Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, August 1, 2023

Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 1, 2023
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
City Manager
Hans Uslar
How to participate in this meeting:
 Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
 In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is recommended and encouraged.
 Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.  Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay). ***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Receive Presentation from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.
8/1/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.

Approval of Minutes

2. July 18, 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.

3. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 28-4 to Add an Exception to Purchasing Requirements for New and Replacement Vehicles (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

4. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Implement a Clerical/Technical Update to Chapter 14, Garbage and Refuse, Article, 1, Section 14-8(5) "Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations" (Not a Project under CEQA 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."

5. Authorize an Appropriation of $240,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund's Retained Earnings Account for the Replacement of a Failed Heavy Rescue Fire Unit and Enclosed Trailer (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Other

6. Appoint Councilmember Smith as the Voting Delegate, and Mayor Williamson as the Alternate, for the 2023 League of California Cities Annual Conference – September 20-22, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 570 Munras Avenue, Suite 10 (formerly Pharmaca) and Suite 20 (Trader Joe's Company); Agency Negotiators: Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: April Sheffield (ROIC Monterey, LLC); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Consent to Sublease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
8/1/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 *** End of Consent Agenda ***

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.

8. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement to Provide Fire Services Between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (District) Regarding the District’s Proposed Detachment of Properties from the City (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Public Comment on Closed Session Agenda Items
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** RECESS

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC HEARING (EVE)
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written 8/1/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)

10. Deny Appeal Application AP-23-0135 and Uphold Planning Commission Decision to Approve Sign Permit SI-23-0051 for Two Rotating Projecting Signs (Flags) and Four Wall Signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue; Appellant Christine Kerr; Property Owner Anna C Vermi Tr.; Planned Community – Lighthouse (PC-LH) Zoning District ; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15311, Class 11)

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.

11. Presentation of a Proposed Ordinance, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Explore Collaborative Opportunities to Enhance Water Supplies for Affordable Housing with the Marina Coast Water District (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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

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

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
8/1/2023 4:00:00 PM
5 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 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Receive Presentation from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE).

VALUE DRIVERS:

This presentation is in accordance with the priority of protecting the environment and providing clean, renewable energy to all customers in the City.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

As a member agency of 3CE, sharing a Board seat with the cities if Pacific Grove and Carmel, it is important for the City to remain up to date with the policies and programs of 3CE. In addition, the operation of 3CE aligns with the implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan, and the associated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this presentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to accept the presentation, or to request additional information from City or 3CE staff.

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is a founding member agency of 3CE (2017), which is a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) that purchases electricity on behalf of its member agencies and provides energy to all ratepayers in their service area. The service area has expanded over the past several years and now includes thirty-four communities in the counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara. This represents over 400,000 customers, with 94% of customers electing to receive power from 3CE rather than the local investor-owned utility.
3CE was founded as a way for local municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide local control of energy decisions, and use revenues to create rebate and incentive programs, all while maintaining competitive electricity rates.

The City of Monterey is also eligible to apply for funding from 3CE for projects such as installing electric vehicle charging stations, purchasing electric vehicles, and working to adopt codes that promote building electrification.

Due to ongoing organizational and program updates, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council receive a presentation from 3CE to remain up to date on their current priorities, accomplishments, and opportunities to partner with the City.

KC/tjt
Attachments: 1. 3CE Presentation
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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Presentation to City of Monterey

08.01.2023
Judi Young
Senior Customer Accounts Manager

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Enrollment in communities
95%
5000 GWh
Electricity delivered in 2022
45,049
Customers in unicorporated Santa Barbara
County and Buellton enrolled in 2021/2022

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9

COASTAL CITIES
Marina
Sand City, Seaside
Del Rey Oaks*

PENINSULA CITIES
Carmel*
Monterey
Pacific Grove*

SALINAS CITIES
Greenfield
Gonzales*
Soledad

SAN BENITO CITIES
Hollister*
San Juan Bautista

SANTA CRUZ CITIES
Capitola*
Scotts Valley
Our Governance

SLO CITIES
San Luis Obispo*
Morro Bay

SLO NORTH CITIES
Paso Robles*
Atascadero

SLO SOUTH CITIES
Arroyo Grande
Grover Beach
Pismo Beach*

SB COUNTY CITIES
Guadalupe
Solvang*
Buellton

SB COUNTY CITIES
Goleta
Carpinteria*

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 Average Residential Savings
Average approximate
difference between PG&E and
CCCE residential generation
rates in 2022
18%
Small to medium commercial*
customers savings after March
2022
2% to 19%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2018 2020 2022
*Because our IOU imposes an additional demand charge that we do not, we cannot provide a percent savings for large commercial and agriculture accounts.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 Procurement Targets
2030 Planned Resource Mix 2025 2030
60%
47% 43% 10%
Solar Wind Geothermal
100%

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 12 FY 21/22: Community Reinvestment
Electric School Bus
$1.4M awarded to schools
Est. 148 mT CO2 emissions
avoided each year
$2.4M awarded to customers
Est. 2,500 mTCO2 emissions
avoided each year
$600K+ awarded to
affordable housing
Est. 170 mT CO2 emissions
avoided each year
Electrify Your Ride New Construction
Electrification

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 13 Member Agencies
$5,000 - $100,000 per unit
Electrify Your Fleet
Up to $100,000; additional funds to Plan
Your Fleet
Charge Your Fleet
$100,000 budgeted for third-party
implementation
Reach Code Program

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 14 3CE Energy Programs in City of Monterey
Total Investment: $1,364,600
Central Coast
Incentive Project
Electric School Bus
Program Electrify Your Ride
$19,107 $1,040,000 $200,000 $117,600
Electrify Your Home
$7,000

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 10, Packet Page 15

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, July 18, 2023
4:00 PM 7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: Barber
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Police Lieutenant, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Associate Civil Engineer, Senior Engineer, Senior Engineer, Engineering Assistant, Engineering Assistant, Planning Manager, Recreation Manager, Recreation Facility Worker (x2) Monterey Sports Center (“MSC”) Specialty Class Instructor, MSC Facility Coordinator, Administrative Assistant (MSC), MSC Senior Facility Specialist, Recreation Coordinator (x2), Administrative Assistant (Recreation), Sports Coordinator
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month and Receive Update on Programs (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized July as Parks and Recreation Month
Parks and Recreation Director Larson gave the staff presentation and gave a brief overview of current Parks and Recreation programs. Public comment was not received.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Steve Lightfoot, Sherna Stewart, and Claire Fuerst.

CONSENT ITEMS
Items 8 and 15 were pulled at the request of Council. Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS, except Items 8 and 15:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
2 Approval of Minutes

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

3. Award a Sole Source Contract to Refrigeration Supplies Distributor in the Amount of $384,970.00 for the Replace NAE NCE Controllers Project (POM 22031) (NEPA Categorical Exclusion (32 CFR Part 651), CEQA Not a Project)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-074 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

4. Award a Job Order Contract to Precision Emprise, LLC dba Precision Concrete Cutting in the amount of $500,000 for On-Call Sidewalk Repair Projects (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-075 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Ordinances

5. 2nd 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) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3665 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

6. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Implement a Clerical/Technical Update to Chapter 14, Garbage and Refuse, Article, 1, Section 14-8(5) "Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations" (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Passed Ordinance to print (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

7. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 28-4 to Add an Exception to Purchasing Requirements for New and Replacement Vehicles (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Passed Ordinance to print (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Resolutions

8. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to accept Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Planning Grant Funds, Amend Resolution 23-069 to Include the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan Project in the Capital Improvement Program and Authorize an Increase of FY24 Revenue and Appropriation of $200,000 in Grant Reimbursement Funds to the Project ***CIP*** (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 23-076 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
Engineering Assistant II Garcia gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

The Council remarked that the Public Works department is achieving great work in pursuing and receiving grants that improve traffic safety.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
3 On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-076 C.S.:

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

9. Authorize the Finance Director to appropriate $40,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Contingency Account to the Old Capitol Site Master Plan project and Award a Professional Services Agreement for the Preparation of the Old Capitol Site Master Plan to BFS Landscape Architects in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $115,000. ***NCIP*** (Not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-077 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

10. Award Two Professional Services Agreements in the Amount of $500,000 Each for On-Call Professional Assessment, Engineering, Environmental, and Construction Support Services for Programmatic Repairs to Municipal Wharves in the City of Monterey to: (1) COWI North America, Inc.; and (2) Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. ***CIP/NCIP *** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-078 and 23-079 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

11. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Management Employees’ Association (MEA) for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-080 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

12. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Monterey Police Association (MPA) for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-081 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Other

13. Receive Mayor’s Recommendation and Appoint Julie Tilley Barlow to the Historic Preservation Commission (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed Julie Tilley Barlow to the Historic Preservation Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2027 (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

14. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Council supporting SB 326 (Eggman) Behavioral Health Services Act, and AB 531 (Irwin) Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act of 2023 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved letter (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

15. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Opposing AB 504 (Reyes), Proposed Legislation Would Create a System Where Nearly Any City Employee Can Sympathy Strike Regardless of Their Job Duties (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; No action taken
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
4 Human Resources Director Neal gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

The Council made comments in favor of employees' right to engage in labor actions, and stressing the importance of unions and bargaining groups to stand in solidarity with colleagues if there is an issue important enough to compel them to do so. An opposing viewpoint was shared that stressed a concern about city operations shutting down in the case of strikes with add-on sympathy strikes.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.

