities?

1. Registries revealed unit count and location discrepancies compared to County provided data.

2. Dedicated staff required to implement.

3. Fees are structured on a cost recovery model and range from $20 - $250 per unit annually.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 55 Next Steps

1. City Staff will analyze information gathered at the
town hall session to begin drafting a rental
inventory ordinance as directed by City Council.

2. The item will then be scheduled for a future public
hearing before City Council.

3. Current information and future updates can be
found at haveyoursaymonterey.org/rentalinventory.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 21, Packet Page 56 Thank You!
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 22, Packet Page 57 Roundtable Discussion Topics
● What are your initial thoughts about the rental inventory? ● What information is most useful to include in the
rental inventory?
● What information would you like to see omitted from the rental inventory?
● What questions or concern still need to be addressed? ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 23, Packet Page 58 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Brianna Kennedy, Intern, City Manager’s Office SUBJECT: Receive Monterey One Water (M1W) Presentation and City of Monterey Staff Report Regarding M1W Billing Change Proposal (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from M1W and a report from City staff regarding the proposal by Monterey One Water to transition from bi-monthly utility bills to annual service charges added to the Monterey County tax roll.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This report details additional information and community impacts derived from Monterey One Water’s billing change proposal.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with reviewing this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 59 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None.

DISCUSSION:

At its November 28, 2022 Board of Directors meeting, Monterey One Water (M1W) staff presented a proposal to consider using the Monterey County tax roll for annual billings of wastewater sewer charges, including member portion of charges, beginning in the fiscal year 2024-2025. The Board of Directors directed the M1W staff to conduct further research into the proposal and collect feedback from stakeholders.

At the City Council Meeting on June 20, 2023, staff from M1W will deliver a presentation on the proposed billing change. Monterey City Staff will also present its analysis on the proposed changes.

Current Structure
At this time, Monterey One Water bills customers in Salinas and the Monterey Peninsula on alternating months, so Monterey customers receive a sewer bill every other month, or six (6) times annually. The M1W service charge is a fixed rate based on property type. Additional fees are collected on the sewer utility bill by M1W on behalf of the City of Monterey, namely the Stormwater Fee and the City of Monterey Collections System Fee. The Stormwater Fee is determined by hard surface area by the City of Monterey Public Works department. The City of Monterey Collections System Fee rates were established in 2011 by Resolution 11-113.

Customers currently can pay their bill online using their Visa, Mastercard, or Discover card, or by e-check from their checking or savings account (certain convenience fees apply).

Proposed Structure
Beginning in FY 2024/2025, the Monterey One Water Board of Directors may elect to shift from the current bimonthly utility billing process to adding a service charge for sewer service on customers’ annual Monterey County property tax bill. According to M1W, property owners are responsible for payments, and 9% of all property owners choose to forward their bill to a tenant or third-party payor (6% of residential accounts and 16% of commercial accounts).

The charge will likely be one line-item on the tax bill with the total charges for each parcel (i.e., M1W service charge plus City of Monterey Collections System Fee plus Stormwater Fee, if applicable).

Potential Advantages of a Billing Change
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 60  Shifting from the current billing process to the Monterey County property tax bill would eliminate the need to address limitations in M1W’s accounting software. The software used to maintain M1W’s billing will be replaced, and eliminating the need to handle billing will increase efficiency for the Agency.
 According to M1W, shifting from monthly billing to property tax billing would likely reduce the number of late payments.
 Some of M1W’s customers do not pay their bimonthly bill so they pay when the Agency collects delinquent accounts through the lien process.
 With savings from lower administration fees, M1W would likely designate a staff member to perform additional field inspections and possibly assist with inspections for Source Control.
 The proposed billing change will not impact current sewer rates and fees or Monterey One Water’s low-income assistance program to help qualifying residential customers with their wastewater fees.

Potential Disadvantages of a Billing Change
 Sewer service will be billed for the year in advance, and it is unclear how adjustments will be handled for vacant properties, or if vacancy rates will be discontinued.  There will be no breakdown of charges and fees. This may cause confusion for commercial property owners with multiple tenants who desire more detail on what they are being charged for.
 Customers will only be able to make one or two payments for their sewer bill each year, which will likely cause an initial strain for low-income and fixed-income households, as well as small businesses. Although M1W hopes that the County of Monterey's Treasurer-Tax Collector will implement a monthly payment option for property tax bill, there is no evidence of Monterey County implementing that option at this time.

Furthermore, many property owners pay for their property tax directly through their mortgage lender’s escrow account. This shift may require homeowners to make additional payments or cover the gap through an additional payment.  This may adversely affect communities with Homeowners Associations who currently pay sewer charges on behalf of residents as part of their HOA fee structure.  Property owners with tenants that change more than once or twice a year may have trouble billing the appropriate amount for correct usage/time in the leased property.  The City of Monterey, which implements sewer charges through M1W, should receive remittances for its fees on a more frequent schedule when the property tax bill is paid in December and April.

Potential Impacts on Renters and Homeowners
In 2012, the City of La Mesa, in Southern California, transitioned from a bi-monthly sewer utility billing cycle to adding the sewer charges on the property tax bill, nearly identical to M1W’s Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 61 proposal.123 For the first several years, La Mesa’s low- and fixed-income homeowners struggled to adjust their limited budgets to meet the increase to their property tax bill, and the City office received numerous calls and requests for assistance.4 Property owners who previously added sewer charges to the lease for tenants to pay expressed frustration with the change, and many increased rents to account for the change. The billing cycle for HOAs in the City of La Mesa were not affected because the sewer utility and water utility are calculated together by the water meters for the complexes, and therefore could not be divided per unit.

The La Mesa example suggests that M1W’s billing change may lead to property owners increasing tenant monthly costs, whether by increasing the base rent amount or amending the lease agreement to add a sewer pass-through cost. In the best-case scenario, tenant monthly costs will only be increased by the monthly equivalent of the total annual service charge added to the property tax bill (i.e., the total divided by twelve (12) to be billed each month). However, there is no regulation in the City of Monterey to control pass-through cost increases or compensatory rent increases. With recent discussions around the pros and cons of rent stabilization in the City of Monterey, this billing change may trigger property owners, who previously designated sewer costs to a tenant, to impose an increase to the base rent, overcharge a sewer pass-through cost, or push rent prices even higher among those properties not limited by the AB 1482 rent cap. For HOAs currently including sewer charges in their monthly fees, there is no requirement for them to remove the equivalent of the monthly sewer charge once the billing switches to the property tax bill, which could ultimately result in an increased charge to property owners with an HOA.

Monterey One Water has provided an outreach plan in its presentations to the Board of Directors. However, it currently only has two categories of stakeholders – partner organizations (like the City of Monterey), and customers. If this change is approved, staff suggests that M1W create a more detailed outreach plan outlining how it plans to educate at-risk groups of its lowincome assistance program and advocate among property owners for fair and reasonable rent increases to tenants.

Unresolved Issues
 How will the rate adjustment process for vacancies work in the new payment system?  Will the City be paid for fees collected on the City’s behalf by the County or by M1W?  How will current sewer customers that don’t receive a property tax bill pay for sewer services moving forward?
1 City of La Mesa Staff Report June 12, 2012: Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Section

17.12.070 of the La Mesa Municipal Code Authorizing the Collection of Sewer Service Charges as a Fixed Charge Special Assessment on the County Property Tax Bill Beginning in Fiscal Year 2013 https://www.cityoflamesa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4856 2 City of La Mesa Public Works Department Notice: Important Information About Your Sewer Bill https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/2466/LMSewerNotice20120124?bidId= 3 La Mesa Sewer Billing Questions and Answers
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/2461/Sewer-Billing-Q-and-A_web 4 Phone conversation with La Mesa Sewer Services staff member, May 24, 2023 Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 62  What information is included in the account summary available for commercial properties with multi-business tenants?
 What outreach efforts have been centered around low-income, fixed-income, and Spanish-speaking communities? What feedback has been received? At the City Council meeting on June 20, 2023, the City plans to hear from M1W staff on how the concerns and unresolved issues are planned to be addressed.

Staff is recommending that Council take the above points into consideration before making a final determination in support or opposition of Monterey One Water’s billing change proposal.

Attachments 1. M1W Current and Proposed Billing Structure Flowchart (City of Monterey Graphic)

2. Initial Letter from City of Monterey to M1W Board of Directors on Annual Billing process, February 24, 2023
e: All Business Associations
All Neighborhood Associations
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 63 Sewer utility rates
determined based on
property type and hard
surface area.

