Monterey City Council
March 5, 2024

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 5, 2024
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Afternoon Session Only
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).

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. Items pulled from the consent agenda – 15 minutes each item b. Public Appearance items – 30 minutes each item
c. Public Hearing items – 30 minutes each item
d. Closed session items – 15 minutes each item
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is 3/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
2 required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize March 2024 as Women’s History Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Receive a Presentation from Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) on the MST TransitOriented Development Planning Study (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

3. Receive a Presentation from the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust on its Five-Year Strategic Plan (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

Ordinances
An ordinance is a law adopted by the City Council and codified in the City Code. Through the adoption of an ordinance, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other laws not in conflict with state or federal law. An ordinance generally becomes effective 30 days after approval at a second reading.

4. First Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Recodify and Amend the City Code to Name the Old Monterey Business Association as the Official Advisory Board to the City for the Monterey Downtown Promotion District (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.
3/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
3 5. Authorize Agreement with Monterey Bay Office Products Inc. in the Amount of $417,554 for Purchase of Multi-function Printer Copiers, Supplies, Services, and Maintenance (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Authorize an Appropriation from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance in the Amount of $184,407.45 to the Miscellaneous Building Repairs Project and Award a Professional Services Agreement in the Amount of $184,407.45 to Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC for Facilities Condition Assessments (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) ***CIP***

7. Amend Resolution 23-067 Authorizing Changes to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in the General Fund and Other Funds, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Reserve, and Update the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Award Five Professional Services Agreements for On-Call Civil Engineering Services Each with a Not-To-Exceed Limit of $500,000.00, for Projects with the City of Monterey to: (1) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; (2) BKF Engineers; (3) Whitson & Associates, Inc.; (4) Harris & Associates, Inc.; and (5) Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Continued from February 6, 2024, Recommended to be Continued to March 19, 2024
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

ADJOURNMENT
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. Members of the public who submit written public comment on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $250 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:
3/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
4 Voicemail: (831) 646-3799 Email: [email protected] Website: 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: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Mark Ackermann, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Recognize March 2024 as Women’s History Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize March 2024 as Women’s History Month.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates Women’s History Month in honor of the historical contributions and accomplishments of women in Monterey and across the United States.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs incurred in connection with supporting this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose to not recognize March 2024 as Women’s History Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

In 1981, Congress officially requested that the President proclaim the week beginning March 7, 1982 as “Women’s History Week.” This action began a trend that would continue for the next five (5) years until 1987 when the National Women’s History Project successfully lobbied Congress to designate the month of March 1987 as “Women’s History Month.” Congress continued this action through 1994. Since then, presidents have issued a series of annual proclamations designating the month of March as “Women’s History Month” and celebrating the contributions women have made to the United States, as well as recognizing their achievements across many fields throughout American history.

Women have been an integral part of the fabric of the Monterey region for thousands of years dating back to the native Rumsen, Esselen, and Salinan peoples to the Sicilian women who made up a third of cannery workers in the 1930s and 1940s and to today where many local business, non-profit, and political leaders are women. The influence of women in history, art, and culture is evident throughout the City of Monterey.

In celebration of Women’s History Month 2024, the City of Monterey is proud to recognize the following women for their contributions to Monterey, the state of California, and the United States:
 Jacinta Gonzales: In 1879, at age 56, she nursed Robert Louis Stevenson back to health with herbal remedies. Stevenson remained grateful to Jacinta for the rest of his life.  Tina Nieto: On December 30, 2022, she was sworn in as the first Latina Sheriff in the history of the State of California.
 Dianne Feinstein: In 1992, she was sworn in as the first female senator from the state of California. She would go on to also become the longest-serving senator from California and the longest-tenured female senator in history.

The City of Monterey is proud to recognize and celebrate Women’s History Month. In addition, the City is proud for its representation of women leaders on its executive management team.

Six out of the City’s eleven executive team members are women: the City Attorney, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Human Resources Director, Parks and Recreation Director, and Public Works Director.

In the face of great adversity, women have made and continue to make a positive, indelible mark on the history of Monterey and the United States. The City also acknowledges that while progress has been made, there is work left to be done. As Senator Dianne Feinstein once said, “Women have begun to see that if I go through that doorway, I take everybody through it.” Attachments: 1. Proclamation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation declaring
March 2024
Women’s History Month
WHEREAS, in 1981, Congress officially requested that the President proclaim the week beginning March 7, 1982 as “Women’s History Week” and this action began a trend that would continue for the next five years; and,
WHEREAS, the National Women’s History Project successfully lobbied Congress to designate the month of March 1987 as “Women’s History Month.” In his proclamation celebrating this moment, President Ronald Reagan stated, “From earliest times, women have helped shape our Nation. Historians today stress all that women have meant to our national life, but the rest of us too should remember, with pride and gratitude, the achievements of women throughout American history.”; and WHEREAS, the month of March was chosen for its inclusion of International Women’s Day on March 8.

This day originally began as National Woman’s Day in the United States in 1909 but was later moved to March and designated International Women’s Day by the United Nations in 1977; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates the achievements of generations of women who have been an integral part of the fabric of the Monterey region for thousands of years dating back to the native Rumsen, Esselen, and Salinan peoples to the Sicilian women who made up a third of cannery workers in the 1930s and 1940s and to the present day where many local business, non-profit, and political leaders are women; and,
WHEREAS, the first female Senator from the State of California, Dianne Feinstein once said, “America is still the land of opportunity, and hard work is still a pathway to success”; and, WHEREAS, as a community, we celebrate Women’s History Month and recognize the incredible achievements of women throughout Monterey, the state of California, and all across the United States; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of March 2024 as Women’s History Month.

Dated: March 2024 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation from Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) on the MST Transit-Oriented Development Planning Study (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from the Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) on the MST Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Study.

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:

As a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District, it is important for the City to remain up to date on the programs and services provided by the agency.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

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.

Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to accept the presentation, or to request additional information from City or Monterey-Salinas Transit staff.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey has been a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) District since its original inception in 2010, superseding the Monterey Peninsula Transit Joint Powers Agency originally formed in 1972. The Transit District covers the Cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, Soledad, and the County of Monterey. The City of Monterey is a voting member of the MST Board of Directors and partners with MST to run the free MST Trolley from May through September, funded primarily by the City of Monterey.

Monterey-Salinas Transit is presenting the findings of its Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Study. This study was funded through a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant and assesses TOD potential and benefits to transit in five study areas along the 20-mile long SURF! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor between Monterey and Salinas. Within each of the study areas, the plan recommended a series of policies and projects related to TOD best practices, land use guidelines, viable development sites, supportive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, and first/last-mile pedestrian and bicycle connections to improve access to transit along the corridor. The study assessed how these TOD policies and transportation improvements would benefit SURF! ridership and developed cost estimates and implementation recommendations.

On May 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 21-040 (attached) and sent a letter in support of the SURF! BRT.

The City continues to work with and support MST in their efforts to improve and enhance transit service in the Monterey Region.

Attachment: 1. Resolution 21-040, Authorizing a Letter of Support for Monterey-Salinas Transit’s Proposed SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project

2. MST Transit-Oriented Development Study
KC/lh
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 21-040 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AUTHORIZING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT’S PROPOSED SURF! BUSWAY AND BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Council is committed to supporting plans that create an environment where people can use alternative modes of transportation to move through the community. The proposed SURF! Project would lessen people’s reliance on cars to travel to the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project is part of a larger effort to build a modern, regional, mobility network for the Monterey Peninsula and beyond. The proposed SURF! line is a 6-mile bus-only corridor from Marina to Sand City and Seaside along a publicly owned corridor parallel to Highway 1;
WHEREAS, SURF! will complement Monterey-Salinas Transit’s first bus rapid transit project, the Jazz line, which includes themed bus stops, real-time next bus electronic signs, and frequent service connecting people living or working in Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, and Monterey to downtown and New Monterey businesses, shopping, and education. The SURF! project will also expand the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail system for walkers, wheelers, runners, and recreationalists; 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C78AD93-7016-40A0-A7FE-538F9E92C38E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 2 change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes a letter of support for Monterey-Salinas Transit’s proposed SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, attached as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 4 th
day of May, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C78AD93-7016-40A0-A7FE-538F9E92C38E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 May 5, 2021
MST Board of Directors
19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: Support for SURF! Busway and BRT Project
Dear MST Directors:

The City of Monterey is in support of Monterey-Salinas Transit District’s (MST) proposed SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project. This is a key regional investment and an efficient and reliable alternative to the severe congestion along the heavily travelled roadway on Highway 1 between Marina and Seaside. This corridor provides critical access to education, employment, healthcare, housing, and recreational opportunities for residents, visitors, and others in the community who rely on MST’s service.

The SURF! Project will not only provide essential bus service in the region, connecting people and communities, it will reduce traffic and commute times along Highway 1, resulting in decreased air and noise pollution. Additional bicycle trail connections and improvements to the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail are also benefits not to be ignored.

Funding for the project is provided by voter approved Measure X dollars. In 2016, Monterey County voters approved Measure X which identified up to $15 million in funding for the Highway 1 Traffic Relief – Busway project, since rebranded as the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project. Measure X funds will be used to match other State and Federal busway and transit funding programs for which the project may qualify.

This is an exciting opportunity for the region. The SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project offers the community a fast, reliable, environmentally responsible alternative to commuting along Highway 1 today, while paving the way for future phases of rapid transit service along the US 101 corridor, connecting the Salinas Valley to the Central Coast. It brings Monterey County one step closer to making the use of private automobiles a choice, and not a necessity.

We at the City of Monterey enthusiastically support MST’s SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project and we look forward to working together to drive this project forward.

Sincerely,
Mayor Clyde Roberson,
On behalf of the Monterey City Council

EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C78AD93-7016-40A0-A7FE-538F9E92C38E ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 Implementation Strategy Report 1
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................7

1.1. Background ......................................................................................................................7

1.2. Community Engagement ..................................................................................................7

1.2.1. Online Survey ............................................................................................................7

1.2.2. Focus Group ..............................................................................................................8

1.2.3. One-On-One Interviews .............................................................................................8

1.2.4. Public Pop-Up Events ................................................................................................8

1.2.5. Key Findings ..............................................................................................................9

1.3. Implementation Strategy.................................................................................................10

1.3.1. Objectives of the Implementation Strategy ...............................................................10

1.3.2. Exclusions of the Implementation Strategy...............................................................11

2. Transit-Oriented Development and Land Use Analysis ......................................................12

2.1. Transit-Oriented Development Best Practices ................................................................12

2.1.1. Policy .......................................................................................................................15

2.1.2. Design Standards.....................................................................................................17

2.1.3. Parking Management Approaches ...........................................................................19

2.2. TOD Opportunities and Land Use Recommendations ....................................................22

2.2.1. Transit-Oriented Development Place Types .............................................................22

2.2.2. Opportunity Zones....................................................................................................24

2.2.3. Classification of Opportunity Zones..........................................................................30

2.3. Legislative Update ..........................................................................................................31

3. Transportation Analysis......................................................................................................39

3.1. Transportation Toolkit and Best Practices.......................................................................39

3.1.1. First/Last-Mile Connections......................................................................................39

3.1.2. Mobility Hubs ...........................................................................................................39

3.1.3. Safety Enhancements ..............................................................................................41

3.2. Transportation Infrastructure Improvements ...................................................................43

3.2.1. Bus Stops.................................................................................................................43

3.2.2. Signalized Intersections ...........................................................................................46

3.2.3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network...............................................................................47

3.2.4. Cost Estimate Summary...........................................................................................50 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 Implementation Strategy Report 2

3.3. Transportation Demand Management ............................................................................50

4. Transit-Oriented Development Benefits Analysis ...............................................................60

4.1. Development Scenarios..................................................................................................60

4.2. Population Forecasts......................................................................................................61

4.3. Ridership Forecasts........................................................................................................63

4.4. VMT Benefits..................................................................................................................64

5. Implementation ..................................................................................................................66

5.1. Implementation Plan.......................................................................................................66

5.1. Funding ..........................................................................................................................71

5.1.1. Local Funding Sources.............................................................................................71

5.1.2. State Funding Sources.............................................................................................72

5.1.3. Federal Funding Sources .........................................................................................76

5.1.4. Non-Traditional Funding Sources.............................................................................79

5.2. Short-Term Next Steps...................................................................................................81 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 Implementation Strategy Report 3
Executive Summary
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) is developing a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Study (“TOD study”) to enhance the viability of TOD and increase the ridership potential in study areas surrounding key station areas along the planned SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. The SURF! Project is proposing to construct a 19.5-mile BRT between Monterey and Salinas, which includes a six-mile dedicated busway on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s (TAMC’s) Monterey Branch Line rail corridor between Sand City and Marina.

MST has received full funding for the SURF! BRT project from the Federal Transit Agency (FTA), California State Transportation Agency (Cal STA), TAMC, and other funding partners.

TOD is a planning and development strategy that advocates for compact mixed-use communities located near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services. TOD typically consists of dense development featuring a mix of land uses located around a major transit station, accompanied by a strong surrounding “first/last-mile” transportation network serving a wide range of travel options. This TOD “ecosystem” provides seamless and convenient access between a variety of travel options and destinations for many users.

The TOD study has completed a Background Conditions Report (Kimley-Horn, April 2023), which assessed various elements along the SURF! corridor such as existing land uses, demographics and travel characteristics, future growth potential, transportation policies and projects, and opportunities and constraints for TOD and supportive transportation projects.

Several community engagement efforts have been implemented throughout the TOD study to receive input from residents and stakeholders, including online surveys, focus groups, and community “pop-up” events.

This Implementation Strategy builds on the findings of the Background Conditions Report and community engagement to develop actionable TOD “best practices” and transportation infrastructure improvements that support safe and convenient “first and last-mile” access to MST’s SURF! and other key transit routes. These TOD and supportive first/last mile access improvements will help increase transit ridership by shifting riders from their cars, improve MST’s financial performance, provide affordable housing opportunities near transit, reduce congestion, improve air quality, and enhance local placemaking.

The TOD and transportation improvements recommended in this study are not part of the SURF! project, which will begin construction in 2024. These land use and transportation recommendations serve as guidance for MST, TAMC, and the cities along the corridor to consider as future development occurs and will help enhance the regional coordination of land use and transit planning efforts in Monterey County.

The TOD study focuses on five study areas along the SURF! corridor in Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, Marina, and Salinas. Each study area is approximately 0.5 to 1.0-mile around the SURF! alignment and major bus stops along the corridor. Across the five study areas, 18 opportunity zones were identified using a review of various land use datasets and findings from the Background Report. For each opportunity zone, one of three TOD “place types” was recommended, which includes varying guidance on development density, building massing, setbacks, parking, block length, and land uses. These place types help to assess the development potential within each zone.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16 Implementation Strategy Report 4
These TOD place types are presented only to show the development potential and the estimated increase in transit ridership. Local jurisdictions retain the authority of setting land use and zoning regulations and the approval of projects.

Figure 1 shows the proposed TOD place type for each opportunity zone within the five study areas: Monterey/Seaside, Sand City/Seaside, California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB), Marina, and Salinas.

Figure 1: TOD Recommendations
The California Legislature has enacted a significant volume of housing laws to boost housing production, especially affordable housing near transit. The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) role in adopting Housing Element’s for each jurisdiction is placing renewed emphasis on housing production. This TOD study identifies a number of policies and presents how various high-density TOD scenarios can increase population near SURF! and other MST routes, which can lead to higher ridership and more sustainable transportation outcomes.