The motion died for lack of a second.
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC HEARING

16. 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) -- Continued from June 20, 2023 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-082 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Principal Planner Roveri gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-082 C.S.:

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

17. Confirm Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-083 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Acting City Engineer Harty gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

City Clerk Klein and Administrative Assistant Momini (Public Works) performed the count of the sealed ballots. City Clerk Klein announced that the result of the tally was a majority "yes." Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
5 On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-083 C.S. to Confirm Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/2024:

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

18. Confirm Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-084 C.S. (3-0-1-1, Councilmember Barber absent and Councilmember Smith abstaining)
Councilmember Smith stated that he would abstain from the vote due to the location of his office in the district. He left the Chamber at 5:11 p.m. Public comment was not received.

City Clerk Klein and Administrative Assistant Momini (Public Works) performed the count of the sealed ballots. City Clerk Klein announced that the result of the tally was a majority "yes." On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-084 C.S. to Confirm Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/2024:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Williamson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Councilmember Smith returned to the Chamber at 5:17 p.m. *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session items was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:18 p.m.

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:12 p.m. with the Council present as highlighted in the afternoon roll call.
*** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.

CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Lorna Moffat and Dan Turner.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
6 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Klein announced:
cs1. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1), Impasse Binding Arbitration Pursuant to Charter Section 5.4, Monterey Fire Fighter Association / International Association of Fire Fighters Local 3707 v. City of Monterey, State of California Public Employment Relations Board CSMCS Case No. ARB-22-0230 Action: No reportable action taken
cs 2. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal and Gina Russo; Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued to the end of the evening session

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)

19. Adopt Resolution Adopting the Lead Me Home 5-Year Plan Update by the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-085 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Genevieve Lucas-Conwell, of the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Lorna Moffat, who asked that the unhoused be allowed to sleep at the fairgrounds in the upcoming winter; and Esther Malkin, who said that shelters need to allow people to bring their pets with them, and highlighted the link between the working homeless community and the unaffordability of rent.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 23-085 C.S.

The Council remarked positively about the work of the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers and Monterey Police Department's Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team ("MDOT"). It was stated that there was a need to dig further into how to prevent homelessness in the first place and further into the "housing first" model, and to consider how to address the breadth of the living situations considered as homelessness.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

20. Adopt Resolution Certifying Compliance with State Law with Respect to Levying Assessments and Special Taxes (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-086 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
7 Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 8:16 p.m. City Manager Uslar made a brief verbal report. Public comment was not received. Councilmember Smith returned at 8:17 p.m.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-086 C.S. Certifying Compliance with State Law with Respect to Levying Assessments and Special Taxes:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Smith spoke about the enjoyable Independence Day celebrations on July 4.

Councilmember Haffa shared that Community Human Services would shortly hold its annual luncheon celebration. He shared his pleasure at attending the recent Pride parade. He spoke about the upcoming closure of the Presidio childcare center as a significant concern and asked to learn more from the City Manager what the City can do to resolve the situation. He expressed gratitude for the Recreation programs and how they benefit families.

Mayor Williamson reported on Monterey One Water (M1W), stating that a loan was approved from the federal government to expand the Pure Water Monterey Project. He said that construction contracts had been awarded and that the expansion work would start over the next few months. He shared that he attended a Cal Cities conference and stated that residents should pay close attention to the funders of Initiative 21-0042A1, the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act."

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar reported that firefighters who had been sent to the Rabbit Fire had returned home. He shared that Monterey Sports Center hours would be expanding July 31. He said that the City would host an open house about the draft Housing Element and scoping plan for the draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR) on August 7.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 8:24 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
cs 2. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal and Gina Russo; Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued to August 1, 2023 (3-1-1, with Councilmember Barber absent and Councilmember Smith voting no)

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 9:21 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes July 18, 2023
8 Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 23 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 28-14(d) TO ADD FLEET AND RELATED

EQUIPMENT PURCHASES AS A SOLE SOURCE EXCEPTION TO COMPETITIVE

PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, City purchasing rules are set forth in Chapter 28 of the City Code, with the goal of establishing efficient procedures for the purchase of equipment, supplies, materials, and services for the City at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, exercising positive financial control over purchases, and clearly defining authority for the purchasing function;
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code (MCC) section 28-14 sets forth the categories of purchases that are exempt from competitive procurement requirements. These include purchases through cooperative procurement contracts previously negotiated by another governmental agency or cooperative purchasing agency, emergency procurements, and sole source procurements;
WHEREAS, supply chain disruptions in the automotive industry have continued to outlast the pandemic, and opportunities to replace vehicles are on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Supply shortages, labor shortages, and increased demand have made procuring new vehicles a longer and more challenging process;
WHEREAS, vehicle costs are rising, and there is low, or at times no, inventory.

Obtaining prior authorization for vehicle purchases will ensure that the City is able to purchase the vehicles as soon as they become available. Financial controls will continue to be achieved with limits on the amount that may be spent for a purchase; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 24 2 SECTION 2: Monterey City Code, Chapter 28, Section 14(d)(8) is hereby added to read as follows:
“8. When a vehicle for which quotes have been obtained pursuant to Section 28-4, is no longer available at the quoted price when the vehicle is in stock, the Purchasing Agent may purchase from any vendor that has the vehicle in stock at a price not to exceed the amount pre-authorized by City Council resolution. This subsection will sunset on June 30, 2028.”
SECTION 3: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 4: 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 25 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
IMPLEMENTING A CLERICAL/TECHNICAL UPDATE TO CHAPTER 14, GARBAGE AND REFUSE, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 14-8(5) “PENALTY AMOUNTS FOR TYPES OF VIOLATIONS”
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey wishes to clarify any inconsistency between Section 14-8 of the Monterey City Code, which specifies fine amounts by ordinance, and the City’s Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine schedule, which was adopted by resolution; WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 1-9 et seq., provides that the amount of fines for code violations imposed for administrative citations be set by resolution; WHEREAS, it is the intent that this amendment will set fines for violating Chapter 14 of the Monterey City Code by resolution and not by ordinance to be consistent with City Code section 1-9 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: Monterey City Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-8(5) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations. The amount of penalty for initial or any subsequent violations shall be set by resolution pursuant to Section 1-9.3 of the Monterey City Code.”
SECTION 3: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 26 2 SECTION 4: 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 _______, 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Submitted by: Rex Van Slyke, Fleet Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize an Appropriation of $240,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund's Retained Earnings Account for the Replacement of a Failed Heavy Rescue Fire Unit and Enclosed Trailer (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $240,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund’s retained earnings account (705-2721) using funds set aside for replacement of vehicles #6461 and #6466 to the Equipment Replacement Fund Fire Operations account (705-110-1130-2530-4503)
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Council’s strategic priority to carefully manage City revenues and expenditures which support the delivery of City services.

This action is also consistent with the policy of requiring Council to approve expenditure budget adjustments.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are sufficient funds in the Equipment Replacement fund for this appropriation and purchase.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose to not authorize this appropriation; however, this is not recommended.

Without the appropriation of funds, Staff cannot replace the failed vehicle and trailer.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Fire Department, the Monterey County Regional Fire District, and the North Monterey County Fire District provide staffing and equipment to field a California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Type 1 Heavy Rescue Team. Each agency provides a vehicle to carry the equipment and personnel when the team is deployed. This team is primarily available in the Monterey County/San Benito County Operational area but could be requested anywhere in the state.

Monterey benefits from participation on this team by having personnel that are trained in specialized rescue and the related equipment available for incidents in Monterey. A similar countywide team for response to hazardous materials emergencies is staffed by the Seaside and Salinas Fire Departments and the County of Monterey’s Health Department. The City of Monterey has utilized the services of that team numerous times. These two teams provide specialized services to all of Monterey County that individual jurisdictions could not afford to provide on their own. It is a cost-effective way for these services to be available using a shared cost model.

The City of Monterey Fire Department Heavy Rescue Specialized Emergency Incident equipment (Vehicle No.6461) (USAR) developed a bad engine. The vehicle is a 1999 model year large standard fire apparatus-sized vehicle with minimum estimated resale value. In addition, there is an enclosed trailer (#6466) used in tandem to haul & store additional emergency equipment. The trailer is a 2002 model year trailer with a fiberglass roof that has rotted, and coupled with years of wear and tear, an inefficient floor plan, and low resale value, it is also in need of replacement. The costs for the equipment and required training are predominantly funded through a variety of grant programs. Unfortunately, no viable grants are available within a reasonable timeframe that could be used to replace the vehicles. The team responds to an average of eight to ten deployments each year. Additionally, Monterey uses this equipment and the trained personnel to supplement responses within our jurisdiction several times each year.

Both the vehicle and trailer have surpassed the original purchase price in maintenance costs and are valued below the point of deeming them advantageous to repair. Both assets will be sold as is at auction. The vehicle and trailer have accumulated $289,520 in depreciation.