Monterey One Water bi-monthly
utility billing (one month Salinas,
next month Monterey Peninsula).

Customers are billed for two
months of service on each bill.

Customers pay utility bill. Bill
can be sent to property owner
or designated responsible
party.

Monterey One Water
collects money for M1W
operations and City
collections fees.

Monterey One Water
remits appropriate City
collections system fee and
Stormwater fund amounts
to City of Monterey
Current
Billing
Structure
Proposed
Billing
Structure
Sewer utility rates
determined based on
property type and hard
surface area.

Monterey One Water sends
annual total billing to Monterey
County Property Tax roll.

Customers pay for sewer bill as
service charge on property tax bill. Bill
is sent to property owners and cannot
be designated to another party.

Monterey County collects total
charges for sewer service through
property tax payments in December
and April.

Monterey County
remits full amount for
services to Monterey
One Water
Monterey County remits
City collections system
fee and Stormwater
fund amount directly to
City of Monterey
Monterey One Water remits
appropriate City collections system fee
and Stormwater fund amounts to City
of Monterey
Reporting
system for
vacant
properties and
adjusted rates.

Current and Propsed Billing
Structure for M1W
City of Monterey - Interpretation of M1W
billing structure process
Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 64 February 24, 2023
Monterey One Water
Board of Directors
Via electronic transmission
Subject: Agenda Item 11.B: Consider Utilizing the Monterey County Tax Bill as the Collection Method for the Annual Billing of Wastewater Service Charges Dear Members of the Monterey One Water Board of Directors:

This letter respectfully requests that you postpone your decision to consider utilizing the Monterey County Tax Bill as the collection method for the annual billing of wastewater service charges. The City of Monterey has significant concerns regarding this potential change and its impacts on the City as a public agency partner of Monterey One Water (M1W), as well as how this change could adversely impact residential and commercial customers within Monterey in a way that is inequitable, causing negative effects for renters and low-income ratepayers.

The City of Monterey has several concerns and questions that we respectfully ask be addressed before a decision is made by the M1W Board of Directors:
• Need for formal buy-in from member agencies. M1W has been a strong public agency partner whose core values include transparency and collaboration. The Board should allow all 11 JPA member cities and special districts the opportunity to weigh in by adopting Resolutions of Support. The Monterey City Council should have an opportunity to formally review the pros and cons of this proposal and its impact on the City and its residents. In the interest of transparency, our City Council needs to have a chance to pass a resolution supporting or opposing this proposal. • Limited engagement with the public. While the City appreciates M1W’s efforts to meet with stakeholders, we believe this is insufficient public engagement for the Board to make an informed decision. With all due respect, 11 meetings with special interest groups do not constitute thorough public engagement. In December, communication was focused on “educating customers about the change in billing” and not truly gathering feedback on whether or not this change is supported. We suggest ratepayer surveys, ads, and other proactive outreach methods. Three bullet points listing concerns and three bullet points listing support, as outlined in the staff report, is an incomplete analysis of the potentially substantive impacts of this change.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 65

Page 2 ends

• Potential rent increases for renters. Lease agreements often address who is responsible for payment of certain utilities such as sewer/wastewater service. This shift will likely cause confusion about who and how sewer charges are paid. If renters are expected to pay the sewer bill directly with M1W, this shift can result in rent increases. 64% of Monterey residents are renters, and we do not know how they will be affected.

Likewise, if landlords have already adjusted rents in accordance with the provisions of SB 9, the likelihood of making up for the perceived increase of costs could result in deferred maintenance for the rental units.
• Removes flexible payment options for ratepayers. Housing affordability continues to be a challenge in Monterey County. Renters and homeowners alike currently have the option of paying their sewer bill from their checking or savings account, or by credit card with a convenience fee. These are the common methods for paying utility bills, including electricity and gas, water, and sewer. Shifting to a tax bill-based collection method would eliminate ratepayers’ ability to pay sewer utility bills bi-monthly at an average of a little over $100; this shift would require ratepayers to have additional funds available for their property tax bill. The flexibility of paying by credit or debit card is also critical to lowincome ratepayers. • Potential impacts on evictions and foreclosures. Oftentimes, property taxes are paid through mortgage companies. If property owners do not pay their entire property tax, including their sewer bill, their property becomes subject to eviction and foreclosures. By shifting sewer bills to property tax bills, ratepayers’ estimated total property tax bills will significantly change and increase, potentially leading to evictions and foreclosures. It cannot be the intent of the Board to increase the potential for foreclosures (as Monterey County is a Teeter Plan County).
• Homeowners Associations (HOAs) in condominium and townhome communities and their homeowners would be negatively impacted because HOAs often pay sewer bills directly to M1W. By shifting the property tax assessment to homeowners, HOAs would need to adjust their HOA assessments.
• Impacts on the City’s financial cash flow because the timeline changes how and when the City is paid for its sewer infrastructure services and existing sewer loan payments. Additionally, M1W is collecting our stormwater fees, which would also be added to property taxes and they would also fall subject to delayed payments. All in all, we estimate cash flow impacts of $7 million to $8 million. • Changes to the City’s contractual agreement with M1W is to collect revenue six (6) times per year.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 66

Page 3 ends

For these reasons, I strongly recommend that the M1W Board of Directors postpone their decision on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (831) 646-3760.

Best regards,
Hans Uslar
City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council
City Attorney Christine Davi
Assistant City Manager Nat Rojanasathira
Finance Director Rafaela King
Paul Sciuto, General Manager, M1W
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Adopting a Resolution Establishing Objective Design Standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and Amending the Plans to Clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District Requirements, Adding Massage Establishment Requirements and Definition, Adding Fence and Wall Requirements, Adding Makerspace Use Classification and Definition, Clarifying Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) Requirements, Adding New Subdivision Minimum Lot Size and Width Requirements, Updating Streetscape Lighting Requirements, and Amending the Utility-Major Definition to Include Water Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution establishing objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans (“the Plans”) and amending the Plans to clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District requirements, adding Massage Establishment requirements and definition, adding fence and wall requirements, adding Makerspace use classification and definition, clarifying Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) requirements, adding new subdivision minimum lot size and width requirements, updating streetscape lighting requirements, and amending the Utility-Major definition to include water facilities.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Support affordable housing through modern zoning policies/ordinances, ADU policies, housing grants, review of density requirements, and consideration of City-owned sites for affordable housing.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Specific Plans are legislative documents that act as a bridge between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for future development of a particular area. Specific Plans are tools that help specify and achieve the vision and development potential of an area. The proposed action will amend the Plans to set realistic development expectations.

The City of Monterey is required to abide by the laws enacted by Senate Bill 35 (codified as Government Code section 65913.4), which went into effect in January 2018. The proposed objective design standards are intended to expedite and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. SB 35 sunsets on January 1, 2026.

In addition to SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act (codified as Government Code section 65589.5) also imposes limitations on the City’s discretion over proposed housing projects.

Specifically, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the City from denying, or approving at a lower density, a proposed housing project that satisfies all of the City’s adopted objective Date: 6/20/2023
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 planning and design standards. The Housing Accountability Act applies to all proposed housing projects, including projects with no affordable units.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Housing construction increases the amount of property taxes for the City. It also attracts employees and new business to Monterey. Housing construction would help the City meet its regional housing needs allocation numbers and avoid noncompliance penalties by the State.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project proposes minor changes to land use limitations. 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. No significant impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No significant effect will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). No impact will occur because the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plan areas do not include 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. Hazardous waste sites will not be impacted because no construction is proposed. As individual projects are brought forward, hazardous material issues are considered and avoided.

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. No impact to historical resources will occur because no construction is proposed.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 69 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

There are no alternatives considered because the City is required to comply with SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act.

DISCUSSION:

Objective Design Standards
The intent of California Senate Bill (SB) 35 is to expedite and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. It went into effect in January 2018, and it applies to cities like Monterey that have not made sufficient progress on their affordable housing goals as mandated by the state.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development makes the determination of whether a city has made sufficient progress. As of June 1, 2022, only 38 jurisdictions in the state are compliant with affordable housing state mandates and are exempt from SB 35.

On December 14, 2021, City staff gave the Planning Commission a presentation on SB 35 with the goal of emphasizing the need for objective design standards. SB 35 requires cities and counties that did not meet their state-mandated affordable housing requirement to use a streamlined ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily housing developments that comply with a jurisdiction's objective planning standards, provide specified levels of affordable housing, and meet other specific requirements. Applications that are eligible for a streamlined review pursuant to SB 35 and that comply with the City’s objective design standards do not require any discretionary permit (such as a use permit or architectural review permit) and are not subject to environmental review under CEQA. Having objective design standards would enable the City to retain some control of building design and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Currently, the City does not have this control since SB 35 became effective.