The analysis of these 18 opportunity zones indicates that TOD induced population growth is expected to be between 9% and 47% within the opportunity zones, and transit trips are expected to increase between 11% and 52% more than previous SURF! forecasts. Moreover, compared to ridership forecasted in the SURF! FTA CIG application, TOD-induced transit trips reflect an additional increase in transit ridership between 4% and 18%. TOD and the increase in transit ridership is expected to reduce VMT by 5% to 24% over and above the benefits estimated for the SURF! project.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 17 Implementation Strategy Report 5
In addition to identifying potential areas for TOD redevelopment, transportation infrastructure improvements along the SURF! corridor were also identified with the aim of improving safety and user experience. This assessment resulted in a suite of recommendations to improve bus stops, signalize intersections, and upgrade pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. These improvements can be considered and implemented when land use development occurs.

The proposed transportation improvements include upgrading bus stops within the study areas to incorporate basic infrastructure such as shelters, seating, and signage. Real time information and bicycle facilities could also be provided at some locations based on utility availability and other factors. The study’s analysis indicates that many bus stops have sufficient ridership and/or space to allow for enhanced improvements.

Additionally, it is proposed that a suite of mobility hub improvements be implemented at or in the vicinity of the four existing transit centers including MST’s Sand City Station, Palm Avenue Station, Marina Transit Exchange, and Salinas Transit Center. Mobility hub improvements include enhanced amenities such as bicycle parking, space for passenger loading and pickup/drop-off, and could include features such as mobile food vending. The 5th Street Station at the mid-point of the SURF! busway already has planned mobility hub features.

MST is responsible for implementing the planned SURF! BRT stations and other supportive infrastructure within its right-of-way (ROW) and defined in its FTA application. It is proposed that MST work with the cities of Salinas, Marina, Sand City, Seaside and Monterey as well as other key stakeholders to coordinate and implement these transit supportive improvements, which require collaboration with developers and owners of adjacent land uses.

This study also identifies improvements at over 20 intersections along the SURF! BRT corridor and on adjacent and intersecting streets. These improvements include implementing high visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, bulb outs to reduce crossing distances, bike lanes, signal improvements, and other pedestrian and bicycle enhancements. Cities are encouraged to prioritize these intersection improvements to improve, access to the SURF! BRT but also improve local connectivity and safety. These intersection locations are identified in Section 3.

A summary of the recommended transportation improvements and the range of cost estimates is provided in Table 1. These estimates represent high-level planning costs for purposes of understanding the order-of-magnitude and for starting discussions with cities and developers.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 18 Implementation Strategy Report 6
Table 1: Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations
Type of Improvement Quantity Unit Cost* Total Cost*
(2023$)
Basic Bus Stops 7 $130,000 $910,000
Enhanced Bus Stops 23 $260,000 $5,980,000
Major Intersection
Improvements
15 $980,000 –
$1,100,000
$14,940,000
Minor Intersection
Improvements
7 $430,000 $3,010,000
Bike Lanes 1.1 miles $1,200,000
Cycle Track 2,500 ft $170,000
*Costs exclude land acquisitions as well as professional services costs which could amount to 45% of hard costs for engineering and design, project management for design and construction, and construction administration and management
Additional transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to enhance accessibility, improve mobility choices, and foster more sustainable modes of transportation are also summarized along with methods for implementation.

The recommended TOD policies and transportation projects align with Local, State, and Federal priorities to advance equity, increase safety, and reduce emissions. Cities can coordinate with MST and TAMC on grant applications to implement these improvements within their jurisdictions. A summary of the grants available to potentially fund the recommendations made in this Implementation Strategy are provided in Section 5.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 19 Implementation Strategy Report 7

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
The SURF! Busway and BRT project will travel a 19.5-mile corridor connecting the cities of Salinas, Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and Monterey and will include a six-mile busway segment on an inactive rail line owned by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) between Sand City and Marina. Operating on weekdays with 15-minute service frequencies and 30-minute frequencies on weekends, the BRT service is expected to significantly enhance transportation accessibility in the region. To complement the SURF! BRT, MST is conducting this TOD study to increase the ridership potential in five study areas surrounding key stations along the planned SURF! corridor, contribute to regional mode shift from autos to transit, improve MST’s financial sustainability, provide affordable housing opportunities near transit, reduce local and regional congestion, reduce vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), improve air quality, and enhance local placemaking. MST, TAMC, and the cities may use this guidance to support ongoing land use and transit planning efforts and enhance regional coordination.

In April 2020, MST’s SURF! BRT and Busway project was accepted into FTA’s Small Starts Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development program. In March 2023, the SURF! project was included in the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget, which includes the following:
• $8,134,600 appropriated/allocated from FY 2023 and prior years. • $14,036,000 requested as part of the FY 2024 budget, pending Congressional review.

The final decision on appropriation of Small Starts funding is expected in late-2023/early-2024.

1.2. Community Engagement
The community engagement plan for the TOD Study included the following activities, which are discussed in more detail in the following sections:
• Online survey
• Focus groups with community stakeholders
• One-on-one interviews with the development community
• Formal presentations at public meetings with TAMC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
• Three public pop-up events:

1.2.1. Online Survey
An online survey was conducted between February 20 and March 31, 2023 to understand desired first-mile/last-mile access modes to transit, perceptions of TOD, and preferences for TDM within the study areas. The survey was offered online through Google Forms in two languages, English and Spanish, with an option to request translation in other languages. A total of 63 survey responses were received. Most survey respondents reside in the cities of Monterey (30%), Salinas (17%), and Seaside (13%), and were employed full-time or part-time. About a ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 20 Implementation Strategy Report 8
fifth of the respondents were students. The demographic makeup included 40% people of color, 32% low-income individuals, and 32% older adults.

1.2.2. Focus Group
A virtual focus group discussion session was conducted with community leaders and stakeholders in Monterey County to understand infrastructure improvements and opportunities for TOD. The following seven organizations who predominantly serve people of color, lowincome individuals, limited-English speakers, and housing insecure individuals, participated in the hour-long focus group:
• LandWatch Monterey County
• Alliance on Aging
• Sierra Club
• Communities for Sustainable Monterey County
• Monterey Bay Aquarium
• Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
• Monterey Peninsula Unified School District

1.2.3. One-On-One Interviews
The project consultant team held one-on-one interviews with three developers and architects who have developed market-rate and affordable projects in Monterey County. The objective of the interviews was to better understand development conditions, challenges, and opportunities for TOD within the study area.

1.2.4. Public Pop-Up Events
MST staff and the project consultant team attended three public pop-up events to talk with residents about TOD opportunities, transportation improvements, and the SURF! project:
• Marina Transit Exchange Transit Fair and Family Fun Day on July 10, 2023 • Salinas Farmers Market on June 17, 2023
• Sand City Night Market 831 on August 4, 2023
Photographs from the Marina Transit Exchange Fun Day
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 14, Packet Page 21 Implementation Strategy Report 9

Photographs from the Salinas Farmer’s Market
Photographs from the Night Market 831 in Sand City
Over 60 interactions and conversations with residents were completed at the three events.

1.2.5. Key Findings
The following key themes were identified from the online survey and various community interactions:
• The response toward mixed-use development near transit was generally favorable, with most respondents likely to support this type of development in their community and likely to live in or near such a development
• Concerns about the effectiveness of mixed-use and its affordability were expressed and challenges around water allocation, political conditions, zoning and entitlement restrictions, space for development, high cost (such as the Prevailing Wage Requirement in some areas), and difficulties finding tenants for commercial spaces were noted
• 50% of survey respondents used active modes to get around but identified a need for improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities including better sidewalks, lighting, continuous ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 15, Packet Page 22 Implementation Strategy Report 10
bike lanes, and bike parking and storage facilities as well as other first/last mile commute options
• The assumption that there is a market for people making trips between Salinas and the Monterey Peninsula was confirmed and the dedicated guideway and increasing congestion on Highway 1 resulted in support for and expected use of the SURF! BRT • The need for frequent and reliable transit service including extended bus service hours (evenings/weekends), more frequent bus service, extended coverage, real-time transit arrival and departure information, and comfortable waiting areas was expressed • Boosting awareness about existing programs and developing new incentives and programs that make transit use convenient, especially in school areas, was suggested

1.3. Implementation Strategy
This Implementation Strategy evaluates the findings from the Background Conditions report as well as the Community Engagement to assess potential for TOD and supportive multimodal access improvements within the five study areas, shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: TOD Planning Study Areas

1.3.1. Objectives of the Implementation Strategy
The objectives of this Implementation Strategy report are to assess land use and transportation best practices for TOD, forecast increased population and ridership resulting from TOD, and provide a playbook for implementing TOD and access improvements in the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas.

The specific objectives are to:
• Identify opportunity zones for TOD projects and characterize the development and market potential in each opportunity zone
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 16, Packet Page 23 Implementation Strategy Report 11
• Provide guidance on zoning policy and design standards that promote TOD • Provide guidance for increasing access to the SURF! Busway and BRT as surrounding land uses change
• Quantify the estimated population and ridership growth expected from TOD • Quantify the reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) resulting from shifting vehicle trips to transit trips
• Provide policy and funding recommendations to implement TOD in the cities along the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas

1.3.2. Exclusions of the Implementation Strategy
It is important to identify what this Implementation Strategy is not intended to address. This helps clarify the purpose of the analysis recommendations and how the findings can be used to foster coordination with cities along the corridor and other regional agencies.

This Implementation Strategy does not:
• Identify individual parcels for development or redevelopment and does not specify the required zoning, development regulations, or design changes needed for implementing TOD at a specific location
• Produce engineering, design, or construction plans related to TOD site plans, road configurations, or transit stops
• Produce a revised or updated version of FTA’s Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS) ridership model and travel demand forecasts produced as part of the FTA CIG application completed in 2021
• Modify the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project description ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 17, Packet Page 24 Implementation Strategy Report 12

2. Transit-Oriented Development and Land Use Analysis
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a planning and development strategy that advocates for compact mixed-use communities located near transit where people enjoy easy access to jobs and services. TOD typically consists of dense development with a mix of land uses located around a major transit stop with a cohesive “first/last-mile” transportation network that connects to nearby land uses and destinations. The “first” and “last” mile of a transit trip consists of how a passenger can walk, bike, roll, or take another vehicle between the transit stop and their destination. First/last-mile infrastructure such as crosswalks, bulb-outs, signal timing for pedestrian and bicyclists, bike lanes and bike parking, and wayfinding signage all support walking, biking and connecting from other transit modes.

The SURF! corridor travels through a very diverse set of communities, each with its own unique character. Each city along the corridor has established an innovative vision and strategy as part of their General Plan and other planning efforts, which outline a range of aspirational policies and strategies for each development area. The cities have laid the groundwork for higher density TOD serving transit and providing enhanced placemaking opportunities.

This section outlines tools and best practices for promoting transit-oriented development (TOD) in the SURF! corridor, identifies TOD “opportunity zones”, and establishes TOD place typologies to provide land use recommendations for each opportunity zone.

2.1. Transit-Oriented Development Best Practices
This section summarizes the best practices to support the cities in their efforts to foster vibrant communities along the SURF! corridor, maximize housing production, provide a mix of uses and activities, and support the region’s investment in public transit. These best practices are informed by several key planning principals that can guide developers and municipal governments to promote TOD.

The two primary market and economic factors driving TOD are development potential and market potential:
• Development potential refers to whether the regulatory framework and design guidelines of a community can support the physical footprint for TOD. These factors determine the building height and setbacks, density, uses, design characteristics, parking supply, amenities, and relationship to transit and other infrastructure. The development potential determines the potential capacity in terms of units and square footage for a new project.
• Market potential refers to the localized demand for new development and the mix of housing and development types. Market potential is influenced by factors such as proximity to work and shopping destinations, vacancy rates, interest rates, affordability, and access to transit and other transportation facilities.

TOD consists of several design elements that work together along high quality transit service to deliver vibrant and sustainable communities that promote higher usage of transit, walk, and bicycle modes. There are numerous TOD case studies in cities along the SURF! corridor, in nearby communities, and across Northern California that showcase the range of densities, uses, and housing types that can be included in successful projects.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 18, Packet Page 25 Implementation Strategy Report 13
Figure 3 presents eight TOD case studies, which are summarized below.

A B
C D
E F
G H
Figure 3: TOD Case Studies
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 19, Packet Page 26 Implementation Strategy Report 14
• A – Independent Apartments, located at 600 Ortiz Avenue in Sand City, is a renovated mixed-use four-story building on 2.65 acres with 61 multifamily units (23 units per acre) over ground floor commercial. It is located one block from Del Monte Boulevard and the planned SURF! BRT corridor. Note that the Independent Phase 2 constitutes the “core” of the Sand City Vibrancy Plan.
• B – Salinas Gateway Senior Apartments, located at 25 Lincoln Avenue in Salinas, is a four-story 52-unit affordable senior apartment project with ground floor commercial that is home to an MST customer service center. It is located one block north of the Salinas Transit Center and across the street from the Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center. • C – Catalina Lofts, on Catalina Street in Sand City, is a three-story mixed-use building with 10 units and ground floor commercial space on 0.30 acres (approximately 33 units per acre).
• D – Alameda Luxury Apartments, located on Abbott Street in Salinas, consists of four three-story buildings with 110 residential units, 40,200 square feet of commercial space, 222 parking spaces (196 off-street), and open space and other amenities. • E – Tannery Arts Center, located at 1010 River Street in Santa Cruz, this development has 100 units of affordable live/work space and an arts complex with 28 studio spaces for artists and creative businesses on 8.3 acres along the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz.
• F – Ocean Street Apartments, located at 350 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz, is a 63-unit affordable apartments on 1.5 acres (42 units per acre) in a four-story building with ground floor retail. Transit service is located one to two blocks to the north on Broadway and Soquel Avenue.
• G – Mayfair Station (Phase I), located at 11600 San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito, Mayfair Station is a six-story mixed-use building adjacent to the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station with 156 units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial. The Phase 1 project covers approximately 1.15-acres (135 units per acre). Phase II of the project will include 69 units of below market rate housing on the remainder of the 1.57- acre site. When completed, the site will total 223 units with a density of 140 units per acre. Multiple AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Soltrans, and other bus operators serve Del Norte station and San Pablo Avenue.
• H – Credence – Modern Condos, located at 10300 San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito, is a four-story residential development with 30 units and 2 live-work units on 0.57 acres (56 units per acre) with 33 parking spaces. No ground floor commercial space is provided beyond the live-work uses. There is which has multiple AC Transit local and Transbay bus routes.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 20, Packet Page 27 Implementation Strategy Report 15
The best practices presented below should impact these factors to promote TOD and increase the likelihood of its development.

2.1.1. Policy
Policies are the regulatory levers that city governments can utilize to increase the development potential of land and support TOD land uses. Policies promoting TOD must consider factors such as density, building height and massing, mix of land uses, inclusionary affordable housing requirements, parking, and other design-related elements. Such policies are commonly implemented through zoning codes, general plans, specific plans, housing elements, and design guidelines.

Density
Increasing housing density (e.g., number of units per acre) by establishing density minimums, is an important policy goal for promoting TOD. As housing density decreases (i.e., sprawl), people are pushed further away from jobs, shopping, and amenities such as transit. The result is increased car dependence, which contributes to worsening regional congestion, air quality, and GHGs.

Setting density minimums near transit stations ensures more people have access to highcapacity transit. Higher density housing products also typically result in smaller units and save on construction costs, which help to lower the cost of housing. In the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas, different housing density types exist that offer a wide range of neighborhood character, and create a natural transition between more sparse, residential areas and dense, urban cores.