Because the cost to replace the vehicle and trailer with like-for-like models is estimated to cost $750,000, the Fire Department has requested to purchase a smaller two-ton truck equipped with Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 a flatbed, tool boxes, and a gooseneck mount. A new enclosed trailer with customized interior storage will provide adequate support and allow for newer modernized emergency equipment and supplies. This would create substantial cost savings, as the estimated total expenditure for both these items is $240,000. This reconfigured approach will benefit the Fire Department in that the truck can be separated from the trailer and used to haul large equipment and supplies.

In the past, when needing to move large quantities of supplies, multiple trips have had to be made.

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

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $240,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund’s retained earnings account (705-2721) using funds set aside for the replacement of vehicles #6461 and #6466 to the Equipment Replacement Fund Fire Operations account (705-110-1130-2530-4503).

RV/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION OF $240,000 FROM THE EQUIPMENT

REPLACEMENT FUND'S RETAINED EARNINGS ACCOUNT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF

A FAILED HEAVY RESCUE FIRE UNIT AND ENCLOSED TRAILER
WHEREAS, the Monterey Fire Department Heavy Rescue Specialized Emergency Incident equipment (vehicle #6461) (USAR) developed a bad engine and an enclosed trailer (#6466) used in tandem to haul & store additional emergency is also in need of replacement; WHEREAS, both the vehicle and trailer have surpassed the original purchase price in maintenance costs and are valued below the point of deeming them advantageous to repair; WHEREAS, because the cost to replace the vehicle and trailer with like-for-like models is estimated to cost $750,000, the Fire Department has requested to purchase a smaller two-ton truck equipped with a flatbed, toolboxes, and a gooseneck mount. A new enclosed trailer with customized interior storage will provide adequate support and allow for newer modernized emergency equipment and supplies. This would create substantial cost savings, as the estimated total expenditure for both these items is only $240,000; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $240,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund’s retained earnings account (705-2721) using funds set aside for the replacement of vehicles #6461 and #6466 to the Equipment Replacement Fund Fire Operations account (705-110-1130-2530-4503).

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appoint Councilmember Smith as the Voting Delegate, and Mayor Williamson as the Alternate, for the 2023 League of California Cities Annual Conference – September 20-22, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint Councilmember Smith as the voting delegate, and Mayor Williamson as the alternate, to represent the City of Monterey at the annual business meeting of the 2023 League of California Cities’ annual conference.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The bylaws of the League of California Cities require that a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates be designated by City Council action.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost for a Member City delegate to attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference is $600 (early bird) or $650 after July 26, 2023. There are sufficient appropriations in the Mayor/City Council budget for the Annual Conference.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to appoint a voting delegate or alternate, or select other delegates.

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 33 DISCUSSION:

The League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) provides legislative advocacy, professional development, and educational resources for incorporated cities and towns in California, including the City of Monterey.

The Cal Cities’ Annual Conference is scheduled for September 20-22, 2023, to be held in Sacramento. The general assembly will convene on the last day of the conference for the annual business meeting in order to consider and take action on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy. Each member city may, with the approval of the City Council, designate a city official as their designated voting delegate and, in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, up to two alternate voting delegates.

Designated voting delegates and alternates must be registered to attend the annual conference.

A staff member can be appointed to fill the voting role in the event that no Councilmember plans to attend, or as an alternate delegate.

Councilmember Smith plans to attend the Cal Cities annual conference this year and has expressed his interest in representing Monterey as its voting delegate at the annual business meeting, and Mayor Williamson plans to attend and is interested in being the alternate.

Attachments: 1. League of California Cities memo with Annual Conference Voting Guidelines 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 34 DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 2023
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023, Sacramento SAFE Credit Union Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Sept. 22, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Please complete the attached voting delegate form and email it to Cal Cities office no later than Monday, August 28.

New this year, we will host a pre-conference information session for voting delegates to explain their role. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide preconference communications with voting delegates.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council.

Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Council Action Advised by August 28, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 35 Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center in Sacramento, will be open at the following times:

Wednesday, Sept. 20, 8:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 21, 7:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 22, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Monday, Aug. 28. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 36 General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 37 2023 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Monday, August 28, 2023.

Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the General Assembly, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the General Assembly. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the voting delegate desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _______________________________
Email: ______________________________

3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _____________________________

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk: ________________________ Date: __________ Phone: ________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and email this form to [email protected] by Monday, August 28, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 38 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference and
Expo, Cal Cities members
may submit policy
proposals on issues of
importance to cities. The
resolution must have the concurrence
of at least five additional member cities
or individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions
Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure that we are representing California cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policy that erodes local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how Resolutions and the General Assembly works.

The petitioned resolution
is an alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during the
annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of member
cities, and submitted to the Cal Cities
President at least 24 hours before the
beginning of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities President
assigns general resolutions
to policy committees where
members review, debate,
and recommend positions for
each policy proposal. Recommendations are
forwarded to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions
Committee includes
representatives from
each Cal Cities diversity
caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly
is a meeting of the
collective body of
all voting delegates —
one from every
member city.

Seven Policy
Committees meet
throughout the year to
review and recommend
positions to take on
bills and regulatory
proposals. Policy
committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division,
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee.

Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also
considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a
member-informed
process, grounded
in the voices and
experiences of city
officials throughout
the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions Committee
considers all resolutions.

General Resolutions approved1
by either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee
are next considered by the General
Assembly. General resolutions not approved,
or referred for further study by both a policy
committee and the Resolutions Committee
do not go the General Assembly. All
Petitioned Resolutions are considered by the
General Assembly, unless disqualified.2
• Voting delegates will receive increased communications to prepare them for their role during the General Assembly.
• The General Assembly will take place earlier to allow more time for debate and discussion.
• Improvements to the General Assembly process will make it easier for voting delegates to discuss and debate resolutions.

What’s new in 2023?
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 39 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 570 Munras Avenue, Suite 10 (formerly Pharmaca) and Suite 20 (Trader Joe's Company); Agency Negotiators: Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: April Sheffield (ROIC Monterey, LLC); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Consent to Sublease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint an agency negotiator for conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss and provide confidential direction for terms and conditions for a sublease amendment.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Council approval is required for real estate transactions. Closed session confidential review of real estate matters is allowed.

The Surplus Land Act does not apply since there is no disposition as defined under the Act.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the recommendation to appoint agency negotiators.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

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

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 40 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to appoint the negotiator or appoint different negotiators. This is not recommended by staff. It is appropriate that the Council appoint an agency negotiator and authorize a confidential discussion regarding the proposed sublease amendment.

DISCUSSION:

The City entered into a ground lease dated October 18, 2006 with GLC/Foothill Monterey, LLC.

The lease was assigned to Uptown Monterey Partners, LLC on November 8, 2011 and was subsequently assigned to ROIC Monterey, LLC (“ROIC”) on July 8, 2016. The ground lease requires ROIC to obtain the City’s consent to any sublease and the City is provided twenty-one days to respond. If the City does not respond within the twenty-one-day period, the City is deemed to have consented to the sublease.

On July 20, 2023, the City received a request from ROIC to consent to the expansion and extension of the Trader Joe’s sublease. Trader Joe’s and ROIC have executed a sublease amendment to provide Trader Joe’s expansion space into the adjacent 3,790 square feet that was previously occupied by Pharmaca. The space is proposed to be used as an extension of the grocery store. In addition to the expansion space, the sublease is proposed to be extended by a term of ten years.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 41 It is appropriate the City Council discuss the request to consent to the amended sublease in closed session.

JA/ad
e: April Sheffield, ROIC Monterey, LLC
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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 42 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Gaudenz Panholzer, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Cheryl Kouretas, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement to Provide Fire Services between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement to provide fire services to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (District) consistent with the City’s proposal in response to the District’s request for proposals dated December 20, 2022 and as negotiated by the parties.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

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

In October 2022, the District notified the City of Monterey of its desire to terminate the current agreement to provide fire services effective October 15, 2023.

Based on the District’s Request for Proposals, Monterey’s response, and ongoing negotiations, the Agreement provides for payment for fire services as the follows:

FY 2023-2024 $1,787,572.98
FY 2024-2025 $1,876,951.63
FY 2025-2026 $1,970,799.21
FY 2026-2027 $2,069,339.17
FY 2027-2028 $2,172,806.13
Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 43 The cost to provide fire service has increased due to:
 Call volume – the percentage of calls for service on the Airport property compared to the total calls responded to from the Airport fire station has increased since entering into the current agreement.
 Administrative fee – the City increased its administrative fee from 10% to

15.533% to account for direct costs, indirect costs, general overhead, and department overhead.
 Base costs – the current agreement is based on 2018 costs and this new proposed agreement reflects current costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager to enter into a new agreement.