SB 35 currently sunsets on January 1, 2026, although it is possible the Legislature may extend that date. As such, City staff opted for creating a separate objective design standards checklist.

In the event that SB 35 is not extended, the City will have the option to easily repeal the checklist. City staff has prioritized creating objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plan areas (see Exhibits A and B to Resolution) because of their higher potential for redevelopment. Objective design standards for the North Fremont Specific Plan will be next.

SB 35 defines objective standards as those standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. City staff, with help from consultants, took as many Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plan design guidelines as could be reworded into objective standards. Development standards, such as building height and parking requirements, are inherently objective and were generally unchanged. In addition, new objective standards were created where there were none, such as fence/wall height and design standards.

SB 35 qualifying projects must be consistent with all the City's objective planning and design standards, including but not limited to the City's General Plan; Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Ordinance; Zoning Ordinance (includes Density Bonus and ADUs/JADUs); Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont Specific Plans; coastal plans, and any applicable master plans, area plans, and neighborhood plans.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 At this time, the City has not received any applications subject to SB 35 streamlined review.

However, staff does recognize that the affordable housing project behind City Hall may qualify as an SB 35 project. City staff also created an application checklist to facilitate SB 35 streamlined review for applicants and staff (see Attachment 2).

In addition to SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act also imposes limitations on the City’s discretion over proposed housing projects. Specifically, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the City from denying, or approving at a lower density, a proposed housing project that satisfies all of the City’s adopted objective planning and design standards. The Housing Accountability Act applies to all proposed housing projects, including projects with no affordable units. For this reason, the proposed objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plan areas will also help the City maintain control over market-rate projects.

On February 28, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council establish the attached objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and make other specific plan amendments summarized below. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments during four separate public hearings and also revised the amendments as a result of public comment.

Visitor Accommodation Facility
Project sites located within the VAF Zoning District are governed by the land use and development standards contained in the City’s Charter rather than those contained in the specific plans. Staff is proposing language to the Plans that references this distinction. All parcels within the Downtown and Lighthouse specific plan boundaries are zoned either PC-D or PC-LH, except for visitor accommodation facilities, which are zoned VAF.

Makerspace
To ensure the economic vitality of our mixed-use neighborhoods, staff is recommending a new Makerspace use classification that would allow the operation of establishments engaged in the on-site production of goods by hand manufacturing with hand tools or small-scale equipment and the direct sale to consumers of those goods produced or assembled on site. Staff is recommending a conditional use permit process to ensure that the small-scale equipment is not disruptive to nearby residential uses. This new use, like all other uses, would be subject to the performance and noise standards in the Zoning Ordinance.

Massage Establishment
Staff recommends prohibiting massage establishments on Alvarado Street and the first block of Del Monte Avenue and Franklin Street because ground floor offices, personal services, and residential on Alvarado Street and the first blocks of Del Monte and Franklin are inappropriate uses (Downtown Specific Plan Use Objective O.1.2, page 65). Massage establishments are also recommended to be prohibited on the ground floor facing Lighthouse Avenue.

Presently there are no permitted massage establishments operating in a location that would be prohibited following the enactment of the specific plan amendment.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 71 Minimum Lot Size and Width
For new subdivisions, staff recommends adding a minimum lot area requirement of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet to avoid the creation of unbuildable lots. This was the standard that existed prior to adoption of the specific plans and was an inadvertent omission.

Fences and Walls
Currently, there are no fence or wall standards in the specific plans. Staff recommends adding fence, wall, and retaining wall height and material requirements to avoid view, privacy, and living environment impacts and ensure that materials are compatible with the project site and surrounding properties.

Streetscape Lighting
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to differentiate street lighting for safety vs. decorative lighting for aesthetics. The contemporary cobra light is inconsistent with Public Works' safety infrastructure practices. The Public Works Department would like to have the ability to replace streetlights in kind.

Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) Staff recommends amending the Lighthouse Specific Plan Use Chart to clarify that the Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) use is conditionally permitted in the Foam Street Character Area.

Utility-Major
Staff recommends amending the Utility-Major definition to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance definition, which includes water facilities for the purpose of extracting water from or injecting water into the underground or storing water for potable water use. This classification includes any other water supply method, such as water wells or cisterns, and includes public, semi-public, or private facilities.

In summary, the objective design standards would help the City control the design of proposed housing projects, including both SB 35 projects and market-rate projects, whereas not adopting objective design standards would leave the City vulnerable to designs that are incompatible with Monterey’s neighborhoods. The other specific plan amendments would clarify existing requirements or create new requirements to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and amending the Plans to clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District requirements, adding Massage Establishment requirements and definition, adding fence and wall requirements, adding Makerspace use classification and definition, clarifying Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) requirements, adding new subdivision minimum lot size and width requirements, updating streetscape lighting requirements, and amending the Utility-Major definition to include water facilities.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 72 SB 18 Tribal Consultation
SB 18, codified as Government Code section 65352.3, requires the City to provide tribes notice of the opportunity to consult on any proposed specific plan amendments. Tribes have 90 days to request consultation, which is an ongoing process without a defined end point. Prior to a specific plan amendment, the City must refer the proposed action to the appropriate tribes, and must allow a 45-day comment period regardless of whether prior consultation took place. (Government Code section 65352(a)(8). On March 16, 2023, the City sent a notice to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Kakoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria, Ohlone Costanoan-Esselen Nation, Rumsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. The Esselen Tribe of Monterey County requested:

In the event that construction related to this project is implemented in the future, we recommend that the construction crews are provided cultural sensitivity training by a member of the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County. We believe such projects may also need to be monitored for cultural resources and we ask that ETMC tribal monitors are retained for monitoring.

There is no construction related to the adoption of the proposed specific plan amendments. As individual projects are brought forward, the City will provide tribal contacts with notice and the opportunity to request consultation on any projects that apply for SB 35 streamlining or for which a Notice of Preparation, Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Notice of Negative Declaration is filed or issued. (AB 52 codified as Public Resources Code section 21080.3.) KC/fr
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution with Exhibit A and B (Objective Design Standards for Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans)

2. Application Checklist
e: All Neighborhood and Business Associations
Architectural Review Committee
Christine Davi
Adam Lindgren
Alex Mog
Brenda Quezada
Interested parties: Sharon Dwight
Alora Daunt
Johanna Keefe
Kathryn Avila
Safwat Malek
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, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 73 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AND

LIGHTHOUSE SPECIFIC PLANS AND AMENDING THE PLANS TO CLARIFY VISITOR

ACCOMMODATION FACILITY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, ADDING MASSAGE

ESTABLISHMENT REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITION, ADDING FENCE AND WALL

REQUIREMENTS, AND ADDING MAKER SPACE USE CLASSIFICATION AND DEFINITION, CLARIFYING RESIDENTIAL MINOR AND MAJOR (FIRST FLOOR; FOUR UNITS OR MORE)

REQUIREMENTS, ADDING NEW SUBDIVISION MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH

REQUIREMENTS, UPDATING STREETSCAPE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS, AND

AMENDING THE UTILITY-MAJOR DEFINITION TO INCLUDE WATER FACILITIES WHEREAS, SB 35, codified in Government Code section 65913.4, requires cities and counties to use a streamlined ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily housing developments that comply with a jurisdiction's objective planning standards, provide specified levels of affordable housing, and meet other specific requirements. Applications that are eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35 and that comply with the City’s objective design standards do not require any discretionary permit (such as a use permit or architectural review permit) and are not subject to environmental review under CEQA; WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits the City from denying, or approving at a lower density, a proposed housing project, including a market rate project, that satisfies all of the City’s adopted objective planning and design standards; WHEREAS, having objective design standards would enable the City to retain some control of building design and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on November 8, 2022, December 13, 2022, January 24, 2023, and February 28, 2023, took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to recommend City Council adoption of a resolution establishing objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and amending the Plans to clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District requirements, add Massage Establishment requirements and definition, add fence and wall requirements, add Makerspace use classification and definition, clarify Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) requirements, add new subdivision minimum lot size and width requirements, update streetscape lighting requirements, and amend the Utility-Major definition to include water facilities;
WHEREAS, presently there are no permitted massage establishments operating in a location that would be prohibited following the enactment of the specific plan amendment; WHEREAS, on March 16, 2023, the City sent a notice to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Kakoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria, Ohlone Costanoan-Esselen Nation, Rumsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. The Esselen Tribe of Monterey County requested:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 74 2 In the event that construction related to this project is implemented in the future, we recommend that the construction crews are provided cultural sensitivity training by a member of the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County. We believe such projects may also need to be monitored for cultural resources and we ask that ETMC tribal monitors are retained for monitoring.