Increase Housing Supply
A natural outcome of greater housing density is increased housing supply. City governments can consider increasing their housing targets, or eliminating restrictions on housing quantity, to maximize the region’s investment in the SURF! Busway and BRT. Placing new housing near transit will help to ensure that an increased population is not accompanied by added traffic congestion.

Mixed Land Use
Land uses that allow for a mix of uses help to create vibrant communities. An example is mid- to high-rise multifamily residential complete with mixed-use commercial and office buildings.

Allowing for a mix of land uses means that residents have greater access to resources and amenities within their building or a short walk in the neighborhood. The result is more walking and bicycling trips and less need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Moreover, converting single use zoning to mixed use helps unlock areas currently zoned for commercial or industrial land uses to residential uses, increasing the supply of housing and further diversifying the uses and providing more vibrant neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 21, Packet Page 28 Implementation Strategy Report 16
Mixed-Use Downtown Neighborhood (Source: Blue Zones)
Affordable Housing Overlays
An affordable housing overlay (AHO) is a regulatory tool used to increase the supply of affordable housing. They are called “overlays” because they layer on top of existing base zoning regulations.

AHO’s provide a package of incentives to developers that encourage production of affordable homes rather than requiring it. Additionally, AHO’s offer developers flexibility and predictability to create more housing while reducing development costs. Thus, AHO’s help to increase the market potential of land for TOD.

The City of Marina effectively utilized AHO’s to identify 23 sites for development that permit density ranges between 30-50 dwelling units per acre and provide at least 12% very low income or 15% low-income units. The sites are shown in Figure 4.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 22, Packet Page 29 Implementation Strategy Report 17
Figure 4: Marina Affordable Housing Overlay (Source: City of Marina)

2.1.2. Design Standards
Design standards are enacted through land use and zoning policy that dictate what type of housing can be built in an area and impact both development and market potential. Such design standards dictate the allowed density, height, setbacks, and land development intensity. For a design standard to be favorable to TOD, it must allow for sites to be more efficiently utilized, increasing the capacity of that land to support a greater population and create new transit riders.

Floor Area Ratio
Floor area ratio (FAR) is a measure of building massing and is defined as the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the area of the land upon which the building is built. FAR is used to quantify the intensity of a development. Increasing the FAR allows for a building toto have a greater floor area without dictating building character or height.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 23, Packet Page 30 Implementation Strategy Report 18
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (Source: Victorian Planning Authority) A minimum FAR between 0.5 and 2.5 is typically recommended for TOD-supportive land uses.

Setbacks
Building setbacks are the required separation between a lot line and a building or structure.

Building setbacks exist to prevent owners from crowding their neighbors, and to allow for enough access to light and ventilation. Still, strict building setbacks limit the ability of a building to occupy a land area, leading to less efficient land utilization. It is recommended that TODsupportive land uses do not have a building setback. In cases where a building setback is absolutely necessary, a setback of 5’ is encouraged.

Building Setback (Source: City of Walnut Creek)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 24, Packet Page 31 Implementation Strategy Report 19
Transit Access
Within a TOD, special consideration must be given to how people access transit. Pedestrian paths through the TOD minimize walking and cycling distances and offer direct, quick connections to transit and adjacent areas. Increasing the number of walkways and direct pathways makes access to transit easier and increases the likelihood that residents use transit.

Developments on blocks that exceed approximately 500’ in length should look to provide pedestrian space to break up a block, increasing non-motorized circulation.

Pedestrian Walkway through Dean Apartments in Mountain View, CA

2.1.3. Parking Management Approaches
Both the development and market potential of a TOD can be improved by minimizing the amount of land dedicated to parking. The following approaches can be used by city governments to better manage their parking assets and promote TOD-supportive land uses.

Reduced Parking and Shared Parking for Mixed-Use Development Most of the land in the SURF! corridor is currently dedicated to surface parking. This poses an opportunity to repurpose existing surface lots into either structured parking or potential development sites. In stacking the parking supply vertically, the amount of land dedicated to parking is reduced, allowing for new developments or other space programming.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 25, Packet Page 32 Implementation Strategy Report 20
Structured Parking Facility (Source: City of Salinas)
Unbundling Parking from Development Requirements
City governments should look to unbundle parking from development requirements to create TOD-supportive land uses. Unbundling parking from development requirements improves the market potential of a land area, as developers can decide how much parking to provide and how to pass the cost of parking on to consumers. Rather than building parking and including that cost in the price of a unit in a building, the developer could sell the unit and the parking separately. This would lower the price of the unit and allow the buyer to decide how many parking spaces they desire, if any. Residents also benefit in this scenario, as they have the option to save money by not purchasing a parking space if it is not needed.

Parking Credit Program
Parking Credit Programs present another means for unbundling parking from development requirements. Such programs are available in areas where a jurisdiction provides most of the parking in centralized locations. This is a particularly useful tool for businesses, which can provide employees their required parking through an annual fee, paid to the parking authority.

Spaces in a Parking Credit Program are typically not reserved, and pricing is set at “market” rates.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 26, Packet Page 33 Implementation Strategy Report 21
Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097)
AB 2097 is a state law signed in
September 2022 that prohibits
jurisdictions from establishing
parking minimums or
requirements for all
developments within a ½-mile of
a major transit stop, such as a
BRT station. Figure 5 presents
the “High Quality” transit
corridors and stops defined by
AMBAG. The SURF! corridor
and the five study areas are
located within these major
corridors and stops and would
be covered by AB 2097.

City governments are
encouraged to work together
with developers to identify the
market demand for parking for
each project proposed within
each development area.

Figure 5: High Quality Transit Corridors and Stops
(Source: Monterey Bay 2040 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2018)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 27, Packet Page 34 Implementation Strategy Report 22

2.2. TOD Opportunities and Land Use Recommendations
This section introduces the context-specific TOD place types that were developed to test TOD potential and the impacts on transit ridership in the SURF! corridor. This section also identifies the application of these TOD place types to each opportunity zone and provides land use recommendations in each opportunity zone.

2.2.1. Transit-Oriented Development Place Types
To provide a robust analysis framework for assessing TOD potential and the transit ridership benefits within the SURF! corridor, three appropriate TOD place types were defined. These place types are intended to set the aspirational vision, provide case-sensitive guidance, and serve as a major input into the transit ridership and benefits presented in Section 4.

The following TOD place types have distinctive characteristics that housing developments throughout the SURF! corridor could adopt to maximize their development potential and support the region’s investment in transit. The place types are described in the following sections, summarized in Table 2, and illustrated in Figure 6.

Residential Center
Residential Centers serve primarily residential uses as well as small scale supporting retail.

Most residential uses within the area are low- to medium-scale multifamily projects. The ground floor could also utilize additional residential units or live/work units. Small scale office and neighborhood supporting retail is often located on the corners of major intersections and within close distance to residential neighborhoods. These will often incorporate some external surface parking or parking inside the building on the ground floor. These developments are typically two to three stories with unit densities around 30 units per acre. The Independent Apartments at 600 Ortiz Avenue in Sand City and the proposed Ascent Project at Terrace and Broadway in Seaside are both in the 30-40 units per acre range.

Minor Activity Center
Minor Activity Center areas serve a wide variety of land uses with an emphasis on medium density multifamily and neighborhood serving commercial on the ground floor. The commercial uses are located on key mixed-use streets to promote connectivity and walkability to the surrounding residential areas. These areas serve as a transition between the intensity of Major Activity Centers and low scale, single-family residential areas. Parking is often located inside the building and could occupy the ground level and/or an underground floor. The Ocean Street Apartments at 350 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz and the Alameda Apartments on Abbot Street in Salinas are in the 50 units per acre range.

Major Activity Center
Major Activity Center areas serve many land uses, including mid- to high-rise multifamily residential combined with mixed-use commercial and office buildings. Buildings front sidewalks with consistent pedestrian entrances and are located within a pattern of regular, smaller blocks and linear streets, thus promoting walkability, and allowing for a more consistent urban form and building intensity throughout. Parking is typically provided underground in one or more levels.

Several recent and planned developments in Salinas are in the 70+ units per acre range.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 28, Packet Page 35 Implementation Strategy Report 23
Table 2: TOD Place Types
Residential Center Minor Activity Center Major Activity Center Place Type
Description
Mainly residential with
small scale supporting
retail and office
Wide variety of uses
with emphasis on middensity multifamily and
neighborhood serving
commercial
Mid- to high-rise multifamily
residential combined with mixeduse commercial and office buildings
Density
(du/acre)
Medium density along
main streets. Min. 30
du/ac
Medium density along
main streets. Min 50
du/ac
Min. 70 du/acre
FAR No min. commercial
FAR
Min. commercial FAR

1.5 Min. commercial FAR 2.5
Parking Centralized surface
parking behind
buildings. Screen
parking where visible
from streets.

Recommended
parking ratio of 0.7 – 1
per unit
Mix of structured and
surface parking.

Structured parking
located behind or
integrated within
buildings.

Recommended parking
ratio of 0.7 – 1 per unit
Structured parking with limited
surface parking. Structured
parking located behind or
integrated within buildings. Onstreet parking encouraged near building entrances and along all
primary streets.

Recommended parking ratio of

0.5 – 0.7 per unit
Setback 0’ encouraged; max of
10’
0’ encouraged; max of
8’
0’ encouraged; max of 5’
Block length Provide pedestrian
space to break up
blocks if block length
exceeds 600’
Provide pedestrian
space to break up
blocks if block length
exceeds 600’
Provide pedestrian space to break
up blocks if block length exceeds
400’
Amenities Informal open spaces.

Highly active spaces
such as plazas and
playgrounds
Mix of hardscaped and
landscaped public
spaces
Smaller programmed plazas and
open spaces
Figure 6: TOD Place Types
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 29, Packet Page 36 Implementation Strategy Report 24

2.2.2. Opportunity Zones
To provide land use recommendations that can support the estimation of ridership and other transit benefits, 18 opportunity zones were identified within each of the five study areas along the SURF! corridor. Opportunity zones reflect locations where there is sufficient development potential or market potential to promote TOD and contain parcels that are vacant or underutilized. Of the 18 zones, 12 are located within 0.5 miles of the SURF! corridor, with six zones located within 0.5-1.0 miles from the SURF! corridor but are located close to the JAZZ BRT or MST’s Line 41.

This location categorization affects the ridership forecasting in the next section. The 12 opportunity zones in close proximity to the SURF! corridor impact ridership on that service, while the other 6 zones are assumed to generate ridership on other transit services. Most opportunity zones were previously identified by jurisdictions through Housing Elements or other planning efforts such as specific plans.

The opportunity zones are summarized in Table 3 and shown in Figure 8 to Figure 12 at the end of this chapter. The parcels, population, and employment totals are 2022 estimates derived from the software platform Urban Footprint (https://urbanfootprint.com/). Note: TAMC in 2015 adopted a policy that supported an extension of the SURF! BRT alignment from the Salinas Transit Center to the ITC at the Amtrak Station. This extension is shown as a dashed line on Figure 8.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 30, Packet Page 37 Implementation Strategy Report 25
Table 3: Summary of Opportunity Zones
Study
Area
Opportunity
Zone Description Population(2019)
Employment
(2019)
Population
Density
(per acre)
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Developable
Area (acres)
Salinas
Downtown
Salinas
Selected due to its proximity
to the Salinas Transit Center.

Downtown Salinas
encompasses the 17 surplus
city parcels identified by
Salinas for housing and
mixed-use projects
31 6,354 0.80 164.90 9.6
North Main
Street
Mix of commercial, industrial,
and vacant land between the
Salinas Intermodal Center
and US-101.
871 246 8.07 2.28 20.3
East Alisal
Street
Dense neighborhood
between US-101 and
Sanborn Rd with a mix of
shopping centers and
multifamily residential.
2,324 976 19.23 8.08 31.07
Market
Street
Area with a mix of industrial
and warehousing uses
northeast of downtown with
opportunities for infill
projects.
703 577 5.16 4.23 45.6
Abbott Street Southeast corner of the city
that separates residential
from industrial uses; close to
many large medical facilities.
83 29 4.74 1.66 5.9
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 31, Packet Page 38 Implementation Strategy Report 26
Study
Area
Opportunity
Zone Description Population(2019)
Employment
(2019)
Population
Density
(per acre)
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Developable
Area (acres)
Marina
North
Reservation
Road
Coincides with the “Core”
zone identified by the Marina
Downtown Vitalization
Specific Plan (DVSP)
1,401 506 7.61 2.75 15.0
South
Reservation
Road
Overlaps with the “Core”
zone identified by the Marina
DVSP. The Marina Transit
Exchange (MTX) is located
within the South Reservation
Road opportunity zone and
provides the main
connection between Salinas
and the Monterey Peninsula
1,547 384 16.83 4.18 26.8
East Del
Monte
Boulevard
Includes sections of both the
“Core” and “Transition”
zones of the DVSP. The
planned Del Monte/Palm
station is located
immediately west of the East
Del Monte Boulevard
opportunity zone
1,256 372 19.22 5.69 14.9
CSUMB
The Dunes The narrow parcel located
between 9th St and 1st Ave,
north of the planned “Dunes”
development. This parcel
has not yet been identified
for development. The Dunes
opportunity zone falls within
0 0 N/A N/A 2.6
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 32, Packet Page 39 Implementation Strategy Report 27
Study
Area
Opportunity
Zone Description Population(2019)
Employment
(2019)
Population
Density
(per acre)
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Developable
Area (acres)
the 12.1-acre TAMC
property.

North
Campus
The two parcels immediately
adjacent to the Monterey
Institute for Research in
Astronomy (MIRA) at
CSUMB. These parcels were
identified by CSUMB staff for
student housing
0 0 N/A N/A 48.6
Sand City / Seaside
South of
Tioga
Identified by the Sand City
Vibrancy Plan as a location
for focused development.

The South of Tioga
opportunity zone is located
within a ½-mile radius of the
planned Playa/Sand City
station on the SURF!
Busway
70 71 1.70 1.69 8.6
West End Identified by the Sand City
Vibrancy Plan as a location
for focused development.