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

DISCUSSION:

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

The District is undertaking a major reconstruction of the Airport and all associated facilities. As part of this reconstruction, the District’s Fire Station is being relocated to the north side of the airfield. This relocation impacts the ability of the engine stationed there to respond to emergencies off airport property into the surrounding areas. Because of the change in fire station location, service capability, and associated impacts to the current Fire Services Agreement, the District exercised its option to give the City of Monterey 12 months’ notice that it intends to terminate the current contract. This notice terminates the contract on October 15, Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 44 2023. The District outlined a new scope for desired services and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on December 20, 2022.

After Council direction on February 21, 2023, the City submitted a proposal to provide fire services to the District on March 1, 2023. Based on the RFP, the City initially proposed fully dedicated costs to the District (with no shared services model). The costs to the District were over $3M per year. At the Board of Directors meeting on April 5, 2023, the District interviewed the City and one other proposer. City staff expressed an interest in continuing a shared services model to benefit the residents and businesses in the area as well as the District. The District directors requested more information on continuing the shared services model as well as additional clarity on the other proposer’s proposal.

The District requested that both proposers work with District staff and revise their proposals to discuss at the next board meeting. The City responded with a supplemental proposal with a shared services model, significantly decreasing costs to the District on April 21, 2023. The revised proposals were discussed at the Board of Directors meeting on April 27, 2023, and the City’s proposal was accepted at the Board of Directors' Adjourned meeting on May 3, 2023.

Since May 3, 2023, City staff have been planning for the fire station relocation (cleaning out the current fire station, relocating items that cannot move to the new station, etc.), as well as working with District staff in finding a location on the south side of the airport for fire service response, and revising the current agreement based on the new fire station location.

The City has realized a benefit from its partnership with the Airport in having an engine located on the south side of the Airport that can respond to areas of the city previously served by other Monterey engine companies stationed farther away. Additional benefits are derived from the depth of resources available to respond to emergencies in all the jurisdictions served by Monterey and the shared cost of administrative services and other overhead costs.

Summary of key provisions:

Term: 5 years
South Side Response Location: A satellite fire station/facility will be available from 8:00 AM to 7:59 PM for both on and off-airport emergency responses. It is the City’s intent to rent a modular on land provided by the District.

Mutual Aid: The agreement allows for mutual aid emergency responses from the Airport, including from the new fire station on the north side. However, the City does not intend to respond to any mutual aid calls from the north side station (see the indemnity section, below).

Staffing: Four personnel will be assigned including one (1) Fire Captain, two (2) Engineers, and one (1) firefighter.

Fuel: City will pay for fueling the fire engine, except that the District shall pay for the Airport Rescue and Firefighting vehicle’s fuel.

Utilities: District pays for electricity, sewer/waste, garbage, and water. City pays for any other utilities. City pays for internet and cable services.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 45 Indemnity: The Agreement has a special indemnity provision. The City agrees to defend and indemnify the District in any CEQA litigation alleging a breach of the Airport’s Revised Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, and the Settlement Agreement and Release between the City and the District dated April 20, 2022, resulting from the City providing mutual aid from the north side of the Airport. However, to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and neighborhood policies, the City does not intend to respond to emergency calls or calls for mutual aid from the north side of the Airport.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement to provide fire services between the City of Monterey and the District consistent with the City’s proposal in response to the Airport’s request for proposals dated December 20, 2022.

GP/ck
Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 46 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE

FIRE SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND THE MONTEREY PENINSULA

AIRPORT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has been a leader in providing regionalized fire service by providing those services to neighboring jurisdictions under contract; WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (MPAD) has given Monterey 12- months’ notice that they intend to terminate the current agreement for fire services on October 15, 2023;
WHEREAS, MPAD has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Monterey Regional Airport Fire & Related Emergency Services that includes a revised scope consistent with the relocated fire station currently under construction;
WHEREAS, Monterey submitted a proposal and the MPAD Board of Directors gave direction to their staff to negotiate a new Fire Services agreement with the City of Monterey; WHEREAS, Monterey can continue to benefit from a fire services partnership with MPAD;
WHEREAS, the following is a summary of key provisions:

Payment for Service: FY 2023-2024 $1,787,572.98
FY 2024-2025 $1,876,951.63
FY 2025-2026 $1,970,799.21
FY 2026-2027 $2,069,339.17
FY 2027-2028 $2,172,806.13
Term: 5 years
South Side Response Location: Additional facility available from 8:00 AM to 7:59 PM for both on and off-airport emergency responses.

Mutual Aid: The agreement allows for mutual aid emergency responses from the Airport., including from the new fire station on the north side. However, the City does not intend to respond to any mutual aid calls from the north side station.

Staffing: Four personnel will be assigned including one (1) Fire Captain, two (2) Engineers, and one (1) firefighter.

Fuel: City will pay for fuel except that the District shall pay for the Airport Rescue and Firefighting apparatus vehicle’s fuel.

Utilities: District pays for electricity, sewer/waste, garbage, and water. City pays for any other utilities. City pays for internet and cable services.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 47 2 Indemnity: The Agreement has a special indemnity provision. The City agrees to defend and indemnify the District in any CEQA litigation alleging a breach of the Airport’s Revised Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, and the Settlement Agreement and Release between the City and the District dated April 20, 2022, resulting from the City providing mutual aid from the north side of the Airport. However, to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and neighborhood policies, the City does not intend to respond to emergency calls or calls for mutual aid from the north side of the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. 2 Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that 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 it hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an Agreement to provide fire services between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 1st day of August, 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 48 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (District) Regarding the District’s Proposed Detachment of Properties from the City (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (District) in support of the District’s anticipated application with the Local Area Formation Commission of Monterey County (LAFCO) to detach certain properties owned by the District that are located within the City’s jurisdictional limits.

VALUE DRIVERS:

To 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:

Most of the airport is located within unincorporated Monterey County, with some District-owned properties located within the City’s limits. The District would like to have all its properties that it owns be located within its district boundaries.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City would lose business license tax revenue and possessory/property tax revenue.

However, the District has agreed to fairly compensate the City for lost revenue, and this amount still needs to be calculated. Early and rough estimates for business license taxes is approximately $17,000 per year, and the possessory/property tax for two parcels is estimated to be $7,500 per year. The City agrees to negotiate in good faith with the District and the County regarding compensation for the City’s lost revenue resulting from this process.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 49 to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City could choose not to agree to participate in the MOU at this time or decide it does not support the detachment of the proposed District owned properties from the City.

DISCUSSION:

LAFCO is the agency responsible for coordinating and overseeing changes to local government boundaries, including annexation and detachment of territory. The District intends to file an application with LAFCO to detach approximately 16.85 acres from the City to the District.

According to a 2016 LAFCO Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study, “the District is unique in Monterey County in that it has land use authority that allows it to solely determine what land uses are allowed on its property, as well as the height, density and design of structures. The airport does not come under the land use permitting authority of the County or any city.” (2016 Study, page 9.) The District will work with the City to resolve issues regarding the boundary and ownership of roads bordering and within the detachment area and to an appropriate setback from Highway 68 for all development in the detachment area.

The properties that are owned by the District and proposed for detachment from the City are shown in Attachment 2 consisting of the following:
2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot A APN 013-222-001-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot B APN 013-222-006-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot C APN 013-222-003-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot D APN 013-222-007-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot E APN 013-222-008-000 2825 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 APN 013-221-015-000 2475 Fred Kane Drive, Monterey, CA 93940 APN 013-221-008-000 Corner of Olmstead Road and Fred Kane Drive - No Address APN 013-321-009-000 The District is requesting that the City sign a MOU demonstrating its commitment to this process, which will require participation from the City, the District, and the County. The detachment is ultimately approved or disapproved by LAFCO.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Map
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
5100995.1
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING WITH THE MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) REGARDING THE DISTRICT’S PROPOSED DETACHMENT OF PROPERTIES FROM THE CITY
WHEREAS, LAFCO is the agency responsible for coordinating and overseeing changes to local government boundaries, including annexation and detachment of territory; WHEREAS, the District intends to file an application with LAFCO to detach approximately 16.85 acres from the City to the District; WHEREAS, the District is unique in Monterey County in that it has land use authority that allows it to solely determine what land uses are allowed on its property, as well as the height, density, and design of structures. The airport does not come under the land use permitting authority of the County or any city;
WHEREAS, the District will work with the city to resolve issues regarding the boundary and ownership of roads boarding and within the detachment area and to an appropriate setback from Highway 68 for all development in the detachment area; WHEREAS, the properties that are owned by the District and proposed for detachment from the City consist of the following:
2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot A APN 013-222-001-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot B APN 013-222-006-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot C APN 013-222-003-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot D APN 013-222-007-000 2801 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 Lot E APN 013-222-008-000 2825 Monterey Salinas Highway, Monterey CA 93940 APN 013-221-015-000 2475 Fred Kane Drive, Monterey, CA 93940 APN 013-221-008-000 Corner of Olmstead Road and Fred Kane Drive - No Address APN 013-321-009-000 WHEREAS, the District is requesting that the City sign a MOU demonstrating its commitment to this process, which will require participation from the City, the District, and the County. The detachment is ultimately approved or disapproved by LAFCO; WHEREAS, the City would lose business license tax revenue and possessory/property tax revenue. However, the District has agreed to fairly compensate the City for lost revenue, Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 51 2 and this amount still needs to be calculated. Early and rough estimates for business license taxes is approximately $17,000 per year, and the possessory/property tax for two parcels is estimated to be $7,500 per year. The City agrees to negotiate in good faith with the District and the County regarding compensation for the City’s lost revenue resulting from this process; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign the MOU in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 52 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Deny Appeal Application AP-23-0135 and Uphold Planning Commission Decision to Approve Sign Permit SI-23-0051 for Two Rotating Projecting Signs (Flags) and Four Wall Signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue; Appellant Christine Kerr; Property Owner Anna C Vermi Tr.; Planned Community – Lighthouse (PC-LH) Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15311, Class 11)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council deny the appeal and adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the sign permit application to allow two rotating projection signs and four wall signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Code section 38-211 states:

Authority of Appellate Body
Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council ...shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission.