There is no construction related to the adoption of the proposed specific plan amendments. As individual projects are brough forward, the City will provide tribal contacts with notice and the opportunity to request consultation on any projects that apply for SB 35 streamlining or for which a Notice of Preparation, Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Notice of Negative Declaration is filed or issued. (AB 52 codified as Public Resources Code section 21080.3); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project proposes minor changes to land use limitations. 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. No significant impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 75 3 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. No impact to historical resources will occur because no construction is proposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and serve as the findings for the approvals below.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby establishes objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans (Exhibits A and B) and amends the Plans to clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District requirements, adds Massage Establishment requirements and definition, adds fence and wall requirements, adds Makerspace use classification and definition, clarifies Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) requirements, adds new subdivision minimum lot size and width requirements, updates streetscape lighting requirements, and amends the UtilityMajor definition to include water facilities as follows:

Downtown Specific Plan Amendments:

Objective Design Standards

Page 65 ends

subject to a streamlined ministerial review process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4 shall comply with Downtown Specific Plan Objective Design Standards.” Visitor Accommodation Facility

Page 65 ends

Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District shall comply with the land use and development standards contained in the City of Monterey Charter.”

Page 69 ends

Allowed in the City Charter Municipal Code”.

Makerspace

Page 67 ends

districts. See excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan use chart below.

Page 267 ends

production of goods by hand manufacturing with hand tools or small-scale equipment and the direct sale to consumers of those goods produced or assembled on site. A noise study is required for equipment exceeding two horsepower.”
Massage Establishment

Page 66 ends

massage establishments, and personal services are prohibited on first floor.

Page 69 ends

“Massage Establishment” its own category, prohibit the use on Alvarado Street and the first Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 76 4 block of Del Monte Avenue and Franklin Street, and conditionally permit the use everywhere else in the Alvarado District. See excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan use chart below.

Page 267 ends

Monterey City Code.”

Page 269 ends

Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan Use Chart (Page 67) Use Alvarado Eas t
Village Pearl Heritag
e
Island
of
Adobe
s
Pierce Royal
Presidi
o
Public
Recreat
ion
Assembly - Major C C C C C C C C
Assembly Minor
Abovefirst floor

P P P P P P P P
Food and
Beverage Sales -
Major

C C C NP NP C NP NP
Food and
Beverage Sales -
Minor

P P P P P P NP NP
Makerspace

C C C C C C C C
Massage
Establishment Alvarado St. and
1 st Block of Del
Monte and
Franklin - NP
Remaining - C

C C C C C C C
Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan Use Chart (Page 69) Use Alvarado East
Village
Pearl Heritag
e
Island
of
Adobe
s
Pierce Royal
Presidi
o
Public
Recrea
tion
Seating Outside
– Incidental and
Major

P P P P P C C P
Service – Minor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 77 5 First floor
Alvarado St.
and 1st Block of
Del Monte and
Franklin -NP
(except banks)
Remaining - P

P P P P P P NP
Above first floor P P P P P P P NP
Massage
Establishment

U U U U U U U U
Minimum Lot Size and Width

Page 70 ends

feet and minimum lot width shall be 50 feet.”
Landscaping, Fences, and Walls

Page 94 ends

Prohibited fencing/wall materials: glass, chain-link, barbed wire, electrified, and raw bamboo.

Allowed fencing/wall materials: smooth stucco finish, brick, masonry/stone, concrete, wood, bamboo planks, adobe, and metal/wrought iron.” Add Standard “S.8.4. Maximum fence/wall height shall be six feet unless an architectural review permit is obtained.” Add Standard “S.8.5.

Retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed 10 feet in height.

Retaining walls shall be finished with metal, wood, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color.”
Streetscape Lighting

Page 60 ends

Page 233 ends

and fixture design.”

Page 234 ends

1. “In mid-block street lightlighting conditions, there should be sufficient light for safety, but it may be less than that at intersections.”

2. “Public Street Lighting Design Strategy”

3. Delete “Three lighting types are to be used for street lights in the public realm, as well as lighting on private property that is visible from the public way. These are described in detail later in this section. The three types are: 1. Historic Alvarado Streetlight 2.

Contemporary Crook-neck 3. Contemporary Cobra”.

4. “The Lighting Design Strategy for street lightslighting fixtures combines consideration of the National Historic Landmark districts and the Specific Plan Character Areas. These different street light areas are to be identified by their lighting design:”

5. “The commercial core of downtown should be identified with the historic street lightlighting fixture that is presently used on Alvarado Street.” Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 78 6 6. “TheA contemporary street light designlighting style willshould be used, but it will be spaced more widely. A “contemporary” crook-neck fixture wouldcould be used in this area.”

7. “TheA contemporary crook-neck fixture wouldcould also be used in this area.”

8. “TheA contemporary cobra stylefixture would be used in this area.

Page 235 ends

1. “TheA contemporary crook-neck design shouldcould be used in this area, to link it with the Pearl and East Village areas. This style willshould also be compatible with light fixtures in the harbor area.”

2. “While the historic Alvarado street lightdecorative lighting would be compatible with the chapel, this is a small area, and it would be difficult to establish a distinct identity with only a few fixtures.”

3. Delete the Contemporary cobra photo and caption.

4. “This series of streetdecorative light fixtures shown above represent appropriate fixture types for downtown.”

5. Delete the table:

Page 236 ends

1. “Street LightLighting Fixture Types Map”

2. “The map below identifies where the specific street light types are proposed.”

3. In the legend below, change “Street LightLighting Types”, delete “Modern Black Cobra Light Mounted on Wood Pole or Signal”, and delete “Industrial Crook Neck Light with Shade”.

4. In the map below, delete the red lines except for Alvarado Street, Heritage District, and Island of Adobes District; delete the orange and yellow lines; exclude Del Monte Avenue right-of-way between the Lighthouse tunnel and Camino El Estero from the Greater Downtown Boundary; and mark the Pacific/Scott, Del Monte/Pacific, Del Monte/Calle Principal, Del Monte/Alvarado, Del Monte/Tyler, Franklin/Van Buren, Franklin/Pacific, Franklin/Calle Principal, Franklin/Alvarado, Franklin/Tyler, Franklin/Washington, Franklin/Figueroa, Pacific/Jefferson, Pacific/Madison, Munras/Webster, Fremont/Abrego, and Fremont/Camino El Estero intersections blue.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 79 7

Page 237 ends

willshould be used in the downtown.”; “Type 1: Historic (Alvarado) Street LightDecorative Lighting”.

Page 238 ends

still one that is distinct to the area in which it is used. This willshould be installed in the Pearl and East Village Districts.” Delete ““Type 3: “Contemporary Cobra Light” This light would be used to supplement light levels at intersections where additional lighting is needed and where the lower-height Types 1 and 2 cannot meet the light level standards alone. It also would be used on existing poles in the Pierce District. It would have a black metal finish. Supplemental “Historic Type” fixtures may be used where additional pedestrian lighting is needed. Technical specifications for contemporary cobra light: Lamp: LED or Induction Light temperature:
2700K to 3500K range Height of Pole: varies Location: Spacing to meet the minimum horizontal and vertical illumination for vehicle and pedestrian safety”.

Utility-Major

Page 270 ends

after the PWS Facility paragraph: “Water Facilities. Any method for the purpose of extracting water from or injecting water into the underground or storing water for potable water use. This classification includes any other water supply method such as water wells or cisterns and Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 80 8 includes public, semi-public or private facilities. This classification does not pertain to water facilities for testing, irrigation of landscaping or water wells serving one single-family residence or producing 500 gallons or less per day.”
Lighthouse Specific Plan Amendments:

Objective Design Standards

Page 47 ends

and add “The following objectives, standards and guidelines apply to all Character Areas.” Begin a new paragraph and add “Multifamily housing developments subject to a streamlined ministerial review process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4 shall comply with Lighthouse Specific Plan Objective Design Standards.”
Visitor Accommodation Facility

Page 47 ends

Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District shall comply with the land use and development standards contained in the City of Monterey Charter and City Code.”