The West End is adjacent to
Del Monte Blvd, that will be
served by SURF! BRT
326 913 2.90 8.01 25.5
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 33, Packet Page 40 Implementation Strategy Report 28
Study
Area
Opportunity
Zone Description Population(2019)
Employment
(2019)
Population
Density
(per acre)
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Developable
Area (acres)
Sand City / Seaside
West
Broadway
Identified by Seaside’s West
Broadway Urban Village
Specific Plan. The West
Broadway Specific Plan area
is split between the
Monterey/Seaside and Sand
City/Seaside study areas
408 460 8.47 9.55 12.8
East
Broadway
Area included in the Ascent
Entitlement Package, as well
as the parcels immediately
surrounding the entitlement
package. East Broadway is
the second furthest
opportunity zone from the
SURF! corridor, with the
furthest point being 0.9
miles. East Broadway is also
served by the JAZZ BRT line
591 130 17.70 3.89 9.3
Monterey / Seaside
West
Broadway
Identified by Seaside’s West
Broadway Urban Village
Specific Plan. The West
Broadway Specific Plan area
is split between the
Monterey/Seaside and Sand
City/Seaside study areas
149 9 12.21 0.74 1.3
Laguna Del
Rey
The small area (6.1 acres)
nestled between Highway 1,
Del Monte Ave, and Laguna
Del Rey. There are no
104 56 8.41 4.53 1.9
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 34, Packet Page 41 Implementation Strategy Report 29
Study
Area
Opportunity
Zone Description Population(2019)
Employment
(2019)
Population
Density
(per acre)
Employment
Density (per
acre)
Developable
Area (acres)
existing plans for
development in this area,
which is mostly commercial
and industrial land uses
Del Monte
Light
Industrial
Located between Highway 1,
Del Monte Ave, and Casa
Verde Way, and overlaps
with the Del Monte zone
identified by Monterey’s
2031 RHNA update for
development. This site
contains primarily industrial
land use and is served by
SURF! BRT
109 211 4.71 9.12 17.7
North
Fremont
Identified by the North
Fremont Specific Plan. North
Fremont has also been
identified by Monterey as a
location for focused
development to meet the
regional housing need
allocation. North Fremont is
the furthest opportunity zone
from the SURF! corridor, with
the furthest point being 1
mile. North Fremont is also
served by the JAZZ BRT line
1,825 464 17.99 4.57 48.1
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 35, Packet Page 42 Implementation Strategy Report 30

2.2.3. Classification of Opportunity Zones
The following criteria were used to determine the appropriate TOD place type for each opportunity zone:
• If the primary land use is residential and it has lower densities, then the TOD place type is ‘Residential Center’
• If the zone’s General or Specific Plan allows for densities of 50 dwelling units per acre or more OR the zone is a major employment center, then the TOD place type is ‘Major Activity Center’
• All remaining opportunity zones were assigned a TOD place type of ‘Minor Activity Center’
The recommended place type for each opportunity zone is listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 7. The place types influence the density ranges in the population and ridership forecasts in the following sections.

Table 4: Place Type Recommendations
Opportunity Zone Recommended Place Type
Downtown Salinas Major activity center
North Main St Major activity center
East Alisal St Major activity center
Market St Minor activity center
Abbott Residential center
North Reservation Road Major activity center
South Reservation Road Major activity center
East Del Monte Boulevard Major activity center
The Dunes Minor activity center
North Campus Major activity center
South of Tioga Minor activity center
West End Minor activity center
West Broadway (Sand City/Seaside) Minor activity center East Broadway Minor activity center
Del Monte Light Industrial Minor activity center
North Fremont Minor activity center
West Broadway (Monterey/Seaside) Residential center
Laguna Del Rey Residential center
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 36, Packet Page 43 Implementation Strategy Report 31
Figure 7: TOD Place Type Recommendations

2.3. Legislative Update
A wide range of housing laws have been implemented over the last few legislative sessions that have generally had a positive impact on TOD projects. Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 stands out as a significant development, offering a ministerial approval pathway exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for quantifying multifamily projects on commercially zoned land that meet affordable housing targets and pay prevailing wages. This streamlined process can expedite the approval of TOD projects, removing bureaucratic hurdles. Similarly, AB 2097 plays a crucial role by prohibiting public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements within a half-mile of public transit, which aligns with the goals of TOD by reducing reliance on personal vehicles and encouraging transit usage. Additionally, AB 2334 and AB 1551 contribute to the density aspect of TOD by providing definitions and concessions for density bonus projects, including mixed-use and commercial developments.

However, it is important to note that the implementation of these laws may also introduce challenges. For instance, AB 2011’s CEQA exemption could raise concerns about environmental impact assessment and mitigation, which are integral components to responsible development.

Overall, while these housing laws offer streamlined processes, parking reforms, and density incentives that support TOD, it is crucial to carefully consider their implications to ensure a balanced approach to sustainable and equitable development.

Table 5 provides a summary of the most significant housing laws that that took effect on January 1, 2023 (except where noted).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 37, Packet Page 44 Implementation Strategy Report 32
Table 5: California’s 2023 Housing Laws
Category Name Description
Streamlining AB 2011 CEQA-exempt ministerial approval pathway on commercially zoned land for qualifying residential development that meets affordable housing targets and pays prevailing wages
SB 6 Allowing residential use on commercially zoned property without requiring a rezoning for projects that pay prevailing wages and meet “skilled and trained workforce” requirements
AB 2234 Enforceable timelines for local governments to issue post-entitlement ministerial building permits
AB 2295 Allowing educational employee housing on land owned by school districts or county office of education
SB 886 CEQA exemption for qualifying university housing development projects
AB 2668 “Cleanup” of SB 35’s streamlined ministerial approval process Density AB 2334 Reforms to the State Density Bonus Law to define “base density” and provide further concessions for 100 percent BMR projects in low VMT areas
AB 1551 Density Bonus Law benefits for mixed-use projects AB 682 Density Bonus Law benefits for shared/co-living housing Parking
Reform and
Other Cost
Reductions
AB 2097 Prohibiting minimum parking requirements within a half-mile of public transit
AB 2536 Limits on agencies’ ability to adopt connection fees and capacity charges
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and
Increased
Bedroom
Counts
AB 2221 Comprehensive “cleanup” of ADU laws
SB 897 Increased height limits for ADUs; allowing detached ADUs on lots with proposed multifamily dwellings
AB 916 Maximizing bedroom counts within existing units
Surplus
Property
SB 561,
AB 2233
and AB
2592
Codification and expansion of Surplus Lands Executive Order prioritizing the use of surplus state-owned land for affordable housing Planning,
Equity and
Lower-Income
Housing
Opportunities
SCA 2 Propose for 2024 ballot the repeal of state constitutional article requiring voter approval of certain “low rent housing projects” AB 2094
and AB
2653
Greater requirements for annual reports on housing progress AB 2339 Planning for emergency shelters and clarifying Housing Element Law AB 2873 Promoting diversity in affordable housing development Source: Holland & Knight; “California’s 2023 Housing Laws: What You Need to Know”; October 10, 2022 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 38, Packet Page 45 Implementation Strategy Report 33
Chapter 2 Figures – Opportunity Zone Maps for Each Study Area ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 39, Packet Page 46 Implementation Strategy Report 34
Figure 8: Salinas Study Area Opportunity Zones
Potential to extend SURF! BRT northern
terminus to Salinas Intermodal Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 40, Packet Page 47 Implementation Strategy Report 35
Figure 9: Marina Study Area Opportunity Zones
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 41, Packet Page 48 Implementation Strategy Report 36
Figure 10: CSUMB Study Area Opportunity Zones
The Dunes opportunity zone falls within TAMC’s

12.1acre parcel.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 42, Packet Page 49 Implementation Strategy Report 37
Figure 11: Sand City/Seaside Study Area Opportunity Zones ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 43, Packet Page 50 Implementation Strategy Report 38
Figure 12: Monterey/Seaside Study Area Opportunity Zones ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 44, Packet Page 51 Implementation Strategy Report 39

3. Transportation Analysis
This section outlines the tools and best practices available to enhance the overall pedestrian and bicycle experience with a particular focus on transit riders accessing SURF! stations and stops. Improved access to – and investment in – BRT stations along the SURF! corridor can attract new transit ridership by increasing the comfort and overall likelihood of travelers to use the SURF! service. This section also identifies location-specific recommendations for intersection improvements to increase safety and access to BRT stations along the corridor.

3.1. Transportation Toolkit and Best Practices
Transportation improvements considered along the SURF! corridor focused on improved first/last-mile connections, mobility hub amenities, and safety enhancements.

3.1.1. First/Last-Mile Connections
The SURF! Busway and BRT is designed to maximize ridership between key travel markets where many people, jobs, and destinations are located. For many future SURF! riders, there is some distance between each station and a traveler’s origin/destination. This distance between a traveler’s origin/destination and a transit station is often referred to as the “first/last mile”, but the distance to access transit can often be much longer.

First/Last-Mile Connection (Source: RTD)
At shorter distances (¼-mile), walking may provide an acceptable first/last-mile connection.

However, even at such distances, adequate infrastructure, such as pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, may be lacking and prohibit walking as a safe transit connection. So, first/last-mile connections must ensure travelers have ample pedestrian facilities to access and leave stations, as well as provide additional services, such as bike facilities and car or ride sharing amenities, for those who choose to access stations by other modes.

3.1.2. Mobility Hubs
Mobility hubs are multimodal transportation nodes where a variety of shared mobility services and supporting amenities interact to create a cohesive transportation network. These nodes facilitate local and regional travel with a specific focus on shared mobility: travel modes and services in which resources are shared between different users. This includes public transit, micromobility (e.g., bikeshare, scooters, etc.), shared rides (e.g., vanpools, carpools, onATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 45, Packet Page 52 Implementation Strategy Report 40
demand services, etc.), and technology (e.g., electric vehicle chargers, information kiosks, etc.).

Figure 13 presents typical mobility hub components at a high ridership transit stop.

Figure 13: Proposed I-680 Mobility Hub with Amenities in Contra Costa County, CA (Source: Kimley-Horn, Bottomley Design & Planning)
A complete list of service and amenities that could be provided at each mobility hub is shown in Figure 14.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 46, Packet Page 53 Implementation Strategy Report 41
Figure 14: Mobility Hub Toolkit
Mobility hubs could be implemented at major bus stops within the five study areas as adjacent or nearby parcels are redeveloped. Mobility hub features can often be incorporated into existing bus stops by utilizing the existing street ROW and converting on-street parking or utilizing adjacent space on a private development site through an easement. Mobility hubs can be incorporated as important design features in private development to support transit usage.

3.1.3. Safety Enhancements
Transit riders desire a strong sense of safety while they access, wait at, and depart from bus stops. Lack of adequate safety measures can dissuade potential passengers from public transit options. Safety improvements should focus first and foremost on pedestrian safety to protect the most vulnerable road user and promote walking.

Along the SURF! corridor, several opportunities exist to improve pedestrian safety, including expansions to the existing sidewalk network and frequent, high visibility pedestrian crossings.

Additional pedestrian infrastructure improvements might include bulb outs and pedestrian refuge islands, which shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and reduce opportunities for collisions.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 47, Packet Page 54 Implementation Strategy Report 42
Pedestrian Safety (“Refuge”) Island (Source: NYC DOT)
Additional safety improvements include expansion of and enhancements to the bicycle network.

Bicycle safety improvements might include converting existing bike routes or “bike boulevards” into separated bike lanes, or installing physical separation, such as bollards, onto existing bike lanes. The Monterey Bay Recreational Trail is a key bike route that runs parallel to the SURF! Busway and BRT. Still, the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail is separated from the SURF! Busway and BRT at several locations by freeways and arterial roads. Improvements to trail connections and the SURF! will be implemented at the Palm/Del Monte Station, 5th Street Station, and at the future roundabout at California Street and Highway 1 southbound ramps in Sand City to increase the share of transit riders that access the SURF! corridor.

Signal improvements are a class of safety improvements that can provide benefits to both pedestrians and bicycle riders. Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) or bicycle signal phases can also be installed at signals to give pedestrians and bicycle riders the opportunity to enter the crosswalk at an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. LPIs or bicycle phases increase the visibility of crossing pedestrians and bicycle riders and increase the likelihood of a motorist to yield to a pedestrian or bicycle rider.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 48, Packet Page 55 Implementation Strategy Report 43
Leading Pedestrian Interval (Source: City of Long Beach)

3.2. Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
A high-level assessment of the transportation infrastructure along the SURF! alignment within the study areas was undertaken to determine the improvements required to enhance access to the corridor and rider experience before and after accessing transit.

For this assessment, BRT stations, signalized intersections, and the pedestrian and bicycle network were reviewed. Recommendations were developed to ensure that appropriate facilities were provided at BRT stations, and to prioritize transit, bicycles, and pedestrians at signalized intersections, while providing safe and continuous pedestrian and bicycle networks. The following sections discuss each of the proposed transportation infrastructure improvements in more details, including an estimated unit and total cost for the proposed improvements.

3.2.1. Bus Stops
Within the five study areas, 30 on-street bus stops were assessed for potential improvements.

These bus stops are located mostly along the SURF! corridor and each location consists of one stop on one side of the street. These bus stops are in addition to the four existing major transit centers and the Fifth Street Transit Center along the SURF! corridor.

The existing amenities at each on-street bus stop vary greatly with some consisting of only a sign and others having benches and minimal shelters. The bus stop assessment included in this study provides guidance and estimates on how stops can be upgraded as station areas redevelop over the next several years. At a minimum they should meet MST’s design guidance for local bus stops, shown in Figure 15, and include a shelter, bench/seating, trash can, system maps, and branding/signage.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 49, Packet Page 56 Implementation Strategy Report 44
Figure 15: MST On-Street Station Design Guidelines
Example of Enhanced Jazz BRT Station
Ideally all high ridership bus stops would also provide real-time travel information, bike parking and lockers, and other amenities similar to those outlined in the mobility hub section. However, these features are more challenging to implement as they require both an electrical power supply and space (i.e., sufficient sidewalk or ROW width). This assessment considers enhanced bus stop improvements at all higher ridership bus stops with greater than 25 daily boardings and where there is available power and space. This bus stop assessment is not making recommendations for the SURF! project. The assessment provides guidance on how bus stops should be improved as land uses adjacent to the corridor redevelop in the future. MST, TAMC, and cities along the corridor can work with developers to assess if bus stop improvements can be implemented along with future development projects.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 50, Packet Page 57 Implementation Strategy Report 45
Industry Best Practices Stop Amenities (Source: EMBARK, Oklahoma City) In addition to the bus stops, there are six major stations along the SURF! corridor, namely:
• Salinas Transit Center
• Marina Transit Exchange
• Del Monte/Palm Avenue Station
• CSUMB/5th Street Station
• Playa/Sand City Station
• Monterey Transit Plaza
The Monterey Transit Plaza, owned by City of Monterey, falls outside of the TOD study areas but is a major transit stop for MST and would benefit from additional enhancements. The 5th Street Station, Palm/Del Monte, and Sand City Station are new and will be built to the required standard. It is recommended that the remaining major stations be assessed for further upgrades that could include the following mobility hub features:
• Bicycle parking
• Bicycle lockers
• Fare vending machines
• Wayfinding signage
• Lighting
• Security
• Flexible curb space for pick-up/drop-off
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 51, Packet Page 58 Implementation Strategy Report 46
Cost estimates were developed for upgrading bus stops with basic and enhanced amenities within the five TOD study areas. These estimates include improvements to the pavement, bus pad, sidewalk loading area, and amenities. Basic bus stops were estimated at $130,000 and enhanced stops at $260,000. These estimates are intended to provide high-level planning costs and could vary considerably depending on local conditions and the availability of ROW. The costs represent high-level estimates in 2023 dollars. The cost to improve the bus stops in the five TOD study areas is $6-7 million, excluding the major stations. Detailed cost assumptions are provided in the appendix.

The bus stop improvement locations are shown in Figure 18 to Figure 22 at the end of the chapter.

3.2.2. Signalized Intersections
Intersection improvements play a critical role in improving access to bus stops throughout the corridor. There are 22 signalized intersections along the SURF! corridor within the five study areas. Many of these intersections are slated for transit signal priority (TSP) improvements with the SURF! project. These recommendations are in addition to these TSP improvements.