The findings for the decision should be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Required findings for approval of Sign Permits are set forth in City Code section 31-7:

1. The proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of Chapter 31 of the City Code;

2. The proposal is consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or has been determined by the Architectural Review Committee to better achieve the purpose and objectives of this chapter than the strict application of said sign guidelines; and

3. The proposal is consistent with any other adopted land use document including, but not limited to, the Monterey general plan, area or neighborhood plans, design guidelines, or specific plans.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None
Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15311, Class 11 because the project proposes to install on-premise signs on an existing commercial building. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The signs would be placed on an existing structure in a developed land area and would not otherwise affect sensitive environmental areas.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The signs would not cause cumulative impacts because they would be installed at a developed site with an existing building.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The signs would not have a significant effect on the environment because there are no unusual circumstances at the site. The signs would not include any up-lighting. The signs would be installed on the façade of an existing building that is potentially historic. However, the installation method would not cause adverse impacts to the building and these changes to the building façade would be reversible.

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

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project site is not a hazardous waste site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project site does not contain historic structures. The site is developed with a commercial building and paved parking lot. According to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area; however, no ground Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55 disturbance is proposed as a part of the project. The subject building is potentially historic.

However, the signs’ installation method on the building façade would be reversible and will not cause adverse impacts to the building. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may elect to grant the appeal as requested by appellant or grant the appeal with modifications to the project.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The property located at 611 Lighthouse Avenue contains an existing building, the “Bulldog Pub,” with a parking lot located at the rear. The project site is zoned PC-LH (Planned Community – Lighthouse District) and has a Commercial General Plan land use designation. The applicants are proposing new signage, including six flags installed on the front of the structure facing Lighthouse Avenue, and retroactively seeking approval for four wall signs installed following completion of renovations in 2022. The building previously contained three tenants (see below image), but now only holds the Bulldog Pub as it expanded into the two adjacent commercial spaces. The building previously had three wall signs, two awning signs, two window signs, and two neon signs, for a total of nine signs at the building. 611 Lighthouse Avenue Building in 2019
The City received a complaint regarding flags installed at the property, specifically their height in relation to the sidewalk. The property was notified that the flags needed to be approved for installation, and a sign permit application (SI-23-0051) was subsequently filed on March 8, 2023, by applicant Ash Shoukry. The application included all signage at the site, including four wall signs and six installed flags.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 Proposed Wall Signage at 611 Lighthouse Avenue
Proposed Signage (with flags up) at 611 Lighthouse Avenue At a hearing on May 17, 2023, the Architectural Review Committee considered all the evidence and approved sign permit application SI-23-0051 with conditions to reduce the number of wall signs to two, to reduce the number of installed flags to two, and to raise the height of the flags.

The ARC adopted the following findings for denying additional signage:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 57

1. The reduction of wall signs to two and projecting flag signs to two would lessen sign proliferation and cumulative total signage area.

2. The reduction of the number of wall and projecting flag signs, in addition to the raised flag heights, would bring the overall signage into greater compliance with the Citywide Sign Standards.

Christine Kerr filed application AP-23-0110 appealing the Architectural Review Committee’s approval of sign permit application SI-23-0051 to the Planning Commission. Christine Kerr provided a written statement with the appeal stating that the proposed signage is important for identifying and supporting the business at 611 Lighthouse Avenue in addition to having neighbor support. The appellant’s written statement, which includes letters of support from neighbors, has been included as Attachment 2.

At a hearing on June 13, 2023, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and additional public testimony, considered all the evidence, and approved application SI-23-0051 with revised conditions. Ultimately, the conditions were revised to only reduce the number of installed flags from six to two and to raise the height of the flags; all four wall signs could remain as proposed.

As new information was provided to the Planning Commission that was not available to the Architectural Review Committee, specifically in the form of additional public testimony and applicant presentation, the Planning Commission expanded upon the City’s Citywide Sign Guidelines and a modification was deemed appropriate.

The appellant, Christine Kerr, filed application AP-23-0135 appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. The appellant maintains that the proposed signage is important for identifying and supporting the business at 611 Lighthouse Avenue and that neighborhood support for the signs remains high.

Project Description
The applicant is proposing six rotating projecting signs (flags) to be installed at the front of the structure facing Lighthouse Avenue, in addition to four wall signs recently installed. Each of the six flags are 3 feet by 5 feet (15 square feet), cumulatively totaling 90 square feet. The applicant proposed four wall signs of varying sizes, as detailed in the below table, totaling 72 square feet.

Combined, the projecting signs and wall signs would total 162 square feet.

Table 1: Summary of sign types and dimensions
Proposed Sign & Sign Type Sign Size
1 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
2 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
3 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
4 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
5 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
6 – Projecting sign, rotating flag 3 x 5 = 15 sf
Projecting Sign (flags) Subtotal 90 sf
7 – Wall Sign “Pub Grub” 3 x 8 = 24 sf
8 – Wall Sign “Bulldog Sports Pub” 2.2 x 7.4 = 16 sf
9 – Wall Sign “Ales and Stout” 3 x 10 = 30 sf
10 – Wall Sign “Bull Dog Sports Pub Est 2005” 2 x 1 = 2 sf Wall Sign Subtotal 72 sf
Signs Total 162 sf
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 58 The General Plan, Lighthouse Specific Plan, Sign Ordinance, and Citywide Sign Guidelines all provide standards and guidance for proposed signage in the City. The following chart details the project’s consistency with the Citywide Sign Guidelines:

Citywide Sign Guidelines Project Consistency
Illumination:

Indirect illumination and halo-lit signs
preferred
No illumination proposed.
1 square foot for each linear foot of building
frontage (PC-LH zoning district – Commercial)
Inconsistent.

Lighthouse Avenue frontage 50 feet
Total 162 feet
Maximum signage allowed: 50 sf
Proposed signage:
72 sf (wall signs) + 90 sf (flags) = 162 sf
Wall Signs Project Consistency
There should be no more than two wall signs
per storefront.

Inconsistent. Four wall signs are proposed,
which exceeds the maximum of two.

A wall sign should not exceed 50 square feet
in area.

Consistent. The maximum wall sign size
proposed is 30 square feet, which is less than
the allowed maximum of 50 square feet.

A wall sign should be located on the same
building face as the public entrance or along a
pedestrian walkway.

Consistent. The proposed wall signs would be
located on the same building face as the
entrance along Lighthouse Avenue.

Projecting Signs Project Consistency
There should be no more than one projecting
sign per storefront.

Inconsistent. There are six projecting signs
(flags) proposed, which exceeds the
maximum allowed of one.

A projecting sign should not exceed 6 square
feet in area.

Inconsistent. The proposed projecting signs
are each 15 square feet, which exceeds the
maximum allowance of 6 square feet in area.

A projecting sign should not be installed more
than 12 feet above grade.

Consistent. The projecting signs are proposed
to be installed approximately 8 feet above
grade.

When suspended over a public right-of-way,
the bottom of a projecting sign should
maintain a minimum clearance of 8 feet above
the walkway.

Inconsistent. The proposed projecting signs
hang down approximately 3.5 feet beneath the
installed wall mount of 8 feet.

Multiple projecting signs on the same or
contiguous properties should not be installed
within 10 feet of each other.

Inconsistent. Six projecting signs would be
located on a 50-foot wide building frontage.

The three projecting signs on the left side of
the frontage would be approximately ten feet
apart; however, the three projecting signs on
the right side of the frontage would be closer
together, spaced between existing window
façade architectural features.

Projecting signs should be located within 10
feet of the public entrance to the business for
Inconsistent. Two of the projecting signs
would be within 10 feet of the public entrance;
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 59 which the sign is associated. however, the other four would be located further away along the rest of the building
frontage.

Projecting signs on multi-tenant buildings
should contain identical hardware that
complements the architectural style of the
building.

Consistent. Only one tenant is in the building,
and all hardware is identical regardless.

Lighthouse Specific Plan Project Consistency
S.6.1 Vehicle-Oriented freestanding signs are
prohibited except where a primary building is
substantially set back, such as is common
with a service station.

Consistent. Not applicable.

S.6.2 Internally-illuminated signs are
prohibited.

Consistent. No signs are proposed to be
internally illuminated.