Page 48 ends

CharterAs Allowed in the City Charter and City Code”. See excerpt from Lighthouse Specific Plan use chart below.

Makerspace

Page 48 ends

districts. See excerpt from Lighthouse Specific Plan use chart below.

Page 104 ends

Page 48 ends

the Foam Street character area. Prohibit the use facing Lighthouse Avenue. See excerpt from Lighthouse Specific Plan use chart below. At the bottom of the Lighthouse Specific Plan use chart, add “NP = Not Permitted”.

Page 104 ends

Code.”

Page 106 ends

Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More)

Page 48 ends

be conditionally permitted in both the Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street character areas. See excerpt from Lighthouse Specific Plan use chart below.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 81 9 Excerpt from Lighthouse Specific Plan Use Chart (Page 48) Uses Lighthouse Avenue
Character Area
Foam Street
Character Area
Amplified Music C C
Assembly – Major C C
Assembly – Minor C C
Food and Beverage Sales - Major C C
Food and Beverage Sales – Minor P P
Makerspace C C
Massage Establishment NP C
Outdoor Seating, Uses and Activities 1 C C
Park and Recreation Facilities P P
Parking – Subgrade and At Grade2 P P
Residential – Minor and Major (first floor; three
units or less)
Residential Minor and Major (first floor; four units
or more)
P * **
C * **
P**
C * **
Residential – Minor and Major (above first floor) P** P** Retail - Major C C
Retail – Minor P P
Restaurant – Major C C
Restaurant - Minor P P
Service – Major C C
Service - Minor P P
Temporary Uses C C
Utility - Major C C
Ulility - Minor P P
Visitor Accommodation Facility Per City CharterAs Allowed in the City Charter and City Code
Minimum Lot Size and Width

Page 50 ends

feet and minimum lot width shall be 50 feet.”
Landscaping, Fences, and Walls

Page 65 ends

Prohibited fencing/wall materials: glass, chain-link, barbed wire, electrified, and raw bamboo.

Allowed fencing/wall materials: smooth stucco finish, brick, masonry/stone, concrete, wood, bamboo planks, adobe, and metal/wrought iron.” Add Standard “S.7.4. Maximum fence/wall height shall be six feet unless an architectural review permit is obtained.” Add Standard “S.7.5.

Retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed 10 feet in height.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 82 10 Retaining walls shall be finished with metal, wood, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color.”
Utility-Major

Page 107 ends

after the PWS Facility paragraph: “Water Facilities. Any method for the purpose of extracting water from or injecting water into the underground or storing water for potable water use. This classification includes any other water supply method such as water wells or cisterns and includes public, semi-public or private facilities. This classification does not pertain to water facilities for testing, irrigation of landscaping or water wells serving one single-family residence or producing 500 gallons or less per day.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 83 Exhibit A
1 Downtown Specific Plan Objective Design Standards
Visitor Accommodation Facility zoned properties shall be subject to development standards set forth in City Code Chapter 38 and City Charter Section 8.1.

The provisions contained in this document constitute the primary development standards for the project area. Where provisions are not addressed in this document, standards as described in the Downtown Specific Plan and Monterey City Code shall apply.

Site Planning Meets Standard?
Maximum residential density:

Alvarado District – 100 du/acre
Density Cap Overlay – 30 du/acre for entire area and no limit for individual parcels
Other Districts – 30 du/acre
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For new subdivisions, minimum lot area shall be 5,000 square feet and minimum lot width shall be 50 feet.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Projects on through lots and corner lots shall provide a building face1 to both streets.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For traffic safety at intersections, buildings shall be set back seven feet from the property corner (as shown below) to ensure line of sight for vehicles is maintained.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buildings shall be located at the street-facing property line within the Alvarado District. Building entrances may be recessed.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:
1 Building Face. A vertical planar wall surface including windows that is at least ten (10) feet in width and eight (8) feet in height and constitutes a distinct perimeter boundary of the building.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 84 Exhibit A
2 Only roof eaves/overhangs, balconies, bay windows, and other building protrusions (not floor area) are allowed to project over property line. A minimum seven-foot setback is required to utility poles, traffic lights, utility boxes, and trees located in the public right-of-way.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Within the Pearl District, buildings located at the back of sidewalk shall include a single-story porch at the street entrance the width of the building with a minimum four-foot depth and recessed front door, except when facing Del Monte Avenue.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Due to Monterey’s topography, building entrances shall be sited to not include ramps in the public right of way. Ramps shall be located entirely within private property.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Outdoor seating is permitted. If outdoor seating is proposed, only chairs and tables made of metal and/or wood are allowed. Plastic furniture is prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

An encroachment permit shall be required for outdoor seating to encroach into the public right of way. There must be a minimum of seven feet or greater of unencumbered sidewalk.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Entrances to multi-family buildings may be set back to accommodate a front yard or landscaped area pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List with a dimension of 18 to 36 inches in depth.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 85 Exhibit A
3 Buffers shall be provided on portions of properties that are adjacent to existing residential uses. The following is a list of acceptable buffers: (1) Landscaping from Landscaping Plant List (18 to 36 inches in depth), (2) Open Space (minimum 5 feet from adjacent residence), (3) Sidewalks (minimum 4 feet wide), and (4) Parking (shall adhere to adopted parking dimension standards).

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buildings shall incorporate the following Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Guidelines: (1) Place at least one transparent window overlooking a sidewalk and at least one transparent window overlooking a parking lot; (2) Ensure the following areas are lit according to the Lighting Standards: pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, ATMs, phone kiosks, mailboxes, bus stops, children’s play areas, recreation areas, pools, laundry rooms, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Outdoor residential spaces shall have at least one tree from the Landscaping Plant List.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Topography Meets Standard?
Retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed ten feet in height. Retaining walls shall be finished with metal, wood, ceramic, masonry, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

All building entries shall be located at street level. Where there is a difference in street elevations, grading shall occur so that the building entrance is at street level.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Open Space Meets Standard?
Open space areas shall contain a minimum of two of the following amenities/elements:
a. Outdoor seating
b. Patios
c. Courtyards
d. Landscaped yards (Pearl and Pierce Districts only) 18-inch depth minimum, pursuant to Landscaping Plant List
e. Balconies
f. Roof-top gardens or decks
g. Public sidewalk or plaza (Alvarado District only)
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For new buildings with a residential component, a common open space area (for the shared use of building occupants) shall be incorporated into Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 86 Exhibit A
4 the project. The amount of common open space that must be provided shall be 5% of the project site’s square footage. No horizontal dimension shall be less than 10 feet. This common open space area may be incorporated anywhere on the project site, including within the primary building area. The following are acceptable common open space areas:
a) rooftop gardens or decks
b) indoor or outdoor recreational areas
c) courtyards or patios
d) balconies
Info. location:

For new buildings with a residential component, each residential unit above the ground floor shall provide a minimum of 50 sq. ft. of private open space, such as decks and balconies.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For remodeled buildings with over five new residential units proposed, 5% of the residential square footage shall be common open space (for the shared use of building occupants). The following are acceptable common open space areas:
a) rooftop gardens or decks
b) indoor or outdoor recreational areas
c) courtyards or patios
d) balconies
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exterior walkways shall have lighting no greater than 15 feet above the sidewalk, landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List (18-inch depth minimum), and site furniture made of metal or wood. No plastic furniture is allowed.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

The project shall connect to existing pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Public Utilities and Building Services/Trash, Service, and Equipment Areas
Meets Standard?
Mechanical equipment, utility meters, fire sprinkler risers, back flow preventers, trash areas, and other utilities shall be located inside a building or completely screened from public view within an enclosure.

Landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List may be used as an enhancement to the enclosure. Enclosures shall be made of metal, wood, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color. Screening materials may have evenly distributed openings or perforations averaging 50 percent of the surface area. Chain-link fencing is prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 87 Exhibit A
5 Store trash and recycling within an enclosed area in accordance with the City’s Recycling and Waste Enclosure Standards and Guidelines.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Rooftop mounted equipment shall be hidden from public view either within an enclosure or behind a pitched or simple parapet wall incorporated into the design of the building.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Parking Meets Standard?
For any parking structure's elevations that face a street, 75% of the linear feet of the elevation shall incorporate at least two of the following into the design: (a) Ground floor commercial businesses; (b) Murals or public art (c) Landscaping pursuant to Landscape Plant List (d) Public benches for seating
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Parking lots shall be screened from the public right-of-way with four-foot tall wood or metal fencing, four-foot tall masonry walls, or four-foot tall stucco walls painted the same color as the primary building exterior.

Landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List may be used as an enhancement to the fencing/wall.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Commercial Parking Space Requirements: Maximum of four spaces per 1,000 GSF. No minimum requirement for commercial.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Residential Parking Space Requirements: Minimum of .5 spaces per unit.

Maximum of 2 spaces per unit. All new residential development shall “unbundle” the full cost of parking from the cost of the housing itself, by creating a separate parking charge.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Parking space requirements may be satisfied by paying the City’s in-lieu fee rate.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Parking may be shared between:
• different uses within a single mixed-use building.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 88 Exhibit A
6 • buildings and an off-site parking facility, provided that the off-site facility is within one half mile of the building entrance. Parking may be shared with an off-site parking facility located more than one half mile from the building entrance only with the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission.

Info. location:

Off-site shared parking is subject to an agreement in a form approved by the City.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Onsite parking fronting Alvarado Street is prohibited. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Rear parking areas shall have access from side streets or mid-block driveways, unless access from the front driveway(s) is necessary for flexibility on a constrained lot, or to address a safety issue or traffic impacts.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Curb cuts shall be a minimum of 20 feet away from the intersection. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Parking shall adhere to adopted parking dimension standards. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Building Design, Mass and Scale Meets Standard?
Maximum Stories*:
• Alvarado District - 4 stories
• Density Cap Overlay - 4 stories for projects with at least 50% of FAR dedicated to residential use.
• East Village District - 3 stories
• Pearl District - 3 stories
• All other districts - 2 stories
* See definition of “Story” in City Code Section 38-11
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exceptions to numerical limits are allowed if needed to facilitate ADA access.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Roofs must use one of the following features along the entire front and side building façades:
a. Decorative parapets
b. Cornices
c. Roof eaves
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Dormer windows’ roof profile shall not be higher than the existing or proposed roofline or extend beyond the roofline.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 89 Exhibit A
7 Decks and windows must not be within 10 feet of adjacent buildings. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Within the Alvarado District, the doors and windows of the non-residential ground floor shall have transparent (i.e., clear) glass. A minimum of 35% of the linear feet of each building shall consist of door and windows.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Sidewalls on buildings shall not be blank. Fifty percent (50%) of the sidewall length shall be taken up by a minimum of two of the following options:
a. Modulation of the building façade
b. Façade materials such as stone, brick, etc.
c. Architectural features (windows, eaves, etc.)
d. Landscaping pursuant to Landscaping Plant List
e. Murals
f. Public art
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buildings shall include at least one of the following elements to break up the vertical mass of walls greater than one story: (a) porches, (b) balconies, (c) decorative horizontal elements. Porches and balconies shall have a minimum horizontal surface of 50 sq. ft. Horizontal elements shall be the length of the building façade.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Building corners at street intersections shall include doorways, windows, or other architectural features.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 90 Exhibit A
8 At block corners, where the building contains an entrance, the exterior transition space shall include at least one of the following: planters made of ceramic, wood, metal, cement, and/or masonry/stone (planters shall be no taller than 5 feet and have a base no larger than 20 square feet) and landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List or outdoor seating.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Include the following to break up the building massing: (a) A base, middle, and cap into the building design; and (b) Variation in architectural detailing, parapet, and materials is required.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 91 Exhibit A
9 If a mixed-use project is proposed with the majority of the non-residential component on the ground floor, the ground floor shall be 1-3 feet taller than the floors above, with a minimum plate height of 10 feet.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Pedestrian entrances along buildings’ primary frontage shall be oriented toward and level with the street.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Storefronts shall be located at street level. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Colors Meets Standard?
Buildings shall use a minimum of two colors, not including roofing color. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Brick and stone shall not be painted, but previously painted surfaces may be repainted.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Building Materials Meets Standard?
Siding materials allowed are brick, stone, smooth stucco, wood, concrete, metal, premanufactured building siding materials, and adobe.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Roofing materials allowed are tile, asphalt or composition shingles, standing seam metal roofing, corrugated metal, wood shingles/shakes on sloped roofs, and plastic membranes or tar and gravel on flat roofs.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Awning shapes allowed are shed, hip-ended shed, slant, and flat panel.

Awnings shall not hide architectural features.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 92 Exhibit A
10 Lighting Meets Standard?
Lighting plans shall be prepared and submitted for review as part of the project. Lighting plans must indicate all exterior lighting fixture locations, height, type of light source, fixture type and pole type. A photometric study is required for parking lots.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exposed bulbs are prohibited except filament bulbs. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

All lamps shall be directed downward. Lamps shall not be visible from side or from behind fixture.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Outlining roof elements and building with lighting is prohibited. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 93 Exhibit A
11 Info. location:

Lighting shall be in the range of 2700 to 3500 kelvin temperature. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Lamps shall be fully shielded or directed away from residential areas, neighboring properties and the public right-of way.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Lighting near mixed-use buildings shall be directed away from upper story residential windows.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Maximum pole height: 15 feet. Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Projects shall design to and maintain the following maximum light levels and spacing:
• Plazas, Paseos, and Alleys – Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels up to a maximum 1.0 footcandles.
• Courtyards - Light level: 5 footcandles maximum.
• Buildings - Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a minimum 0.5 footcandles and maximum 1.0 footcandles.
• Primary Building Entry - Not to exceed average maintained illumination levels of a maximum 5.0 footcandles.
• ATMs - Not to exceed California Financial Code footcandle requirements. • Canopies - Average 10 footcandles maximum.
• Parking Lots - Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a maximum of 0.5 footcandles and a 15:1 maximum to minimum uniformity ratio.
• Service Areas - 10 footcandles maximum.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Awning lighting shall be recessed and concealed. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Light fixtures on buildings shall be motion sensing with light reduced to ½ of maximum lighting.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Direct light fixtures away from adjacent property lines. Fixtures with an adjustable aiming angle are prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Lighting in trees in private yards shall be at 5 footcandles maximum to remain subordinate to the overall street lighting.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 27, Packet Page 94 Exhibit A
12 Info. location:

Landscape lighting shall be fully shielded. Uplighting of landscaping is prohibited, with the exception of trees. Uplighting in trees in private yards shall be at 5 footcandles maximum, to remain subordinate to the overall street lighting.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Building walls shall not be illuminated, except for signage. • An exception is for historic landmarks, if at least one of the provisions are met: (1) Lighting shall be indirect, from concealed sources (2) lighting shall not shine up into the sky (3) A relatively low level of lighting (2-5 footcandles) shall be used.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For historic landmark adobe façades, low intensity (2-5 footcandles), concealed lights shall be used to softly illuminate the facades.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Signs Meets Standard?
The sign standards contained herein shall take precedence. The definitions, exempt signs, and prohibited signs in Monterey City Code Chapter 31 shall apply. The Citywide Sign Guidelines2’ “Guidelines – Specific” shall apply and shall be read as standards.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Internally illuminated signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

On adobe buildings, the drilling or other hard-mounting installation of signage is prohibited. Painted/applied signs, or freestanding signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are appropriate.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Awning signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, shall only be located above a building entry.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Freestanding signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are prohibited on Alvarado Street.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:
2 Citywide Sign Guidelines weblink: https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/DesignStandards/Sign-Guidelines.pdf Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 28, Packet Page 95 Exhibit A
13 A-frame signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are permitted when located on private property, and subject to the restrictions contained in the Citywide Sign Guidelines’ “Guidelines – Specific”.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For proposed and replacement signage in historic districts or buildings, use historically-appropriate materials, such as painted or carved signs.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Interpretive historic signs that contain clear educational messages and content that inform the public of each resource's historic significance are appropriate.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Deviance from these sign standards shall require a sign permit. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Landscaping Meets Standard?
The project shall comply with Monterey City Code Section 38-138, which references 23 California Code of Regulations Section 490 et seq. (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance), and any amendments thereto; Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Rule 142 (Water Efficiency Standards) and Rule 143 (Water Efficiency Standards for Existing Non-Residential Uses), and any amendments thereto.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Projects are required to plant street trees, pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List, to match existing tree spacing abutting the project parcel or every 19 feet, unless infeasible due to a safety issue or conflict with utility infrastructure or parked vehicles.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Fruiting trees along public walkways are prohibited. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Fruiting trees may be placed in landscape areas that are not adjacent to public right of ways.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