The improvements include changes to optimize the flow of traffic, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve the overall efficiency of the intersections. Improvements are classified into minor and major improvements. Minor intersection improvements include the following and are recommended at seven of the signalized intersections in the study areas:
• Installation of high visibility crosswalks on all approaches • Installation of curb ramps
• Transit signal priority and leading pedestrian interval Major intersection improvements include the following, in addition to the minor intersection improvements listed above, and are recommended at 15 of the signalized intersections in the study areas:
• Bicycle improvements to enhance safety on existing bicycle paths (bicycle signals, bicycle boxes, etc.)
• Conversion of islands/pork chops to bulb outs to reduce crossing distance The recommended improvements for signalized intersections along the SURF! corridor are shown in Figure 18 to Figure 22 at the end of the chapter. A summary of the high-level cost estimates by intersection are provided in the appendix. Figure 19 for the City of Marina also identifies proposed and recently approved roadway and intersection improvements for locations on Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road. These projects include providing pedestrian access improvements, buffered bicycle lanes, bulb-outs, enhanced crosswalks, and other safety improvements. The intersection recommendations reflect these proposed project concepts.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 52, Packet Page 59 Implementation Strategy Report 47

3.2.3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
A safe and continuous bicycle and pedestrian network should be provided throughout the five study areas to encourage people to walk and bike to access SURF! stations. This Implementation Strategy focuses on the segments of the bicycle and pedestrian network that directly coincides with the SURF! corridor. Still, it is important that future studies consider the bicycle and pedestrian network beyond the SURF! corridor. The following two gaps in the bicycle network were identified along the SURF! corridor within the study areas, the costs of which are summarized in Table 6:
• Del Monte Blvd between Broadway Ave and Military Ave: 1.1 miles of bike lanes on Del Monte Blvd (see Figure 21)
• Reservation Rd between California Ave and the trail east of Salinas Ave: 2,500 ft cycle track on one side of Reservation Rd (see Figure 19)
Table 6: Summary of Bike Network Improvements
Improvement Length Cost*
Bike lanes on Del Monte Blvd 1.1 miles $1,200,000
Cycle track on Reservation Road 2,500 ft $170,000
*Costs exclude land acquisitions as well as professional services costs which could amount to 45% of hard costs for engineering and design, project management for design and construction, and construction administration and management
Additional opportunities to complete and expand the pedestrian and bicycle network within the five study areas should be considered. Figure 18 to Figure 22 at the end of this section show a number of locations in each study area that could benefit from the installation of new sidewalks to close gaps in the pedestrian network, widening existing sidewalks, providing crosswalk enhancements, and installing crossing treatments such as pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) or rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) can help provide a higher quality active transportation network.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (Source: Federal Highway Administration)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 53, Packet Page 60 Implementation Strategy Report 48
Various segments of the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) project intersect with the SURF! Busway and BRT at several points. Future bicycle network expansion should prioritize connections to FORTAG and the SURF! Busway and BRT. Figure 16 shows the FORTAG trail segment map.

Figure 16: Proposed FORTAG System Map (Source: TAMC)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 54, Packet Page 61 Implementation Strategy Report 49
An additional recommendation was made to improve pedestrian and bicycle access on Del Monte Boulevard between Contra Costa Street and Broadway Avenue. These two intersections are very closely spaced, approximately 200 feet apart, with limited sight distance, multiple driveways, and crosswalks missing at some intersection legs because of the complex roadway characteristics. Contra Costa Street is one of the primary access points into Sand City and Broadway Avenue has recently undergone streetscape improvements.

Figure 17 presents a proposed reconfiguration of Del Monte Boulevard between Broadway Avenue and Contra Costa Street. This concept would preserve two travel lanes in each direction on Del Monte Boulevard and not impact the bus stops. This reconfiguration would realign Contra Costa Street to intersect Del Monte Boulevard at closer to a 90-degree angle, which will improve sight distance and allow for other pedestrian improvements. Installing bulb-outs and reducing turn radii at several corners would decrease pedestrian crossing distances and could allow for the installation of a crosswalk of Del Monte Boulevard at the south leg of the intersection.

Figure 17: Proposed Reconfiguration on Del Monte Boulevard Realign Contra Costa Street to
intersect Del Monte at a 90-
degree angle. This will
improve sight distance.

Close Olympia Ave at Contra
Costa St (currently one-way
eastbound) to traffic and allow
pedestrian and bicycle access.

Create a turnaround for trucks
exiting Olympia.

Olympia Ave
Contra Costa St
Broadway Ave
Install bulbouts to reduce
crossing distance and
increase turn radii at corners
Remove channelized islands at
Broadway and install bulbouts to
reduce crossing distances
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 55, Packet Page 62 Implementation Strategy Report 50
The reconfiguration also includes the potential closure of Olympia Avenue at Contra Costa Street (currently one-way eastbound) to auto and truck traffic but permitting pedestrian and bicycle access. This would allow for additional sidewalk improvements and bulb-outs along Contra Costa Street and the crosswalk of Del Monte Boulevard.

These improvements would help pedestrians improved access to transit without having a significant effect on traffic or transit conditions or impact access for adjacent parcels. These improvements would need to be coordinated with the Cities of Seaside and Sand City along with local residents and businesses in both communities. Sand City has indicated that the Olympia Avenue connection is important for serving exiting traffic from the Home Depot shopping center to the west of the intersection.

3.2.4. Cost Estimate Summary
Table 7 presents the high-level planning cost estimate for the transportation infrastructure elements. These estimates are high-level planning costs for purposes of understanding the order-of-magnitude and for starting discussions with cities and developers.

Table 7: Transportation Infrastructure Cost Estimate
Type of Improvement Quantity Unit Cost* Total Cost*
(2023$)
Basic Bus Stops 7 $130,000 $910,000
Enhanced Bus Stops 23 $260,000 $5,980,000
Major Intersection
Improvements
15 $980,000 –
$1,100,000
$14,940,000
Minor Intersection
Improvements
7 $430,000 $3,010,000
Bike Lanes 1.1 miles $1,200,000
Cycle Track 2,500 ft $170,000
*Costs exclude land acquisitions as well as professional services costs such as engineering and design, project management, and construction administration and management.

3.3. Transportation Demand Management
The success of TOD relies not only on the provision of transit infrastructure but also on the implementation of comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. TDM strategies encompass a range of measures aimed at reducing automobile dependency, optimizing transportation choices, and maximizing the efficiency of existing infrastructure. By effectively managing travel demand within the five study areas, these strategies can enhance accessibility, improve mobility choices, and foster more sustainable modes of transportation.

This section provides a comprehensive list of TDM strategies to encourage transit ridership, promote active modes of transportation, and discourage single-occupancy vehicle use. Where are how some of these should be implemented has been covered in the previous sections but cities and communities should consider furthering the implementation of TDM strategies to achieve a more balanced, multimodal transportation system that reduces congestion, enhances connectivity, and contributes to a more sustainable and livable urban environment. Table 8 summarizes the various TDM measures. TDM measures can be implemented as part of TOD projects.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 56, Packet Page 63 Implementation Strategy Report 51
Table 8: Summary of TDM Policies and Programs
Strategy Description
Project/Site Level
Employer Commute Programs
Comprehensive
Employer Commute
Program
Suite of services that incentivize employees to not drive alone to work, such as bike loan programs or employe grants for purchasing bikes or scooters Employer Carpool
Program
Employers can provide ride-matching assistance, rideshare promotion and discounts, or pretax commuter benefits
Employer Transit Pass
Subsidy
Employers can provide subsidized or discounted transit passes or offer pretax savings for transit passes
Employer Vanpool
Program
Employers can subsidize vanpooling and provide priority parking for vanpools Employer Telework
Program
Employers can encourage people to work from home or an alternative non-work location Employer Guaranteed
Ride Home Program
Employers offer employees who do not drive alone an emergency ride home in the event of unanticipated circumstances
On-Site Bike Amenities Provide secure bike parking, bike repair stations, showers, and changing facilities Land Use
Strategies
Higher-Density
Development
High density projects located proximate to alternative transportation services Transit-Oriented
Development
Projects built in walkable areas that have easy access to public transit Mixed-Use Development Locate complimentary land uses close together Parking
Management
Parking Pricing Charge for parking
Parking Cash-Out Offer employees cash in lieu of a free of subsidized parking space Reduced Parking Reduce the supply of vehicle parking
Unbundled Parking Monetize residential parking so the tenant or purchaser understands the true cost of parking
Smart Parking Uses technology to make searching and paying for parking more convenient and efficient Shared Parking Allows a single parking facility to serve multiple land uses where peak parking demand for these uses occurs at different times
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 57, Packet Page 64 Implementation Strategy Report 52
Strategy Description
Shared Mobility Parking Provide priority parking and free or reduced parking rates for registered carpools, vanpools, and carshare
Flexible Curb Space Designate curb space for some mobility services during their peak demand periods and for other uses during off-peak periods
Community/City Level
Neighborhood Enhancements
Street Connectivity
Improvement
Connected and complete street network ideally traditional grid street pattern with short blocks
Pedestrian Facility
Improvement
Expand and improve pedestrian facilities and environment Bikeway Network
Expansion
Expand comprehensive bike network
Bike Facility
Improvement
Develop new bike facilities
Bikeshare Bicycles available for shared use on a short-term basis Carshare On demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles for use at any time of the day Community-Based
Travel Planning
Residential based outreach that provides households with customized information, incentives, and support for travel planning
Transit Strategies
Transit Service
Expansion
Includes new conventional or rapid bus routes as well as rail expansion Transit Frequency
Improvements
Reduces transit passenger travel time by reducing headways and decreasing wait times Transit-Supportive
Treatments
Mix of roadway infrastructure improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability
Transit Fare Reduction Implemented systemwide, in specific fare-free or reduced-fare zones, or offered through employer-based benefits programs
Microtransit A type of shared on-demand mobility service that is typically requested via an app-based reservation system
Vanpool MST or other agency sponsored vanpool, which is a group of riders commuting together with an unpaid driver and vans rented through third-party providers.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 58, Packet Page 65 Implementation Strategy Report 53
Strategy Description
Transportation System Management
Adaptive Traffic Signal
Systems
Monitor real-time traffic conditions and automatically change traffic signal settings to improve roadway traffic conditions
Smart Signals and
Intersections
Traffic signals controlled by a system that continuously monitors, learns, predicts, and responds to traffic demands and conditions with optimal signal timing for prevailing conditions
Optimized Signal Timing
for Bicycles
Provides adjustments to green intervals, red clearance time, and extension time to ensure that bicyclists can cross intersections safely
Advanced Bicycle and
Pedestrian Detection
Utilizes a variety of detection technologies (inductive loops, infrared sensors, video, microwave, or push buttons) to inform the traffic signal controller of the presence of bicycles so that the controller can adjust signal timing to accommodate bicycle traffic Real-Time Traveler
Information
Use changeable message signs, smartphone apps, highway advisory radio, and other mechanisms to inform travelers about travel times, traffic incidents, construction zones, road closures, and transit service changes
Active Traffic
Management
Ability to dynamically manage recurrent and nonrecurrent roadway demands based on prevailing and predicted traffic conditions
Traffic Incident
Management
A planned and coordinated multidisciplinary process to detect, respond to, and clear traffic incidents so that transportation operations can be restored as safely and quickly as possible
Roadway Weather
Management
Seeks to minimize the adverse effects of weather on the roadway system by implementing traffic-management techniques and traveler information tailored to prevailing weather conditions
Source: Mobility Management Handbook, June 2019, SANDAG ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 59, Packet Page 66 Implementation Strategy Report 54
Chapter 3 Figures – Recommended Transportation Project Locations ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 60, Packet Page 67 Implementation Strategy Report 55
Figure 18: Salinas Study Area Recommended Transportation Improvements Potential to extend SURF! BRT northern
terminus to Salinas Intermodal Transit Center
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 61, Packet Page 68 Implementation Strategy Report 56
Figure 19: Marina Study Area Recommended Transportation Improvements ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 62, Packet Page 69 Implementation Strategy Report 57
Figure 20: CSUMB Study Area Recommended Transportation Improvements ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 63, Packet Page 70 Implementation Strategy Report 58
Figure 21: Sand City/Seaside Study Area Recommended Transportation Improvements Figure 17 shows a proposed road
reconfiguration on Del Monte Blvd
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 64, Packet Page 71 Implementation Strategy Report 59
Figure 22: Monterey/Seaside Study Area Recommended Transportation Improvements ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 65, Packet Page 72 Implementation Strategy Report 60

4. Transit-Oriented Development Benefits Analysis
The land use “best practices” and transportation projects outlined in the previous two sections and applied to the SURF! corridor creates a guide to achieving high-quality BRT and supportive TOD in Salinas and the Monterey Peninsula. This section quantifies the benefits of achieving this by:
• Assess the development potential of each study area and resulting population growth • Determine the incremental increase in population growth resulting from TOD, and subsequent increase in transit trips
• Calculate reductions in VMT resulting from increased transit trips and other mode shift benefits
This analysis builds on the STOPS ridership model developed for the FTA Small Starts application in 2021 and 2022. STOPS is an FTA developed modeling tool that helps standardize transit ridership forecasting and utilizes population and employment projections along with transit and roadway networks and Census demographic data. The population forecasts included in the STOPS model aligns with projections included in the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model. The STOPS model utilizes a Base Year of 2019 and a Horizon Year of 2040. These scenario years are utilized in this analysis to assess the population and ridership growth associated with TOD development across the study’s opportunity areas.

4.1. Development Scenarios
Three development scenarios were considered for each of the five opportunity zones.

Forecasting the likelihood that individual parcels within a zone will redevelop is a highly speculative activity that can depend on market and demographic forces, future legislation, and random decision making by individuals.

These three development scenarios represent a range of plausible probabilities that a percentage of the parcels in each opportunity zone would redevelop in the next 20 to 30 year timeframe. These assumptions are necessary to convert development potential to population projections and finally to ridership estimates.

The development scenarios include:
• Low Development Scenario: 10% of the available commercial and industrial land within each opportunity zone is developed into TOD
• Medium Development Scenario: 20% of the available commercial and industrial land within each opportunity zone is developed into TOD
• High Development Scenario: 30% of the available commercial and industrial land within each opportunity zone is developed into TOD
The three scenarios provide a range of potential development and ridership outcomes.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 66, Packet Page 73 Implementation Strategy Report 61

4.2. Population Forecasts
An essential component for the success of transit systems is having sufficient population and employment to support it. The number of people living within ½-mile of a transit station is a key indicator of the propensity to use transit. Population forecasting is essential to assess the transit benefits and recommended supporting land use and infrastructure. Employment estimates are not included in this analysis as residential population is the primary growth driver associated with TOD.

The purpose of this section is to estimate the incremental increase in the Horizon Year (2040) population and transit ridership above and beyond the growth accounted for in the previous STOPS model run used in the FTA application. These changes represent the increment added by the TOD considered in this study that would occur over the baseline growth assumed in the previous STOPS model. The approach to forecasting this incremental growth is:
• Quantify baseline (2019) population from Urban Footprint • Calculate Horizon (2040) population forecasts for each development scenario • Determine the population growth attributable to TOD as the difference between the horizon year population calculated in the previous step and the STOPS model horizon year population forecasts (discussed below)
Urban Footprint, a software platform that provides urban, environmental, and economic data, was used to determine the base year (2019) population of the 18 opportunity zones. Using 2019 population and employment totals aligns with the STOPS base year. Urban Footprint generates population estimates by using a combination of data sources including the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates. Population for 2019 from Urban Footprint is depicted in Figure 23. The base year (2019) population forecast of 11,732 people within the 18 opportunity zones.

Figure 23. Urban Footprint Population Estimates for the Marina Study Area ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 67, Packet Page 74 Implementation Strategy Report 62
The expected population growth was then determined for each of the three development scenarios by multiplying the developable land by the number of dwelling units per acre, based on the TOD place type recommended for each opportunity zone (Table 4). This was then multiplied by an estimate of household size of 2.0 persons per dwelling unit.