G.6.1 Sign area allowance should be in
accordance with the recommended sign area
maximums in Commercial zoning districts as
outlined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines.

Inconsistent. As described above, the
proposed signs exceed the maximum square
footage allowed by 112 square feet.

G.6.2 Exceptions will be granted for unusual
historic circumstances (for example, the New
Monterey Center sign). Proposed exceptions
will be reviewed by the ARC.

Consistent. The number of tenants in the
building was reduced from three (3) to one (1).

The proposed number of signs (10) is similar
to the number of signs which have historically
resided on the building (9).

Analysis
Monterey City Code (MCC) Sec. 38-211 states:

Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission. The City Council or Planning Commission shall transmit a copy of its decision to the applicant, appellant, and the body whose action is appealed within 30 days of hearing the matter.

The MCC Section 31-7 requires three findings for approval of Sign Permits.

Sign Permit Findings

1. The proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the Sign Ordinance.

Response: The signage proposal must be found to prevent a proliferation of signs, provide equity among sign owners, lessen cumulative total signage area and number, identify an entity, and convey a cohesive streetscape.

As approved by the Planning Commission, the total number of wall signs would be four, and rotating projecting signs would be two, for a total of six signs, which represents a reduction from Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 60 the ten signs being proposed. The subject building has historically featured architectural projections in the form of shade awnings which included multiple signs. The awnings were removed during a recent façade remodel and the signage was replaced with low profile wall signs which reduce the general visual impact of the building. While the proposed flags meet the technical definition of rotating projecting signs, they do not directly advertise the business nor detract from the cohesiveness of the streetscape. The wall signs serve to identify the business and its offerings, and the projecting signs (flags) serve to identify the type of establishment while also enhancing the visual appearance of the Planning Area, consistent with Objective O.6.3 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Similar flags are displayed above The Salty Dog Brewpub and Sports Bar located on Cannery Row, and above The Crown & Anchor located on West Franklin Street. Allowing the two flags in this location would maintain equity among other businesses in the City without contributing to sign clutter. As approved and conditioned by the Planning Commission, the four wall signs and two rotating projecting signs are appropriate and achieve the objectives of the Sign Ordinance.

2. The proposal is consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or has been determined by the Architectural Review Committee to better achieve the purpose and objectives of the Sign Ordinance than the strict application of said sign guidelines.

Response: Overall, the signs are inconsistent with the strict application of the Citywide Sign Guidelines; however, the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission have determined that the additional signage, as approved, is appropriate in this location.

As approved by the Planning Commission, the wall signs adequately identify the business and its offerings, while the projecting signs (flags) identify the type of establishment and enhance the visual appearance of the Planning Area, consistent with Objective O.6.3 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. While the total amount of signage exceeds the limitations prescribed by Chapter 31 of the Monterey City Code, the signage as approved by the Planning Commission achieves the purpose and objectives of the Sign Ordinance.

3. The proposal is consistent with any other adopted land use document including, but not limited to, the Monterey general plan, area or neighborhood plans, design guidelines, or specific plans.

Response: As approved by the Planning Commission, the proposed signs would be consistent with the Monterey General Plan and the Lighthouse Specific Plan in that they would not contribute to sign clutter and their display features would be similar to other commercial establishments in the City. The proposed signs are located on property that the Monterey General Plan designates as Commercial. Additionally, the approved signage meets the sign objectives of the Lighthouse Specific Plan in that the design and scale of the signage is integrated into the design fabric of the Planning Area and enhances the visual appearance of the streetscape.

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal. Denying the appeal would require the removal of four flags (allowing a total of two), and would require that the applicant move the flag Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 61 holders up to provide sidewalk clearance. This recommendation would be consistent with the Planning Commission decision.

In conclusion, 611 Lighthouse Avenue would not receive an excessive amount of signage, particularly in comparison to the previously-installed building signage. The City of Monterey’s Citywide Sign Guidelines are allowed to be expanded by Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and community support is present regarding the proposed signage – the full amount of originally-proposed signage would not be allowed by upholding the Planning Commission decision.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal.

MB
Attachments: 1. Resolution Denying Appeal Application AP 23-0135 with Exhibit A (Planning Commission Resolution P23-018)

2. Appellant Letter of Appeal with Supporting Letters
e: Christine Kerr, Appellant
Anna Vermi, Property Owner
New Monterey Neighborhood Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 62 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION AP-23-0135 AND UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION SI-23-0051 FOR TWO ROTATING PROJECTING SIGNS (FLAGS) AND FOUR WALL SIGNS AT 611

LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE
WHEREAS, Christine Kerr, appellant, appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to approve two rotating projecting signs (flags) and four wall signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue (Resolution P23-018 attached as Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Commercial in the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned PC-LH (Planned Community-Lighthouse District); WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing six rotating projection signs (flags) and four wall signs to be installed at the business located at 611 Lighthouse Avenue; WHEREAS, the project is subject to Architectural Review per City Code Chapter 31, Article 5;
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), at a properly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2023, considered all the evidence and approved application SI-23-0051 to approve signage at the property, with conditions to reduce the number of wall signs to two, to reduce the number of installed flags to two, and to raise the mounting height of the flags.

The ARC made findings that reducing the number of wall signs to two and projecting flag signs to two would lessen sign proliferation and cumulative total signage area, and reducing of the number of wall and projecting flag signs, in addition to the raised flag heights, would bring the overall signage into greater compliance with the Citywide Sign Standards; WHEREAS, Christine Kerr, appellant, filed an appeal application (AP-23-0110) to appeal the Architectural Review Committee’s decision of approval of SI-23-0051; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed hearing on June 13, 2023, heard the appeal and additional public testimony, considered all the evidence, and approved application SI-23-0051. The conditions were revised to only reduce the number of installed flags from six to two and to raise the height of the flags; all four wall signs could remain as proposed. As new information was provided to the Planning Commission that was not available to the Architectural Review Committee, specifically in the form of additional public testimony and applicant presentation, the Planning Commission expanded upon the City’s Citywide Sign Guidelines and a modification was deemed appropriate; WHEREAS, Christine Kerr, appellant, filed application AP-23-0135 appealing the Planning Commission’s decision of approval of SI-23-0051 to the City Council; Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 63 2 WHEREAS, the City Council, at a properly noticed public hearing on August 1, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 11 because the project proposes to install on-premise signs on an existing commercial building. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project site does not contain historic structures. The site is developed with a commercial building and paved parking lot. According to the General Plan Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 64 3 Environmental Impact Report, the site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area; however, no ground disturbance is proposed as a part of the project. The subject building is potentially historic. However, the signs’ installation method on the building façade would be reversible and will not cause adverse impacts to the building. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant; and WHEREAS, notice of this hearing was posted and published, and included the notice requirements set forth in Government Code section 65009(b)(2).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the forgoing recitals are true and correct and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

Sign Permit Findings in support of Denial of Appeal
Monterey City Code section 31-7(A)(1) requires that “…The proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of this chapter.”
As approved by the Planning Commission, the total number of wall signs would be four, and rotating projecting signs would be two, for a total of six signs, which represents a reduction from the ten signs being proposed. The subject building has historically featured architectural projections in the form of shade awnings which included multiple signs. The awnings were removed during a recent façade remodel and the signage was replaced with low profile wall signs which reduce the general visual impact of the building. While the proposed flags meet the technical definition of rotating projecting signs, they do not directly advertise the business nor detract from the cohesiveness of the streetscape. The wall signs serve to identify the business and its offerings, and the projecting signs (flags) serve to identify the type of establishment while also enhancing the visual appearance of the Planning Area, consistent with Objective O.6.3 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Similar flags are displayed above The Salty Dog Brewpub and Sports Bar located on Cannery Row, and above The Crown & Anchor located on West Franklin Street. Allowing the two flags in this location would maintain equity among other businesses in the City without contributing to sign clutter. As approved and conditioned by the Planning Commission, the four wall signs and two rotating projecting signs are appropriate and achieve the objectives of the Sign Ordinance.

Monterey City Code section 31-7(A)(2) requires that “… The proposal is consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or has been determined by the Architectural Review Committee to better achieve the purpose and objectives of this chapter than the strict application of said sign guidelines.”
Overall, the signs are inconsistent with the strict application of the Citywide Sign Guidelines; however, the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission have determined that the additional signage, as approved and conditioned, is appropriate in this location.

As approved by the Planning Commission, the wall signs adequately identify the business and its offerings while the projecting signs (flags) identify the type of establishment and enhance the visual appearance of the Planning Area, consistent with Objective O.6.3 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. While the total amount of signage exceeds the limitations Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 65 4 prescribed by Chapter 31 of the Monterey City Code, the signage as approved by the Planning Commission achieves the purpose and objectives of the Sign Ordinance.