All projects shall protect and preserve existing trees. If trees are proposed for removal, they shall be replaced onsite at a 3 replacements-for-1 removal ratio. The replacement trees shall be 15-gallon in size and shall be one or more species listed in the Landscaping Plant List. A tree removal permit is required if the project proposal does not meet the 3 replacements-for-1 removal ratio or if the replacement trees die.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

A landscape plan showing existing and proposed plant materials, species, and size shall be submitted with the project application and shall comply with the Landscaping Plant List.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Street tree grates must be able to contain root systems so that sidewalks will not be disrupted.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 29, Packet Page 96 Exhibit A
14 Info. location:

All landscaping must comply with the approved Landscaping Plant List for public parks and private property below. Substitutes are accepted if they are listed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Fences/Walls Meets Standard?
Prohibited fencing/wall materials: glass, chain-link, barbed wire, electrified, and raw bamboo. Allowed fencing/wall materials: smooth stucco finish, brick, masonry/stone, concrete, wood, bamboo planks, adobe, premanufactured building materials, and metal/wrought iron.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Maximum fence/wall height shall be six feet unless an architectural review permit is obtained.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Retaining walls shall be finished with metal, wood, ceramic, masonry, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

The following is the approved Landscaping Plant List that contains the most commonly used plants in Monterey’s City Parks, public grounds, medians and traffic islands with a focus on native and drought tolerant species. Refer to the Downtown Specific Plan for plant images.

Trees
The following tree species are allowed within the plan.

Alvarado Street
The existing Alvarado Street trees shall be replaced with a more compact, flowering tree with a smaller leaf. The following trees are allowed along Alvarado Street: Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Honeylocust, Prunus x yedoensis Akebono Cherry, Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree, Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorne, Crataegus viridis ‘Winter King’ Hawthorne.

Street Trees
The following street trees are allowed in addition to the previous tree recommendations for Alvarado Street: Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache, Lagerstroemia Crape Myrtle, Liriodendron tulipifera L. Tulip Tree, Magnolia x soulangeana Saucer Magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’ Southern Magnolia, Quercus rubra Red Oak, Quercus palustris Pin Oak, robinia idahoensis Chanticleer Pear.

Tall Shrubs and Perennials
alyogyne heugilli Blue Hibiscus, ceanothus Julia Phelps Ceanothus, echium candicans Pride of Madiera, euryops pectinatus Euryops, romneya coulterii Matilija Poppy, impatiens olivary Evergreen Impatien, lavatera maritima bi color Tree Mallow, phlomis fruticose Jerusalem Sage, phormium tenax New Zealand Flax, viburnum tinus S.B. Laurustinus, podocarpus gracilior Yew Pine, polygala dalmaisiana Sweet Pea Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 30, Packet Page 97 Exhibit A
15 Shrub, salvia leucantha Mexican Sage, tagates lemonii Bush Marigold, westringia fruticose Australian Rose.

Short Shrubs and Perennials
agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile, artemesia Powis Castle Artemesia, acanthus mollis Bears Breech, bidens ferulifolia Bidens, coleonema pulchrum Breath of Heaven, correa pulchella Australian Fuchsia, dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily, erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy, gaura lindheimeri Gaura, heuchera maxima Island Alum Root, lobelia laxifola Lobelia, salvia x bees bliss Salvia.

Vines
bougainvillea Bougainvillea, hardenbergia violacea Lilac Vine, jasminum polyanthum Pink Jasmine, loniceria hildebrandiana Burmese Honeysuckle, solanum jasminoides Potato Vine, thunbergia gregorii Orange Clock Vine, wisteria sinensis Chinese wisteria.

Ground Covers
ajuga repens Carpet Bugle, campanula Bellflower, ceanothus Carmel creeper Ceanothus, gazania hybrids Gazania.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 31, Packet Page 98

EXHIBIT B
1 Lighthouse Specific Plan Objective Design Standards
Visitor Accommodation Facility zoned properties shall be subject to development standards set forth in City Code Chapter 38 and City Charter Section 8.1.

The provisions contained in this document constitute the primary development standards for the project area. Where provisions are not addressed in this document, standards as described in the Lighthouse Specific Plan and Monterey City Code shall apply.

Site Planning Meets Standard?
30 du/acre Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For new subdivisions, minimum lot area shall be 5,000 square feet and minimum lot width shall be 50 feet.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Projects on through lots and corner lots shall provide a building face1 to both streets.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For traffic safety at intersections, buildings shall be set back seven feet from the property corner (as shown below) to ensure line of sight for vehicles is maintained.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Only roof eaves/overhangs, balconies, bay windows, and other building protrusions (not floor area) are allowed to project over property line. A minimum seven-foot setback is required to utility poles, traffic lights, utility boxes, and trees located in the public right-of-way Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

A maximum of 50% of the building frontage may be set back from the sidewalk edge, only to accommodate a recessed entry, outdoor seating, or landscaping pursuant Landscaping Plant List.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 32, Packet Page 99

EXHIBIT B
2 Outdoor seating is permitted. If outdoor seating is proposed, only chairs and tables made of metal and/or wood are allowed. Plastic furniture is prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

An encroachment permit shall be required for outdoor seating to encroach into the public right of way. There must be a minimum of seven feet or greater of unencumbered sidewalk.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buffers shall be provided on portions of properties that are adjacent to existing residential uses. The following is a list of acceptable buffers: (1) Landscaping from Landscaping Plant List (18 to 36 inches in depth), (2) Open Space (minimum 5 feet from adjacent residence), (3) Sidewalks (minimum 4 feet wide), and (4) Parking (shall adhere to adopted parking dimension standards).

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Outdoor residential spaces shall have at least one tree from the Landscaping Plant List.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buildings shall include the following window transparency along the public right-of-way:
• First floor windows (provide minimum 35% of the building’s first floor length and height with transparent windows)
• Above first floor windows (provide minimum 15% of the building’s above first floor length and height with transparent windows) Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

All building entries shall be located at street level. Where there is a difference in street elevations, grading shall occur so that the building entrance is at street level.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 33, Packet Page 100

EXHIBIT B
3 Open Space Meets Standard?
Open space areas shall contain a minimum of two of the following amenities/elements:
a. Outdoor seating
b. Patios
c. Courtyards
d. Landscaped yards (except fronting Lighthouse Avenue), 18-inch depth minimum, pursuant to Landscaping Plant List
e. Balconies
f. Roof-top gardens or decks
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

For new buildings with a residential component, a common open space area (for the shared use of building occupants) shall be incorporated into the project. The amount of common open space that must be provided shall be 5% of the project site’s square footage. No horizontal dimension shall be less than 10 feet. This common open space area may be incorporated anywhere on the project site, including within the primary building area. The following are acceptable common open space areas:
a) rooftop gardens or decks
b) indoor or outdoor recreational areas
c) courtyards or patios
d) balconies
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

For new buildings with a residential component, each residential unit above the ground floor shall provide a minimum of 50 sq. ft. of private open space, such as decks and balconies.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

The project shall connect to existing pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 34, Packet Page 101

EXHIBIT B
4 Info. Location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Store trash and recycling within an enclosed area in accordance with the City’s Recycling and Waste Enclosure Standards and Guidelines.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Rooftop mounted equipment shall be hidden from public view either within an enclosure or behind a pitched or simple parapet wall incorporated into the design of the building.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Parking Meets Standard?
For any parking structure’s elevations that face a street, 75% of the linear feet of the elevation shall incorporate at least two of the following into the design: (a) Ground floor commercial businesses; (b) Murals or public art (c) Landscaping pursuant to Landscape Plant List (d) Public benches for seating
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List may be used as an enhancement to the fencing/wall.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Commercial Parking Space Requirements: minimum of two spaces per 1,000 GSF.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 35, Packet Page 102

EXHIBIT B
5 Info. Location:

Residential Parking Space Requirements: minimum of one space per unit. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. Location:

Parking may be shared between:
• different uses within a single mixed-use building.
• buildings and an off-site parking facility, provided that the off-site facility is within one half mile of the building entrance. Parking may be shared with an off-site parking facility located more than one half mile from the building entrance only with the discretionary approval of the Planning Commission.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Off-site shared parking is subject to an agreement in a form approved by the City.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Parking is prohibited between the building and any street. Surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of the lot or behind the primary building.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Curb cuts shall be a minimum of 20 feet away from the intersection. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. Location:

No additional parking is required when the use of an existing building changes and/or intensifies.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. Location:

Parking shall adhere to adopted parking dimension standards. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. Location:

Building Design, Mass and Scale Meets Standard?
One and two story (25-foot maximum height) buildings are allowed.