The expected Horizon Year (2040) population could then be calculated as the sum of the Urban Footprint base year (2019) population and the expected growth resulting from the recommended land use changes for each opportunity zone and each scenario.

The increase in population attributable to TOD was calculated as the difference in horizon year population from the three land development scenarios and the STOPS model horizon year population forecasts. The resulting TOD-induced population growth is shown Figure 24 and Table 9.

Figure 24: 2040 Population Forecast by Scenario
1,559 4,118
7,796
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Low Medium High
Population
Development Scenario
UrbanFootprint Baseline (2019) STOPS Background Growth
TOD Growth STOPS Horizon (2040)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 68, Packet Page 75 Implementation Strategy Report 63
Table 9. 2040 TOD-Induced Population Growth
Population Metric Low
Scenario
Medium
Scenario
High
Scenario
UrbanFootprint Baseline (2019) Population 11,732 11,732 11,732 STOPS Background Population Growth (2019-2040) 4,855 4,855 4,855 TOD Induced Population Growth (2019-2040) 1,559 4,118 7,796 Horizon Year (2040) Population 18,146 20,705 24,383
TOD Induced % Increase in Opportunity Zones 9% 25% 47%
TOD growth within the opportunity zones is expected to lead to population increases between 1,559 and 7,796 persons by the horizon year (2040). Within the opportunity zones, this incremental population increase reflects a 9-47 percent increase above the STOPS horizon year population forecasts.

This analysis did not assume further population growth for areas in the STOPS model where significant growth was already accounted for in the FTA version of the model. This was to avoid potential “double counting” of expected growth and overestimating the impacts of TOD induced growth on transit ridership in the study area.

4.3. Ridership Forecasts
The STOPS model developed for the FTA application predicted that the SURF! BRT would generate 2,300 linked trips in 2019 and 2,860 trips in 2040. The increase in transit trips attributable to TOD was calculated by multiplying the incremental increase in population induced by TOD, calculated in the previous section, by the transit ridership rate derived from the STOPS model.

Horizon Year (2040) transit trip forecasts were retrieved from STOPS to assess the expected transit usage in the Monterey Peninsula and Salinas and to determine a ridership rate (transit trips per capita) for the SURF! Busway and BRT. Transit trips are reported by STOPS at the district level. Districts were matched to each of the five opportunity zones to represent the transit usage within each zone.

STOPS reports linked and unlinked trips. Linked trips are passenger trips where a rider may transfer between vehicles or make multiple stops, such as stopping at a café along a commute trip. An unlinked trip are the passenger trips taken on a single vehicle, such as a single bus ride.

Unlinked trips are essentially “boardings” and do not take into account transfers. This Implementation Strategy utilized the linked trips to understand the end-to-end vehicle trips being replaced by transit trips.

Ridership rates, expressed as transit trips per person, were calculated for STOPS districts within 1-mile of the SURF! corridor. These transit trip rates vary based on a series of variables and reflect the attractiveness (travel time, cost, ease of access, etc.) of transit relative to other modes in a particular origin-destination market. The transit trip rates were analyzed for districts near the SURF! corridor that exhibit the qualities of the transit service we are implementing. The analysis of the STOPS model indicates a range of ridership rates for areas with moderate to ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 69, Packet Page 76 Implementation Strategy Report 64
high levels of transit access near corridors such as the SURF!. For this analysis, the following linked trip rates per person were applied:
• SURF! corridor opportunity areas: 0.1 daily linked transit trips per person was applied for opportunity areas directly served by SURF!. This rate was developed using the transit trip rates for STOPS districts that overlap with the SURF! corridor. • Other opportunity areas: 0.05 daily linked transit trips per person was applied for areas further from the SURF! corridor in Seaside and Salinas (North Fremont Street, East Broadway, North Campus, North Main St, East Alisal St, Market St, and Abbott). This rate was developed using transit trip rates for STOPS districts along North Fremont Street and outside of Salinas’ downtown.

The TOD-induced population growth for each opportunity zone and scenario was then multiplied by a 0.1 or 0.05 daily transit trips per person rate, based on proximity to the SURF! corridor, to predict the increase in daily transit trips attributable to TOD. This result is show in Table 10 below. The detailed table with the population and ridership estimates by opportunity zone is provided in the appendix.

Table 10. 2040 TOD-Induced Daily Linked Transit Trips
Trip Metric Low
Scenario
Medium
Scenario
High
Scenario
Linked Transit Trips 115 273 523
% Increase in Project Trips Above
STOPS Model FTA CIG Ridership 4% 10% 18%
Compared to ridership forecasted in the SURF! FTA CIG application of 2,860 trips in the Horizon Year 2040, the TOD-induced transit trips reflect a ridership increase between 4 – 18 percent.

4.4. VMT Benefits
In addition to providing a critical public transit connection, SURF! and supportive TOD can provide additional benefits to communities in Salinas and the Monterey Peninsula. These benefits range from increased economic vitality and healthier lifestyles, to reduced congestion and improved air quality. Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) is a transportation metric used by California to measure the environmental impact of a project, as VMT is correlated to emissions.

Projects that increase VMT are required to implement mitigation measures, which can include paying fees or adding design elements to improve road circulation. Projects that decrease VMT can receive certain tax advantages and support from city and state government. This section outlines an approach for estimating the VMT reduction induced by TOD.

VMT is a metric that calculates vehicle travel within a certain area and is calculated as the total number of miles traveled by a motor vehicle in a region over a certain period. Daily VMT was used to compare the VMT reduction potential related to TOD and the reduction in VMT resulting from the SURF! Busway and BRT project. STOPS model results show a forecasted horizon year daily reduction in VMT of 7,456 miles resulting from to the SURF! project.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 70, Packet Page 77 Implementation Strategy Report 65
To measure VMT impacts, this Implementation Strategy assumes that individuals living in a TOD would otherwise be living elsewhere in Monterey County where the baseline VMT per capita is much higher than in one of the five opportunity areas, which is a dense urban development adjacent to transit. The incremental decrease in VMT is estimated as the reduction in VMT due to an individual living in a TOD as opposed to a traditional development elsewhere in the county. To calculate the incremental decrease in VMT, linked transit trips were converted to vehicle trips using an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per car.

The vehicle trips were multiplied by the average vehicle trip length for the SURF! corridor to determine the incremental decrease in VMT. Replica, a web-based software platform that generates synthetic origin-destination trip data, estimates that the average vehicle trip length for the SURF! corridor is 4.1 miles. Table 11 below shows the resulting VMT reduction induced by TOD from this analysis approach. Compared to the VMT reduction expected from the SURF! project alone, TOD is expected to further decrease VMT by 5 – 24-percent.

Table 11. 2040 VMT Reduction Induced by TOD
Metric Low
Scenario
Medium
Scenario
High
Scenario
VMT Reduction (miles) 393 934 1,789
% Increase in VMT Reduction above
SURF! Project 5% 13% 24%
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 71, Packet Page 78 Implementation Strategy Report 66

5. Implementation

5.1. Implementation Plan
The land use TOD “best practice” guidance applied to the opportunity areas and the list of first/last-mile transportation projects presented in this study are shown to provide significant benefits to transit ridership, which will reduce congestion, VMT, and GHG. Developing a network of TOD sites along the SURF! corridor will help achieve affordable housing production and help generate economic vitality and enhance placemaking across the region.

These land use and transportation projects require a comprehensive set of policy and planning actions that must be coordinated across various agencies to align efforts and strengthen the case for receiving grant funding.

Table 12 summarizes the key implementation tasks required to implement TOD in the SURF! corridor. These tasks can be treated as a series of individual projects and programs agencies can pursue. They can also be combined into improvement packages for coordination with other stakeholders and partners. The tasks outlined in Table 12 do not represent a comprehensive list but can serve as a starting place for moving projects forward. Potential funding sources and grant opportunities are also identified, including Caltrans’ Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Sustainable Transportation Planning (STP) grants. The funding sources are covered in greater detail in following sections. The cost estimates presented in the tables are based on the same assumptions used for the high-level planning costs presented earlier in this report. The cost estimates are intended to provide guidance on cost ranges that can be compared across the categories.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 72, Packet Page 79 Implementation Strategy Report 67
Table 12. TOD Implementation Plan
Category Implementation
Task
Task Description Timeframe
(Years)
Responsible
Party(ies)
Stakeholders Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding
Source
(Agency)
Regional
Collaboration
Coordinate findings
and
recommendations
into ongoing or
upcoming studies
Incorporate findings
and recommendations
into relevant ongoing or
upcoming studies
Ongoing MST TAMC, AMBAG,
Cities
Staff time,
cost TBD

MST, TOD
Housing
Program
(HCD)
Land Use Coordinate findings
and
recommendations
into General and
Specific Plan
updates
Incorporate findings
and recommendations
into relevant General or
Specific Plans including
the Marina Downtown
Vitalization Specific
Plan and Seaside
General Plan
1 - 3 Cities TAMC, AMBAG Staff time,
cost TBD
Cities,
Building
Blocks (HCD)
Zoning revisions for
existing districts or
overlays
Revise zoning for
existing districts or
overlays regarding
density, height,
setbacks, FAR, etc.;
determine appropriate
incentives, such as
parking reductions and
density bonuses
1 - 3 Cities AMBAG,
Developers
$25,000 -
$75,000
Cities, SB2
(HCD)
Corridor or
Opportunity Zone
Overlay
Create new zoning
overlay that provides
guidance for
development form,
scale, and amenities
desired within
opportunity zones or
the corridor
1 – 3 Cities AMBAG,
Developers
$50,000 -
$100,000
Cities, SB2
(HCD)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 73, Packet Page 80 Implementation Strategy Report 68
Category Implementation
Task
Task Description Timeframe
(Years)
Responsible
Party(ies)
Stakeholders Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding
Source
(Agency)
Additional analysis
and refinement of
concepts
Conduct additional site
and market analysis to
refine development
plans for key
opportunity zones,
including Downtown
Salinas, North Campus,
Laguna Del Rey, Del
Monte Light Industrial
and other locations
along the corridor;
create frameworks and
implementation plans
that include short-term
improvements, new
street connections and
key infrastructure
investments
1 - 3 Cities AMBAG, TAMC,
Communitybased
organizations
$100,000 -
$200,000 per
opportunity
zone
Monterey
County,
Community
Development
Block Grant
Program
(HUD)
Housing Develop workforce
housing study with
specific goals for
the corridor
Undertake a workforce
housing study for the
corridor that identifies
existing affordable
units/areas and
affordability goals,
strategies, and policies
1 - 3 AMBAG Cities,
Communitybased
organizations
$100,000 -
$250,000
Monterey
County,
Cities, AHSC
(HCD)
Adopt workforce
housing goals
Adopt workforce
housing goals and
development
incentives/bonuses
3 - 5 AMBAG Staff time,
cost TBD
Monterey
County,
Cities, HUD,
DCA, Super
NOFA Grant
(HCD),

AHSC (HCD)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 74, Packet Page 81 Implementation Strategy Report 69
Category Implementation
Task
Task Description Timeframe
(Years)
Responsible
Party(ies)
Stakeholders Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding
Source
(Agency)
Identify Joint
Development
Opportunities
Identify joint
development
opportunities with
housing authorities
within or along the
corridor
1 - 3 AMBAG Developers Staff time,
cost TBD
AMBAG,
Cities, HUD,
DCA
Transportation Quick Build Pilot
Projects
Identify small to
moderate projects with
short design
timeframes and
permitting cycles
1-2 Cities TAMC, MST,
Caltrans
Staff time,
cost TBD

TAMC, ATP,
STP
Multimodal
Connections
Through
Redevelopment
Analyze relevant new
multimodal connections
possible through
redevelopment (with
consideration for
relevant planning
efforts)
Ongoing TAMC Developers,
Cities
Staff time,
cost TBD

TAMC, TOD
Housing
Program
(HCD)
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Accommodations
Determine appropriate
bicycle/pedestrian
accommodations for
the corridor
3 - 5 TAMC, Cities Caltrans $170,000 -
$1,200,000
City CIPs,

ATP, STP
Intersection
Improvements
Improve key
intersection locations
for station area access
3 - 5 TAMC, Cities Caltrans $270,000 to
$1,100,000
per
intersection
City CIPs,
Local Streets
and Roads,
RAISE
(USDOT)
Station Amenity
Improvements
Improve typical station
amenities.
3 - 5 MST TAMC, Cities $130,000 -
$2,000,000
per station
TIRCP
(CalSTA)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 75, Packet Page 82 Implementation Strategy Report 70
Category Implementation
Task
Task Description Timeframe
(Years)
Responsible
Party(ies)
Stakeholders Cost
Estimate
Potential
Funding
Source
(Agency)
Identify and pursue
public-private
partnerships within
the corridor
Investigate publicprivate partnerships
that could attract
investment and
development, beginning
with County- or Cityowned land; publicprivate partnerships may include partnering
on specific
developments or
increasing parking
facilities
1 - 3 Cities AMBAG, MST,
TAMC,
Developers
Staff time,
cost TBD
based on
specific
project
TAMC, Joint
Development
Program
(FTA), AHSC
(HCD),
Multifamily
Super NOFA
(HCD)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 76, Packet Page 83 Implementation Strategy Report 71

5.1. Funding
Several funding avenues exist to advance TOD and supportive multimodal access improvements in the SURF! corridor. These sources range in size, amount, requirements, and can include local, state, federal, and non-traditional sources. Implementation tasks recommended in Table 12 can be viewed as individual projects and programs which collectively work to promote TOD and supportive multimodal access improvements in the SURF! corridor.

As such, a wide range of funding opportunities exist for each project and program. This section summarizes some of the relevant funding sources that may be available for land use, housing, transportation, and economic development and redevelopment projects and programs identified in this study.

5.1.1. Local Funding Sources
Local sources of funding are the simplest to access, as they are found through existing channels available at the city and regional levels. These can include Capital Investment Program (CIP), as denoted in City Budgets, staff time, regional grants, and local non-profits.

Table 13 gives a summary of some available local funding sources.