Monterey City Code section 31-7(A)(3) requires that “… The proposal is consistent with any other adopted land use document including, but not limited to, the Monterey general plan, area or neighborhood plans, design guidelines, or specific plans.” As approved by the Planning Commission, the proposed signs would be consistent with the Monterey General Plan and the Lighthouse Specific Plan in that they would not contribute to sign clutter and their display features would be similar to other commercial establishments in the City. The proposed signs are located on property that the Monterey General Plan designates as Commercial. Additionally, the approved signage meets the sign objectives of the Lighthouse Specific Plan in that the design and scale of the signage is integrated into the design fabric of the Planning Area and enhances the visual appearance of the streetscape.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it considered this matter de novo, and based on the foregoing findings denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Sign Permit SI-23-0051 and associated conditions, and approves two rotating projecting sings (flags) and four wall signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue as provided in Resolution P23-018, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 1st day of August, 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 66 RESOLUTION NO. P23-018
Date: June 13, 2023
Item No: 4

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
№12/12
APPROVING APPEAL APPLICATION AP-23-0110 WITH NEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SIGN PERMIT SI-23-0051 TO APPROVE TWO ROTATING PROJECTING SIGNS (FLAGS) AND FOUR WALL SIGNS AT 611 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE WHEREAS, Christine Kerr, appellant, submitted an application to appeal the decision of the Architectural Review Committee to approve two rotating projecting signs (flags) and two wall signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue;
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned PC-LH;
WHEREAS, the subject property at 611 Lighthouse contains an existing building, the “Bulldog Pub”, with a parking lot located at the rear. The project site is zoned PC-LH (Planned Community – Lighthouse District) and has a Commercial General Plan land use designation.

The applicants are proposing new signage, including six flags installed on the front of the structure facing Lighthouse Avenue, and retroactively seeking approval for four wall signs installed following completion of renovations in 2022. The building previously contained three tenants (see below image), but now only holds the Bulldog Pub as it expanded into the two adjacent business spaces. The building previously had three wall signs, two awning signs, two window signs, and two neon signs, for a total of nine signs at the building; WHEREAS, the City received a complaint regarding flags installed at the property, specifically their height in relation to the sidewalk. The property was notified that the flags needed to be approved for installation, and an application (SI-23-0051) was subsequently filed on March 8, 2023, by applicant Ash Shoukry. The application included all signage at the site, including four wall signs and six installed flags;
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee, at a properly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2023, considered all the evidence and approved application SI-23-0051 to approve signage at the property, with conditions to reduce the number of wall signs to two, to reduce the number of installed flags to two, and to raise the height of the flags. The ARC adopted two findings for denying additional signage, including (1) reducing the number of wall signs to two and projecting flag signs to two would lessen sign proliferation and cumulative total signage area, and (2) reducing of the number of wall and projecting flag signs, in addition to the raised flag heights, would bring the overall signage into greater compliance with the Citywide Sign Standards;
WHEREAS, Christine Kerr, appellant, filed an appeal application (AP-23-0110) to appeal the Architectural Review Committee’s decision of approval of SI-23-0051.

WHEREAS, Monterey City Code (MCC) Sec. 38-211 states: Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission. The City Council or Planning DocuSign Envelope ID: 80C71060-A237-488F-A890-535ED31C8CB2 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 67 2 Commission shall transmit a copy of its decision to the applicant, appellant, and the body whose action is appealed within 30 days of hearing the matter; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on June 13, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, including new testimony not previously provided to the Architectural Review Committee; WHEREAS, notice is hereby given that decisions of the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the date of this action pursuant to Monterey City Code section 38-206; and,
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31 because the project proposes to install signs at an existing developed commercial site that contains a potentially historic building. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The signs would not have a significant effect on the environment because there are no unusual circumstances at the site. The signs would not include any up-lighting. The signs would be installed on the façade of a building that is potentially historic. However, the installation method would not cause adverse impacts to the building and these changes to the building façade would be reversible.

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 80C71060-A237-488F-A890-535ED31C8CB2 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 68 3 of the Government Code. The project site is not a hazardous waste site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project site does not contain historic structures. The site is developed with a commercial building and paved parking lot. According to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area; however, no ground disturbance is proposed as a part of the project. The subject building is potentially historic.

However, the signs’ installation method on the building façade would be reversible and not cause adverse impacts to the building. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves Appeal Application AP-22-0012 with new conditions of approval for Sign Permit-23-0051 to approve two rotating projecting sings (flags) and four wall signs at 611 Lighthouse Avenue subject to the following findings and conditions:

FINDINGS:

1. Monterey City Code (MCC) Sec. 38-211 states: Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission. The City Council or Planning Commission shall transmit a copy of its decision to the applicant, appellant, and the body whose action is appealed within 30 days of hearing the matter.

2. The Architectural Review Committee may expand upon the City’s Citywide Sign Guidelines, and may deny signage that is outside the scope of the guidelines. As new information was provided to the Planning Commission that was not available to the Architectural Review Committee, specifically in the form of additional public testimony and applicant presentation, and the Planning Commission may expand upon the City’s Citywide Sign Guidelines, a modification to the conditions as issued under Resolution No.

A23-016 is deemed appropriate.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

Repeal Special Conditions of Approval “1”, “2”, and “3” as issued under Resolution No. A23- 016 and replace with the following:

1. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit building plans that show that only two projecting signs (flags) are proposed (maximum size of 15 square feet each), and clearance from the bottom of the hanging flag to the sidewalk is no less than 8 feet.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Bluth, Freeman, Brassfield, Latasa, Silva DocuSign Envelope ID: 80C71060-A237-488F-A890-535ED31C8CB2 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 69 4 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Fletcher
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Planning Commission Chair
Project Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 80C71060-A237-488F-A890-535ED31C8CB2 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 70 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 71 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 72 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 20, Packet Page 73 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 21, Packet Page 74 Public comment for Item #4 @ June 13 meeting
Lawton Dodd
Mon 6/12/2023 4:03 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Dear Commissioners:

With regard to item #4 on June 13ths planning commission agenda, I respectfully ask that you approve the appeal for additional signage and flags at the Bulldog Sports Pub on Lighthouse Avenue.

While the staff report recommends that the PC uphold the Architectural Review Board's denial of the additional signage and flags, the ARB's recommendation does not consider the practical impact of its recommendation.

The pub proprietor has spent considerable time and money renovating a previously downtrodden expanse into a lively and attractive business for the Lighthouse business corridor ( and did this work during the peak of the pandemic! ). The additional signs are neither obtrusive nor gaudy; the flags add spark to the facade and do nothing to impede pedestrian traffic on what is a very wide sidewalk; in fact the additional flags and signs can only bolster traffic by their presence. Furthermore, forcing the existing flags to be raised will reduce the potential positive impact they have in drawing business to not only the Bulldog but to surrounding businesses.

I urge you to please reconsider what - from a practical standpoint - can only be viewed as a capricious and unnecessary recommendation from the ARB. As the staff report indicates, the additional flags and signs carry no environmental impact; there is no hazardous waste impact and any "historical impact" by changing the building's facade is... contrived ( the staff report even indicates that any "historical impact" is - at most - minimal). It is clear from the "before and after" pictures that the facade of these buildings is far more attractive - and frankly bolsters the legacy of Monterey's architectural history - only because of the changes already made by proprietor Kerr.

Finally, I respectfully submit that in the current business climate - in the wake of so many failing businesses following the pandemic - that the planning commission might consider that helping this particular business - the newly expanded Bulldog Sports Pub - along with other businesses can only help Monterey overall by generating additional sales tax revenue for the city and building a stronger foundation for all businesses to succeed in Monterey.

It is with these points in mind that I respectfully urge the Planning Commission grant proprietor Kerr's appeal. Please note that I submit this public comment with no connection to the owner / managers of the Bulldog other than being an interested Monterey resident and business person.

Kind regards,
Lawton J Dodd
Monterey
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 22, Packet Page 75 Bulldog sports Pub
Liane Peek
Mon 6/12/2023 2:34 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
To whom it may concern,
I am in support of the flags in front of the Bulldog Sports Pub at 611 Lighthouse ave.

Thank you
Liane Ducote
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 23, Packet Page 76 Bulldog Flags
Matthew Siracuse
Mon 6/12/2023 2:33 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
I support Bulldog getting the flags back for the front of restaurant. Thank you [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 24, Packet Page 77 Bulldog Sports pub.

Susan Ellis
Mon 6/12/2023 3:51 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Good afternoon,
I am writing to show my support for the flags that are flown at The Bulldog Sports Pub. 611 Lighthouse Avenue.

As a longtime resident of Monterey, I enjoy seeing the flags flying of the different sports teams outside the bar. It's great to see what teams are the main event for the day. It makes the pub look welcoming to all and friendly. It really adds to the atmosphere.

Thank you for taking my opinion into account.