Three-story buildings (35-foot maximum height) may be permitted if the third story of the building is set back twelve feet from the Lighthouse Avenue/Foam Street property line and twelve feet from a side street property line.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exceptions to numerical limits are allowed if needed to facilitate ADA access.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 36, Packet Page 103

EXHIBIT B
6 Info. location:

Roofs must use one of the following features along the entire front and side building facades:
a. Decorative parapets
b. Cornices
c. Roof eaves
Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Dormer windows’ roof profile shall not be higher than the existing or proposed roofline or extend beyond the roofline.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

The doors and windows of the non-residential ground floor shall have transparent (i.e. clear) glass. A minimum of 35% of the linear feet of each building shall consist of doors and windows.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Building corners at street intersections shall include doorways, windows, or other architectural features.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 37, Packet Page 104

EXHIBIT B
7 At block corners, where the building contains an entrance, the exterior transition space shall include at least one of the following: planters made of ceramic, wood, metal, cement, and/or masonry/stone (planters shall be no taller than 5 feet and have a base no larger than 20 square feet) and landscaping pursuant to the Landscaping Plant List or outdoor seating.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Include the following to break up the building massing: (a) A base, middle, and cap into the building design; (b) Variation in architectural detailing, parapet, and materials is required.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 38, Packet Page 105

EXHIBIT B
8 Building, façade, and/or parapet heights must be divided into two or more divisions for frontages, to reflect the appearance of several smaller buildings. Divisions must have finishes that are visibly distinct in material and/or color.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Projects along Lighthouse Avenue must include at least one type of the following list of small design elements: (a) Lamps; (b) Awnings; (c) Balconies.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

At least one porch or balcony shall be added to buildings with more than one story and with facades that face Lighthouse Avenue.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Buildings that exceed one story must include at least one balcony at every story above the ground floor.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

If a mixed-use project is proposed with the majority of the non-residential component on the ground floor, the ground floor shall be 1-3 feet taller than the floors above, with a minimum plate height of 10 feet.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Colors Meets Standard?
Buildings shall use a minimum of two colors, not including roofing color. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 39, Packet Page 106

EXHIBIT B
9 Brick and stone shall not be painted, but previously painted surfaces may be repainted.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Building Materials Meets Standard?
Siding materials allowed are brick, stone, smooth stucco, wood, concrete, and adobe.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Awning shapes allowed are shed, hip-ended shed, slant, and flat panel.

Awnings shall not hide architectural features.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Large, panelized surfaces shall not be larger than 250 sq. ft. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 40, Packet Page 107

EXHIBIT B
10 Info. location:

Lighting Meets Standard?
Lighting plans shall be prepared and submitted for review as part of the project. Lighting plans must indicate all exterior lighting fixture locations, height, type of light source, fixture type and pole type. A photometric study is required for parking lots.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exposed bulbs are prohibited. Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Exterior building light fixtures shall use refactors, louvers, patterned, or translucent glass to obscure view of the lamp.

All lamps shall be directed downward. Lamps shall not be visible from side or from behind fixture.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Outlining roof elements and building with lighting is prohibited. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Lighting shall be in the range of 2700 to 3500 kelvin temperature. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Lamps shall be fully shielded or directed away from residential areas, neighboring properties and the public right-of way.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Lighting near mixed-use buildings shall be directed away from upper story residential windows.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 41, Packet Page 108

EXHIBIT B
11 Maximum pole height: 15 feet. Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Awning lighting shall be recessed and concealed. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Light fixtures on buildings shall be motion sensing with light reduced to ½ of maximum lighting.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Direct light fixtures away from adjacent property lines. Fixtures with an adjustable aiming angle are prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Lighting in trees in private yards shall be at 5 footcandles maximum to remain subordinate to the overall street lighting.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

For historic landmark adobe façades, low intensity (2-5 footcandles), concealed lights shall be used to softly illuminate the facades.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 42, Packet Page 109

EXHIBIT B
12 Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Sign area allowance shall be in accordance with sign area maximums in Commercial Zoning districts as outlined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Internally illuminated signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are prohibited.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Vehicle-oriented freestanding signs, as defined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines2, are prohibited except where a primary building is set back at least 20 feet, such as is common with a service station.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Deviance from these sign standards shall require a sign permit. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Fruiting trees along public walkways are prohibited. Yes ___ No ___ Comments:

EXHIBIT B
13 Fruiting trees may be placed in landscape areas that are not adjacent to public right of ways.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

A landscape plan showing existing and proposed plant materials, species, and size shall be submitted with the project application and shall comply with the Landscaping Plant List.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Street tree grates must be able to contain root systems so that sidewalks will not be disrupted.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Maximum fence/wall height shall be six feet unless an architectural review permit is obtained.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

Retaining walls that are visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Retaining walls shall be finished with metal, wood, or stucco. If stucco, the color shall be the same as the primary building’s exterior color.

Yes ___ No ___
Comments:

Info. location:

The following is the approved Landscaping Plant List for public parks and private property. Sidewalk trees are addressed in Chapter 5 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Refer to the Lighthouse Specific Plan for plant images.

Parkland Trees:

Cypressus macrocarpa Monterey Cypress, Pinus radiata Monterey Pine, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood.

Accent Trees:

Prunus x yedoensis Akebono Cherry, Magnolia x soulangeana Saucer Magnolia, Crataegus viridis Winter King Hawthorne, Robinia idahoensis Idaho locust, Pinus thunbergia Japanese Black Pine, Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 44, Packet Page 111

EXHIBIT B
14 Tall Shrubs and Perennials
alyogyne heugilli Blue Hibiscus, ceanothus Julia Phelps Ceanothus, echium candicans Pride of Madiera, euryops pectinatus Euryops, romneya coulterii Matilija Poppy, impatiens olivary Evergreen Impatien, lavatera maritima bi color Tree Mallow, phlomis fruticose Jerusalem Sage, phormium tenax New Zealand Flax, viburnum tinus S.B. Laurustinus, podocarpus gracilior Yew Pine, polygala dalmaisiana Sweet Pea Shrub, salvia leucantha Mexican Sage, tagates lemonii Bush Marigold, westringia fruticose Australian Rose.

Ground Covers
ajuga repens Carpet Bugle, campanula Bellflower, ceanothus Carmel creeper Ceanothus, gazania hybrids Gazania.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 45, Packet Page 112 ATTACHMENT 2
Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Review Application Checklist Effective January 1, 2018, and as later amended, SB 35 enacted Government Code Section 65913.4 to establish a streamlined, ministerial approval process for multifamily housing projects that include an affordable housing component and satisfy certain eligibility criteria.

The following information and checklist are intended as a guide to help applicants and the City's Planning Division determine if a project is eligible for streamlined processing under SB 35. The property owner or property owner’s agent must complete the following information and submit a completed submittal checklist.

A. Applicant Information
Project Address ______________________________________________ Project Name ______________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number ______________________________________________ Property Owner or Representative’s Name ______________________________________________ Property Owner or Representative’s
Mailing Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Project Description ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
If applying for a density bonus, has the
property owner or representative
complied with all requirements in
Monterey City Code Section 38-112.5?
Yes ___
No ___
I ________________________ (Property Owner or Representative) hereby certify that the statements furnished in this application are true and correct.

Property Owner or Representative Signature ________________________ Date ______________ Property Owner or Representative Name ________________________ B. Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for SB 35 streamlining, a project must meet ALL the following criteria, from 1 through 11:

Eligibility Criteria Meets Criteria?

1. NOTIFICATION TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES.
 A notice of the intent to submit an
application for SB 35 approval (SB 35
Preliminary Application) was submitted
to the City and the City provided formal
notice to and requested consultation
Yes ___
No ___ If no, stop here. Application is ineligible
for SB 35 streamlined processing.

Comments:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/20/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 46, Packet Page 113 ATTACHMENT 2
with California Native American tribes
(tribes) that are traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the geographic
area of the proposed development site.

Check the following which apply:
o Tribes did not accept scoping
consultation invitation
o A scoping consultation was
accepted but affected tribe(s)
substantially failed to engage in
the scoping consultation
o Consultation concluded that no
tribal cultural resource could be
affected by the proposed
development
o Consultation concluded that a
potential tribal cultural resource
could be affected by the
proposed development and an
enforceable agreement on
methods, measures, and
conditions for tribal cultural
resource treatment is
documented between the parties
to the consultation; and
o The parties to the consultation
do not disagree as to whether a
potential tribal cultural resource
will be affected by the proposed
development.