Table 13: Local Funding Sources
Category Funding
Program
Funding
Source
Description
Land Use /
Transportation /
Economic
Development
Staff Time City • Staff time is the first and the most
important tool available to promote
TOD and supportive multimodal
access improvements
• Staff time can be spent updating
zoning, general and specific plans,
and creating housing overlays
• Staff time can also be used to
identify key transportation
improvement projects
Land Use /
Transportation
Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP)
City • CIP’s are long-range plans for all
capital improvement projects,
providing a multiyear forecast of a
city’s needs
• CIP projects are generally large
and expensive and can be used to
improve land use and
transportation
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 77, Packet Page 84 Implementation Strategy Report 72

5.1.2. State Funding Sources
State-level funding for TOD and supportive multimodal access improvements is an incredibly versatile tool. These sources of funding are ideal for providing support to jurisdictions for amending their existing zoning, plans, and creating housing overlays, thus promoting development potential. They also help to create several incentives to affordable and workforce housing developers, increasing market potential. State funding may also be utilized to implement several of the local transportation improvements identified by this study. Table 14 below lists the available state funding resources that can be used to promote TOD and supportive multimodal access in the SURF! corridor.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 78, Packet Page 85 Implementation Strategy Report 73
Table 14: State Funding Resources
Category Funding Program Funding
Source
Description
Land Use SB 2 Planning Grant HCD • SB 2 provides funding and technical assistance to local government to help cities and counties prepare, adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production
• Funding will help cities and counties to facilitate housing affordability and promote development consistent with the State Planning Priorities
Building Blocks HCD • A comprehensive housing-element guide to assist jurisdictions in creating comprehensive housing elements
• Municipalities must identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards, and services to accommodate the locality’s share of the regional housing needs for each income level Housing Multifamily Finance
Super NOFA
HCD • Super NOFA is a multifamily housing program that coordinates state affordable housing funding resources for affordable housing developers
• Streamlines four of California Department of Housing and Community Development’s rental housing programs allowing for a coordinated application and award process
TOD Housing Program HCD • Low-interest loans are available as a gap financial for rental housing developments within ¼-mile of transit stations and infrastructure improvements
• Grants are available to Localities and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development of specific housing developments, or to facilitate connections between these development and transit stations
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 79, Packet Page 86 Implementation Strategy Report 74
Category Funding Program Funding
Source
Description
Affordable Housing
Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
Program
HCD • AHSC Program funds land-use, housing, and transportation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through mode shift
• A single developer may receive no more than $100 million per NOFA funding cycle
Transportation Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
CTC • This program is intended to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation and funds bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects
• Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian improvements and planning
• SB1 augmented the ATP with and extra $100 million annually to the program
• The ATP program is a discretionary fund
Local Partnership
Program (LPP)
CTC • This “self-help” program provides funding to counties, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects
• Most transportation projects are eligible for LPP funds • LPP is a 60% formula and 40% discretionary fund
Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital Program
(TIRCP)
CalSTA • Funds transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail system, and bus and ferry transit systems
• TIRCP projects should reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and expand and improve transit service to increase ridership Local Streets and
Roads
Various • Cities and counties receive funds for road maintenance, safety projects, railroad grade separations, complete streets, and traffic control
• Local Streets and Roads is a formula fund
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 80, Packet Page 87 Implementation Strategy Report 75
Category Funding Program Funding
Source
Description
Solutions for
Congested Corridors
(SCCP)
CTC • Regional transportation authorities and Caltrans may nominate projects for funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion
• SCCP is a discretionary fund
Clean California Caltrans • This program, administered by Caltrans, provides funds to local communities to beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers to clean and enhance public spaces
• Clean California is a discretionary fund
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 81, Packet Page 88 Implementation Strategy Report 76

5.1.3. Federal Funding Sources
Federal funding is also available for funding land use changes, housing, transportation, and economic development and are an incredibly powerful tool that agencies can use at their discretion for making major investments in infrastructure. It is suggested that several land use, housing, and transportation projects recommended by this study be bundled and included in any federal application. Note that federal programs include not only grants but also lower-cost loans.

Table 15 below lists several federal funding sources available to implement TOD and supportive land use in the SURF! corridor.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 82, Packet Page 89 Implementation Strategy Report 77
Table 15: Federal Funding Sources
Category Funding Program Funding
Source
Description
Land Use Community Development
Block Grant Program
(CDBG)
HUD • Provides annual grants to cities and counties to develop viable urban communities that provide decent housing and a suitable living environment
• CDBG empowers communities to design and implement
strategies tailored to their own needs and priorities
Transportation Metropolitan and Statewide
Planning and NonMetropolitan Transportation
Planning: Sections 5303,
5304, 5305
FTA • This funding source provides procedural and funding requirements for multimodal transportation planning in
metropolitan areas
• Planning must be cooperative, continuous, and
comprehensive leading to long-range plans and short-range programs that reflect transportation investment priorities • Discretionary funds are available to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for planning activities
Urbanized Area Formula
Program: Section 5307
FTA • This source supports capital, planning, engineering, and design projects. Preventative maintenance is also eligible • For urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000, operating assistance is an eligible expense
• The Urbanized Area is a formula fund
Grants for Buses and Bus
Facilities Formula Program:

Section 5339(a)
FTA • This source provides funding to states and transit agencies through a statutory formula to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct busrelated facilities • In addition to the formula allocation, this program includes two discretionary components: The Bus and Bus Facilities
Discretionary Program and the Low or No Emissions Bus
Discretionary Program
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 83, Packet Page 90 Implementation Strategy Report 78
Category Funding Program Funding
Source
Description
Grants for Buses and Bus
Facilities Program
FTA • This source provides funding through a competitive allocation process to states and transit agencies to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities
• The competitive allocation provides funding for major improvements to bus transit systems that would not be
achievable through formula allocations
Safe Streets and Roads for
All
U.S. DOT • This program provides funding directly to local and tribal governments for improvements to reduce crashes and
fatalities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians
• Safe Streets and Roads for All is a discretionary fund Strengthening Mobility and
Revolutionizing
Transportation (SMART)
U.S. DOT • This program provides competitive grants to states, local governments, and tribes for projects that improve
transportation safety and efficiency
• SMART is a discretionary fund
Surface Transportation
Block Grants
U.S. DOT • This program provides funding that may be used by states and local agencies for a wide range of projects to preserve and improve the condition and performance of surface
transportation, including highway, transit, intercity bus, bicycle, and pedestrian projects
• Surface Transportation Block Grants are a formula fund ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 84, Packet Page 91 Implementation Strategy Report 79

5.1.4. Non-Traditional Funding Sources
Non-traditional funding sources are another way to implement TOD and supportive multimodal access improvements. These funding sources are outside the realm of typical funding opportunities and have the potential to support community projects, as well as the maintenance of open space and recreation opportunities. The non-traditional funding sources most applicable to the projects and programs outlined in this Implementation Strategy are listed in Table 16.

Table 16: Non-Traditional Funding Sources
Category Funding
Program
Funding
Source
Description
Land Use Partners for
Places (P4P)
Adaptation
Clearinghouse
• Partners for Places (P4P) is a
non-profit network of 130
grantmaking organizations that
that supports initiatives with local
government sustainability leaders
and local funders to integrate
climate preparedness and
sustainability in communities
• For eligibility, projects must
advance a community-focused
sustainability, climate action, or
comprehensive plan provision
that specifically addresses
sustainability
• The fund grants range between
$25,000 and $150,000
Transportation Community
Grant Program
PeopleForBikes • The PeopleForBikes Community
Grant Program supports bicycle
infrastructure projects and
targeted advocacy initiatives that
make it easier and safer for
people of all ages and abilities to
ride
• PeopleForBikes focuses most
grant funds on bicycle
infrastructure projects, such as:
bike paths, lanes, trails, and
bridges; mountain bike facilities;
bike parks and pump tracks;
BMX facilities and end-of-trip
facilities such as bike racks, bike
parking, bike repair stations, and
bike storage
• People For Bikes is a
discretionary fund
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 85, Packet Page 92 Implementation Strategy Report 80
Category Funding
Program
Funding
Source
Description
Community
Development
Community
Impact
Program
Community
Foundation for
Monterey
County
• Supports community-building
activities that engage individuals
and communities
• Grants fund community
revitalization projects to make
public spaces accessible, familyfriendly and safe
• Includes community gardens,
bike/walking trails, joint use
agreements with schools and
public buildings/spaces
• Supports arts and historic
preservation programs
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 86, Packet Page 93 Implementation Strategy Report 81

5.2. Short-Term Next Steps
The implementation plan for the TOD study presents an initial roadmap for fostering sustainable and vibrant communities along the SURF! corridor. By starting with the following action items, communities along the SURF! corridor can be transformed into livable, accessible, and environmentally conscious spaces.

The success of TOD depends on the active participation and coordination of all stakeholders involved. The first crucial action item is to maintain and strengthen partnerships and collaborations between government entities, transit agencies, private developers, and community organizations. By fostering the already existing partnerships formed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a collective effort can be made to align goals, pool resources, and streamline decision-making processes.

A “road show” to garner support and encourage ongoing community engagement and public outreach will play a pivotal role in successful TOD implementation. It is crucial to involve residents, businesses, and community organizations in the planning and decision-making processes. By incorporating their input and addressing their concerns, TOD projects will reflect the needs and aspirations of the community they serve.

The next action item is to prioritize the recommendations based on their potential impact and feasibility. By identifying the most critical and achievable actions, resources can be allocated efficiently, and progress can be made in a focused manner. Leveraging the list of minor intersection improvements to identify quick build opportunities for each City will help initiate visible changes.

It is also recommended that a detailed station inventory be conducted to better understand the current state of transit stations. This inventory will help identify basic improvements needed for maintenance and safety, as well as enhanced improvements that can transform stations into more attractive and efficient hubs as land use development plays out.

In addition to transit improvements, it is essential to focus on creating mixed-use developments near transit hubs. This involves encouraging the construction of housing, offices, retail spaces, and recreational areas within walking distance of transit stations. Such developments not only promote a vibrate urban environment but also reduce the need for long commutes and encourage active modes of transportation thus increasing transit trips and reducing VMT and parking demand.

To support the creation of mixed-use developments, zoning regulations need to be revised and updated. This involves working with local governments to integrate TOD recommendations into upcoming studies and planning efforts and remove barriers and create incentives for developers to invest in TOD projects. Incorporating flexible zoning codes that promote density, diversity, and walkability them into existing projects will help gather momentum for these efforts.

Securing funding for the implementation of TOD initiatives is also required. Funding can be secured by actively seeking and pursuing grant opportunities.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 87, Packet Page 94 Implementation Strategy Report 82
Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of TOD and supportive transportation projects is necessary to measure their effectiveness and make necessary adjustments over time. Regular assessments will help identify challenges, identify opportunities for improvements, and inform future decision-making processes. By adopting a dynamic and iterative approach, implementation of TOD strategies can be continuously refined and enhanced.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 88, Packet Page 95 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 89, Packet Page 96 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation from the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust on its Five-Year Strategic Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust (MBFT) on its Five-Year Strategic Plan.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey has supported the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust (MBFT) over the years in its mission to foster sustainable fishing in the Monterey Bay area. One of the City’s Strategic Priorities is to “Develop a long-term strategy for Municipal Wharf No. 2 and a sustainable fishing industry.”
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no cost for the City to receive this report. The City has funded MBFT annually for $70,000 per year from the Tidelands Fund for the past seven (7) years. The total funding the City has contributed to MBFT since 2015 totals $510,000. The City of Monterey is the only local government (including harbor districts) in the region contributing any funds to the MBFT, with the exception of a $2,000 contribution to MBFT from the City of Santa Cruz in 2022 for the Lost Gear Recovery Project.

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 that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 97 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None.

DISCUSSION:

In 2014, representatives from the fishing industry, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) launched the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust (MBFT) to ensure that Monterey Bay’s coastal communities benefit from active, working waterfronts and local, sustainable seafood for generations to come. TNC owned Pacific groundfish quota shares due to a previous investment, and they divested a quota portfolio to MBFT, representing a significant volume of historical trawl fishing in the area. At this time, the City of Monterey invested funds to MBFT to increase groundfish production. In this way, MBFT was able to secure fishing rights for the benefit of the Monterey Bay fishing community.

At the Monterey City Council meeting on March 5, 2024, MBFT will deliver a presentation showcasing the achievements, partnerships, and renewed strategic vision of the MBFT in supporting a thriving fishing community and working waterfront in Monterey Bay. MBFT Executive Director Melissa Mahoney will highlight key achievements, innovative collaborations with local stakeholders and relief groups, future collaborations, and their commitment to ongoing partnership with the City of Monterey.

NR/nr
Attachments: 1. Local Seafood for Local Communities: 5-Year Strategic Plan, 2024-2028

2. MBFT 2022 Impact Report
e: Melissa Mahoney, Executive Director, MBFT
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 98 Our Mission
To ensure sustainable fisheries,
resilient communities, and a
healthy ocean for years to come
Local Seafood for
Local Communities
5 Year Strategic Plan, 2024-2028
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 99 In 2014, representatives from the fishing industry, the City of Monterey, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) launched the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust (MBFT) to ensure that Monterey Bay’s coastal communities benefit from active, working waterfronts and local, sustainable seafood for generations to come. TNC owned Pacific groundfish quota shares due to a previous investment, and they divested a quota portfolio to MBFT representing a significant volume of historical trawl fishing in the area. In this way, MBFT was able to secure fishing rights for the benefit of the Monterey Bay fishing community. Over time, we saw additional needs from other fisheries sectors, and evolved our program base to support a diversity of fishing interests and needs beyond the groundfish fishery. Today, we work to put more local food on local dinner tables, address challenges in every fishery that is important to our local fisheries economy, and encourage all fishermen to engage in participatory management.

Monterey Bay is home to a thriving fishing community engaged in sustainable fisheries, supported by local consumers, and contributing to a resilient regional food system.

Our vision is that Monterey Bay’s waterfront is a thriving place of commerce and recreation, enjoyed by its residents and visitors alike. Healthy coastal ecosystems provide abundant local seafood that is in high demand and integrated with other locally sourced food systems. The waterfront infrastructure illustrates the port’s tradition, history, and respect for the coastal ecosystem, and serves a productive and agile local fishery ecosystem. Citizens appreciate and choose to buy fresh, local seafood products from markets, dock sales, and restaurants throughout the Monterey Bay region. The fishermen are active participants in resource management and act as stewards of the resource. Their knowledge and fishing data are used to improve regional science and management. The MBFT’s work contributes to long term fishing opportunities in our region.

Our Origin Story
Our 10-Year Vision
Our Values
Community-Led
The best solutions are built
from the ground up, are
inclusive and promote diversity.

Stewardship
Cultivating leadership
within the individual and the
collective helps to balance
profitability with conservation.

Sustainability
Resources should be sustained
for future generations.

Integrity
We consistently strive to act
with integrity, serving the
collective and demonstrating
accountability and fiscal
responsibility.

Collaboration
Many creative minds and
perspectives are better
than a few.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
We will be allies and partners
in healing our communities from
past injustices, and celebrating
the diversity of cultures, ideas,
and knowledge present.

Pg. 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 100 Monterey Bay is one of the most productive ecosystems on the planet, home to one of the oldest and most active fishing regions in the United States, offering a wealth of marine resources for the human communities around the Bay. Commercial fisheries for sardine, anchovy, salmon and groundfish (e.g., rockfish and soles) were the key economic drivers of this area for over 50 years. However, during the 1990s and 2000s, a series of federal and state laws such as the Sustainable Fisheries Act and California’s Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) and Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) were passed that mandated a more conservative approach to fisheries management. The total allowable catches for many species, and especially for the multi-species groundfish complex, were drastically reduced.

Although this course correction was warranted to better manage US fisheries, the socioeconomic outcome for Monterey Bay’s fishing communities was significant. The loss of fishing businesses and infrastructure that fishermen rely on has hampered the recovery of the groundfish fishery, even as stocks have been rebuilt. Despite assurances by government regulators that fewer fishermen in the fleet would increase revenue for those who remained, a different outcome emerged.

When the Pacific Groundfish trawl fishery was shut down in the early 2000s, rockfish and sole were no longer available to the market. The market category for ‘white fish’ was quickly replaced by other available products such as imported, farmed tilapia and cod.

Despite attempts over the last 20 years by industry, marketing associations, and NOAA Fisheries, regaining market share has proven to be difficult as the fleet can not compete with outside prices and also faces higher operating costs. Additionally, climate change is disrupting fisheries and changing ocean ecosystems, resulting in increasingly dynamic shifts of abundance and distribution of key species, and additional volatility in both resource availability and regulatory constraints faced by fishermen. We face a highly uncertain future and must creatively and collectively face challenges to our governance frameworks in order to adapt and move toward climate resilience.