Susan Olney
Sent from Outlook for iOS
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 25, Packet Page 78 Bulldog sports pub
Aaron Erwin
Tue 6/13/2023 1:16 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hi, my name is Aaron Erwin and I am a bartender at the Bulldog Sports Bar. I am writing this email in support of our flags and our signs. As I am sure you are aware, Monterey is a tourist destination. The Lighthouse district does not have as much foot traffic as Cannery Row, so signage is much more important for us. I have received nothing but positive feedback about our flags. I can’t tell you how many people have told me “We had no idea you were here until we saw the flags”. Our locals love the flags as well. Sometimes they will ask me to put up a certain flag to support their team. If we don’t have their flag we encourage them to bring their own and we will fly it for them. I think it creates a sense of community for all of our customers. I have noticed a significant drop in business since we were told to take them down. You did allow us to put two flags back up but at a height of 11.5 feet to the bottom of the flag pole. When I asked some of the regulars if they noticed that we had two flags back, they all said that they didn’t really notice them. I feel that is because they are to high and the wind gets ahold of them and wraps them around the pole. Unwrapping of changing the flags has now turned into a dangerous task. I recently had to jump off of a ladder that was tipping over because the only way to change a flag is for me to stand on the top of a ladder to reach. At one point we put up neon signs in the windows to draw attention to our establishment but we were told that we couldn’t do that either. Even though there are other businesses on Lighthouse that have them in their windows.

When considering this matter I would ask that you please keep in mind that the success of the Bulldog is not only good for the business and it’s employees, it is good for the Lighthouse District and the city of Monterey. Thank you for your time.

Aaron erwin
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 26, Packet Page 79 Flags at British Bulldog Pub
Faye Collins-Hill
Tue 6/13/2023 1:43 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important Dear Commissioner Board Members,
This letter is to show support for the owner of the Bulldog British Pub. We know her personally, and we know she has worked very hard to do everything that has been asked of her when remodeling and reopening her business. She has done everything to refurbish a building that has been standing for many years, and to make it safe and attractive for her customers.

For the board to state that she may not have flags as embellishments for her business makes no sense whatsoever. The flags are attractive and are not impeding pedestrians as they walk past nor are they distracting for drivers going by. As we drove through Monterey, we saw many businesses that also display flags. It's a sports bar, and she tries to make it a fun place to stop in as people cheer on their favorite teams. Monterey depends on tourists to contribute to the local economy, and people like Christine help to make that happen by creating spaces for them to come in, relax, dine, and enjoy the entertainment this pub has to offer.

We sincerely hope that you will support her on this issue.

Thank you for your attention on this matter,
Cortez and Faye Hill
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 27, Packet Page 80 Approve two Rotating Projecting signs
Hannah Alexa
Tue 6/13/2023 1:40 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important Hello,
My name is Hannah Shatsman,
I'd love for you to consider approving the two-wall banners and Flags for appellant Christine Kerr, at 611 Lighthouse Avenue; AP-230110.

Signs and flags are necessary for us as consumers for visibility. I strongly support the idea of having banners and flags because they invite people to come in. It is also a beauty for our town. As a Monterey Bay resident, I believe it's good for our economy when business are doing well. I strongly support our business and our economy. We depend on them too.

Please consider keeping the signs and the flags at Christine's business for our own enjoyment as consumers.

Thank you in advance,
Hannah
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 28, Packet Page 81 British Bulldog
Marty Dunn
Tue 6/13/2023 1:33 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing in support of the British Bulldog Pub, asking that you allow their flags to keep flying.

These banners are lively and colorful additions to the area around the pub on Lighthouse; in fact, they make things look much more inviting than they would otherwise. This is good for their business and also good for their neighbors’ businesses, a nice boost for the retail world as it is still trying to come back from the COVID shutdowns.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Martha Dunn
Pacific Grove
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 29, Packet Page 82 The Bulldog Sports Pub
Rylan Utegaard
Tue 6/13/2023 12:07 PM
To:Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why thi i important To whom it may concern,
I'm a resident near 611 Lighthouse Ave. I reside at in Monterey. I support the the use of signs and flags in order to promote commerce to The Bulldog Sports Pub.

Regards
Rylan Utegaard
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 10., Item Page 30, Packet Page 83 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of a Proposed Ordinance, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers (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 on a proposed ordinance, including findings demonstrating need, to increase compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers. This is the first step in a three-step process to increase City Council compensation. After this presentation, there will be a first reading of the ordinance, and thereafter a second reading, for it to be adopted.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

According to California State Senator Bill Dodd, D-Napa, the author of SB 329:

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest jobs in California government.

They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all too often, they do this job with very little financial compensation. No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.

This bill was supported by the League of California Cities because:

Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 84 can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost to increase compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers would be $34,650 per year. For the 2023-24 fiscal year, the amount would be $17,325, as the increase would go into effect on January 1, 2024.

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Ultimately, the City Council could choose not to increase City Council compensation, or it could increase compensation by a lesser amount than the amount proposed in the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

On June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for city councilmember pay to increase in general law cities. The Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984.

Effective January 1, 2024, the Government Code authorizes up to $950 per month based on Monterey's population. This new law applies to the City of Monterey because City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor.

City Councilmembers are currently paid $429 (effective 1999) and the Mayor $675 (effective 2002). Under the new law, Councilmember salary may be increased beyond $950 per month if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Here, the first formula results in a maximum monthly amount of $965.25 ($429 x 5% x 25; $429 + $536.25 = $965.25) for City Councilmembers. For the Mayor, this formula would result in a maximum salary of $1,417.50 ($675 x 5% x 22; $675 + $742.50 = $1,417.50).

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 85 Amounts paid for retirement, health, and other benefits are not included for purposes of determining salary, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees.

If approved, the increase in compensation would be effective January 1, 2024.

Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 86 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
ADDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2-1.06 TO THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO

INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, because City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor;
WHEREAS, City Councilmembers are currently paid $429 (effective 1999) and the Mayor $675 (effective 2002);
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for city councilmember pay to increase in general law cities. The Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984. Effective January 1, 2024, the Government Code authorizes up to $950 per month based on Monterey's population.

WHEREAS, under the new law, Councilmember salary may be increased beyond $950 per month if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on CPI.

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the author of SB 329, Senator Bill Dodd-DNapa, that:

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest jobs in California government.

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the League of California Cities, which supported SB 329 for the following reasons:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 87 2 Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.

WHEREAS, by the time this ordinance will be effective, City Councilmember compensation will not have been increased for 25 years, and the Mayor’s compensation for 22 years. The cost of living in the City of Monterey is extremely high. The City Council has received public comment urging an increase in compensation to encourage others to run for public office.

In August 2022, an editorial in the Monterey County Weekly urged increasing compensation for city elected officials;
WHEREAS, this ordinance was presented to the City Council with findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation on August 1, 2023 consistent with the requirement set forth in Government Code section 36516(g)(2); WHEREAS, a first reading of the ordinance was held on August 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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 2, Article 1, Section 2-1.06 is hereby added to read as follows:
2-1.06 Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2024, Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers shall be as follows:
(a) Compensation for the Mayor is hereby established in the sum of $1,417.50 per month.
(b) Compensation for City Councilmembers is hereby established in the sum of Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 88 $965.25 per month.
(c) The compensation set forth in subsections (a) and (b) is exclusive of any amounts paid by the city for retirement and health benefits, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. (d) This ordinance does not and shall not provide for automatic future increases in compensation.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed effective January 1, 2024.

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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 89 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Explore Collaborative Opportunities to Enhance Water Supplies for Affordable Housing with the Marina Coast Water District (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council discuss collaborative opportunities with the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) on how to enhance water supplies for affordable housing.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to discuss creative solutions to securing additional water supply for affordable housing in the region. Although MCWD’s existing service area in the City of Monterey is limited to the former Fort Ord military reservation, there may be additional opportunities for the City to partner with MCWD to procure and receive water for other areas in Monterey, with a focus on affordable housing projects.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no immediate fiscal implications associated with this discussion item.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 8/1/2023
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 90 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to discuss this item.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey, like other communities within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s boundaries, has been hamstrung by a lack of water supply due to a system of water credits, and decades-old restrictions on water. In 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s Division of Water Rights issued a Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO) requiring the region’s private water system operator, California American Water (Cal Am), to reduce water diversions by 69 percent. These efforts were intended to reduce diversions of water from the Carmel River and the Seaside Groundwater Basin.

Fast-forward to today and the City of Monterey must plan for 3,654 additional housing units to comply with the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s required Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City estimates needing between 367 to 406 acre-feet of water to meet the regionally and State-required RHNA.

Preliminary conversations with MCWD indicate that there are potential opportunities to acquire water from MCWD’s existing and future water supply to support affordable housing goals as well as modest economic development. The following options define a range of opportunities for future collaboration:
 Water Purchase from MCWD
o This would require a MCWD wheeling agreement with Cal Am to transfer MCWD water to MCWD meters at the point of delivery.
o Water purchase for former Fort Ord properties to increase existing water allocations.
o Using MCWD’s abilities to acquire water from other sources (e.g., excess water from other water districts and or Land Use Jurisdictions)  Reactivation of an Existing MCWD-Owned Desalination Facility o There is a current opportunity to acquire up to 150 acre-feet of water from the Reservation Road Desalination Facility for the City of Monterey Staff requests input from the City Council in order to continue a discussion with MCWD.

Attachments: 1. City of Monterey, March 17, 2022 Letter to SWRCB Cc: Marina Coast Water District
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
California American Water
Monterey One Water
LandWatch 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, 8/1/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 91 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 92 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 93 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Regular Meeting, 8/1/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 94

Monterey City CouncilAugust 1, 2023

Monterey City Council
August 1, 2023