With the shutdown of the 2023 salmon season in California, multiple years of extremely limited Dungeness crab seasons, coupled with a new set of conservation challenges for several nearshore groundfish species, the financial viability of the fishing sector here has become increasingly vulnerable. Significantly higher operating costs, market competition, and regulatory complexity contribute to the struggle. At the same time, food from the sea is a historically, culturally, and economically important part of our food system. There are many efforts to support local agriculture and independent farmers, but the MBFT is the only non-profit organization actively working in this region to raise awareness around sustainable local seafood and ensure the viability of the fishing community during an increasingly uncertain and challenging time.

The Context
Pg. 3
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 101 Levers
We will work in close partnership with all stakeholders involved with sustaining and building a healthy local seafood system, including:
• Existing and next-generation commercial fishermen.
• Others who work in the seafood supply chain including community-supported fisheries, processors and food workers, buyers and distributors, fish markets, chefs, restaurants, and other fishery support businesses.
• Emergency food relief programs that provide seafood to local families in need. • Fishing families and others with a personal, cultural, or historical connection to commercial fishing.
• Consumers of Monterey Bay seafood.
• Tourism businesses and other agencies that depend on the value of a working waterfront.
• Environmental, governmental, and academic institutions that are working to advance sustainable fisheries.

As we work to shift the current system to one that will allow our vision to be realized, we will need to influence key levers:

Partnerships
Fishermen
We will invest in the success of local
fishermen and empower them to increase
their sales of fish locally. We can assist them
if they choose to sell their own catch, or
through direct marketing. We want to enable
local fishermen to diversify their fisheries
portfolio and engage in management forums.

Supply Chain Actors
We will influence local buyers, processors,
and distributors to focus their businesses on
local products. We can find, and leverage,
incentives for these actors to buy, sell, and
market local products over imported ones.

Regional Leaders
We will partner with the City of Monterey,
Moss Landing Harbor Commission, and
Santa Cruz Port Authority that manage
harbor budgets to influence investments
in infrastructure. Together, we can find
opportunities to raise funds and apply them
towards needed improvements to support
local fisheries.

Local Seafood Consumers
We will influence more local consumers to
purchase local seafood. Rallying the support
of the community to celebrate local seafood
and fishermen may shift their attitudes
and inspire them to engage with efforts to
secure the future of Monterey Bay fisheries.

Pg. 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 102 The number of independent
fishermen operating in our area
doubles, from an average of
50 active vessels to 100 active vessels
participating in one or more fishing seasons
each year, with a diversity of fishing vessel
sizes and fishing method types, which is a
key characteristic of resilience.

At least 20% of the active fleet is
directly engaged in management
either individually or through
a functioning fisheries association
representing the voices of the community.

At least $10 million has been
invested in upgrades to waterfront
infrastructure that directly benefit
the fisheries operations and the overall
economy while helping coastal communities
adapt to climate change.

A well attended and iconic annual
Seafood Festival is a mainstay in
the Monterey Bay area, hosted in
rotation by the three harbors.

Theory of Change
Over the next 10 years, we will see that this change has happened, and that Monterey Bay is home to a thriving fishing community engaged in sustainable fisheries, supported by local consumers, and contributing to a resilient regional food system when:

Consumption of local
sustainable seafood has
doubled in the Monterey Bay
region as evidenced by sales of three key
species: chilipepper rockfish, sablefish,
and grenadier in local grocery stores,
restaurants, and direct-to-consumer
channels such as dock sales.
6 key seafood businesses and
20 independent fishing vessels
operating out of Monterey
Bay harbors confirm their sales to local
entities have increased on average by at
least 20%, and net profits have increased
by an average of 5% per year.

Every farmers market in our
region has at least one entity
(fisherman or communitysupported fishery) selling fresh, local seafood in season.

Impact Goals
When we
build trusted
partnerships
with fishermen,
seafood
businesses and
local leaders
Commercial fisheries
and working
waterfronts will
continue to exist
and we will continue
to have food
from the sea as a
cornerstone of our
local food system
Collectively advance the
viability and profitability of
fishing businesses
Secure modern infrastructure
across Monterey Bay ports
and harbors
Expand the availability and
access of local sustainable
seafood to the public
then we
can
to
ensure
Pg. 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 103 In order to move toward these 10-year targets, we will use the strategy below to guide our work over the next 5 years (2024 - 2028). We have chosen five strategic priorities as the most impactful areas of work that will help us move towards our 10-year vision. We will measure our progress towards our 10-year Impact Goals yearly to ensure we are on track, and adjust our strategies as needed.

The Next 5 Years
Pg. 6
© David Hills

1. INCREASE LOCAL, EQUITABLE SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
Drive demand for local, sustainable seafood and make it more accessible in Monterey Bay communities.

2. STRENGTHEN LOCAL SEAFOOD BUSINESSES
Support the local seafood business sector to enhance their viability.

3. ENGAGE INDUSTRY IN MANAGEMENT
Cultivate stakeholder engagement and leadership in fisheries management, policy and conservation.

4. IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE
Ensure the Monterey Bay region can support the long-term resilience of the fishing industry in a changing world.

5. STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE OF THE MBFT Ensure that the organization has sufficient resources and capacity to carry out its mission.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 104 Tactics
• Update the Local Catch Guide to enable consumers to find and buy fresh, local seafood in season.
• Host the Get Hooked dinner series and create a restaurant partnership program. • Donate local seafood to organizations serving families in need of food assistance through the Monterey Bay Community Seafood Program.
• Partner with food relief organizations to provide seafood education, recipes, and cooking classes.
• Target a younger audience with youth seafood education, cooking classes, and ocean related art projects.
• Target Latinx communities with farmers markets, seafood tasting events, and translated website pages and outreach materials.
• Sell merchandise at events and online to generate a local seafood buzz. • Partner with local agencies and harbors to host a Seafood Festival to celebrate local seafood and fishermen in our community.
• Produce updated videos for Monterey, Moss Landing, and Santa Cruz regarding seafood and where to buy for hotels, TV, and other advertising outlets. • Establish a seafood nutrition partnership to increase consumption of seafood through a health motivation lens.

Drive demand for local,
sustainable seafood and
make it more accessible in
Monterey Bay communities.

PRIORITY 1:

Outcomes
• Increased public awareness about sustainable Monterey Bay seafood with general and specific audiences such as youth and the Latinx community. • Built community connections with fishermen and the local fishing industry. • Consumer demand and sales for local seafood increased as a result of developing new markets and updated marketing strategies.
• Food security increased while supporting the local fishing economy. • Increased consumption of underutilized species such as grenadier and chilipepper rockfish. • Consumers learned about the nutritional benefits of seafood and incorporated more local seafood into their diet as a result.

Increase local,
equitable seafood
consumption
Pg. 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 105 Tactics
• Lease hundreds of thousands of pounds of sustainable groundfish fishing rights through our quota leasing program.
• Establish a direct marketing program for local fishermen to increase dock sales. • Improve how we promote dock sales with tailored methods for each harbor. • Highlight fishermen of the month with social media videos about their fishing operations and where to buy their fish.
• Directly support our local seafood economy by purchasing seafood from local fishermen and seafood businesses through the Monterey Bay Community Seafood Program.
• Connect storytelling about fishermen to the Local Catch Guide (put a face to the fish!). • Partner with California Sea Grant to offer fishermen first aid, marketing and business support.
• Partner with California Farm Link and other entities to update and improve our Business Technical Assistance Toolkit and Succession Planning support for fishermen.
• Investigate the path to lease ocean bottom permits to support diversification and a local blue economy.

Outcomes
• Increased fishermen’s access to tools, information, training, finance, and technical assistance resulting in stronger sales and higher net profits. • Dock sales in Monterey Bay expanded to offer a more frequent and consistent supply of fresh fish for area residents and visitors to enjoy throughout the summer months. • Protected and utilized local access to groundfish fishing rights. • Markets for local seafood were expanded, thereby supporting the local fishing economy.
• Supported and encouraged the next generation of fishermen committed to maintaining the sustainability of local seafood.
• Increased landings of underutilized species such as grenadier and chilipepper rockfish.

Strengthen
local seafood
businesses
Support the local seafood
business sector to enhance
their viability.

PRIORITY 2:

Pg. 8
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 10, Packet Page 106 Tactics
• Build leadership capacity and support fishermen attendance at state and federal management meetings through travel reimbursements.
• Provide a curated list monthly of important meetings, events, and issues for fishermen to engage regarding fisheries management and business support. • Continue to support education opportunities for fishermen (e.g., MREP, First Aid, Business tools) with scholarship funding for at least three fishermen annually to attend MREP.
• Hold community meetings to facilitate dialogue among fishermen and with key leaders at local, regional, state and national levels as needed to ensure representation in fisheries issues important to our region. • Host an annual Monterey Bay Fisheries meeting with our US Congress member(s). • Facilitate collaboration between local scientists and fishermen in support of research and conservation efforts.

Cultivate stakeholder
engagement and
leadership in fisheries
management, policy and
conservation.

PRIORITY 3:

Outcomes
• Built trust, collaboration, and partnership with fishermen and MBFT, and between and among fisheries stakeholders, managers, regulators, scientists, and conservationists.
• Strengthened industry stakeholders’ capacity to participate in fisheries science and conservation and engage effectively in fisheries management decisions, resulting in their ability to more effectively advocate for solutions to maintain sustainable fisheries
• Ensured fishermen’s voices are being heard directly by the right government officials at the right time to affect regulatory, funding, and policy actions at the appropriate level of government.
• MBFT has contributed to ongoing learning and sound policy for sustainable fisheries.

Engage Industry
in Management
Pg. 9
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 11, Packet Page 107 Tactics
• Build a public and fishery stakeholder constituency to influence the Monterey City Council around funding fisheries infrastructure improvements. • Update the 2013 Community Sustainability Plan and create a ‘Resilient Monterey Bay Fisheries and Waterfronts Plan’ by the end of 2026. • Host a local “Future of Fisheries” summit that brings together fishermen, chefs, scientists, restaurants and markets.
• Conduct data gathering and assessment, make recommendations at a stakeholder summit to gather their ideas, create a new plan, publish the plan and share with elected officials.
• Facilitate a capital investment project with the City of Monterey to revitalize Wharf II. • Participate in the Monterey County Food Coalition and other regional food systems projects to ensure improvements include fisheries and waterfront infrastructure.

Outcomes
• Adequate infrastructure is in place to support a diverse fishing fleet. • Fisheries stakeholders have been consulted to assess risks and develop tools to mitigate current and future impacts of climate change.
• Rebuilt and cultivated new partnerships with Monterey City Council, Moss Landing Harbor Commission and Santa Cruz Harbor in service of improving infrastructure. • Connections and trust between the fishing community and local government strengthened.

Improve
Infrastructure
Ensure the Monterey Bay
region can support the
long-term resilience of
the fishing industry in a
changing world.

PRIORITY 4:

Pg. 10
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 12, Packet Page 108 Tactics
• Expand the Board of Directors and advisors to include members with additional expertise, including finance and fundraising.
• Update Board and staff recruitment process to address values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Hire and retain the best talent in key areas of executive leadership, development, program management, communications and community engagement. • Increase the visibility and impact of our programs with the fishing community and the general public.
• Increase communication and collaboration with fisheries organizations in the region, state and nationally in alignment with our mission.
• Nurture current partnerships and forge new partnerships with mission-aligned organizations and funders, including more involvement with food system partners. • Improve our financial and administrative systems for better fundraising performance, ease of use, and accountability.
• Increase individual donations year over year and grow a diverse funding portfolio. • Develop and implement a plan for continuous evaluation, metrics, and improvement of the organization’s programs.

Ensure that the
organization has sufficient
resources and capacity to
carry out its mission.

PRIORITY 5:

Outcomes
• The MBFT team has sufficient capacity to successfully implement all program areas, maintain communications, administer workflow productively and with life balance • MBFT is a great place to work!
• An expanded Board of Directors has supported the financial well being of the organization through giving and by actively championing our work and cultivating ever-wider support in the community.
• The MBFT donor base has expanded to include the right mix of mid-high level donors. • Data driven metrics inform new proposals and funding partnerships because our impact is clear to funders.

Strengthen the
Organizational
Resilience of the
MBFT
Pg. 11
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 13, Packet Page 109 101 Cooper St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 233-3101 [email protected] www.MontereyBayFisheriesTrust.org
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 14, Packet Page 110 2022
Giovanni Nevoloso,
F/V Gabbiano
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 15, Packet Page 111 Dear Friends,
2022 was a big year for the Trust. Like so many businesses, we had begun to emerge from the pandemic, rebuilding staff and program activity. We were able to bring on a Community Outreach Coordinator, Shelley Dearhart, in early 2022. Shortly after that, our founding Executive Director Sherry Flumerfelt, who had steadily managed the Trust for the last eight years, announced she was stepping down.

Anyone familiar with running a non-profit organization knows that a leadership transition can stall progress. Fortunately, Shelley stepped up to lead many aspects of our programs, and Sherry facilitated the search for the new Executive Director. We thank Sherry for her eight years of amazing leadership, and wish her well in her new role!
During those months of transition, we continued our flagship quota leasing program, as well as the three other active programs supporting our strategic goals. By the end of 2022, this resulted in over 53,000 pounds of quota leased to local fishermen, 2,000 pounds of seafood purchased for the CSP, and six fabulous Get Hooked dinners in both Monterey and Santa Cruz counties to connect almost 300 local folks to their fishermen and raise money to supply local seafood for those in need.

In August 2022, Melissa Mahoney came aboard as our new Executive Director. She is no stranger to our organization, or to the fisheries world. A West Coast fishery expert and MBFT co-founder, Melissa was instrumental in coordinating early efforts among community leaders in 2013 to engage and support the formation of the Trust. She acted as an Advisor, and also served on the Board of Directors for almost seven years (2016-2022).

During her interview, she shared a desire to re-focus energies on her home community of Monterey Bay. She is a natural fit to lead the organization.

In this year of transition, we are especially grateful for the continued support received from our advisors, funders, and donors, including the many new donors that contributed to our end of year giving campaign. Thanks to each and every one of you for your partnership and support in helping us to build a resilient coastal community that values and celebrates its local seafood supply and the nutritional, historical, and economic value it brings.

Sincerely,
MBFT Board of Directors
Steve Scheiblauer
Chair
David Crabbe
President
Margaret Spring
Vice President
Monica Galligan
Treasurer
Bob Dooley
Member
Dr. John Field
Member
Chaps Poduri
Member

OUR MISSION
To advance the social, economic
and environmental sustainability of
Monterey Bay fisheries.

Since 2014, the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust (MBFT) has been working to increase community access to healthy, local, sustainably caught seafood while preserving an integral part of the economy, heritage, and biodiversity of Monterey Bay. We collaborate with the fishing industry, government, non-profits, food service, and food systems partners to achieve our vision of a thriving and resilient fishing industry with seafood as a cornerstone of our local food system. © David Hills
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 16, Packet Page 112 We continued to support fishing businesses by raising their visibility online and providing them with pertinent information and technical resources.

Through our monthly Buoy Bulletin, we directly informed fishery participants about important events, trends, and factors influencing the health of their industry. Through our social media channels, we promoted local fishing businesses
and direct-to-consumer markets. In partnership with
California FarmLink, we produced a white paper on
succession planning for commercial fishing retirees and financial planning tools for new entrants. We continued our flagship quota leasing program, protecting local
access to sustainable groundfish fishing rights and
saving fishermen thousands of dollars in lease fees.

Strengthening Local Seafood Businesses
20 fishermen received
direct assistance
(technical, leadership,
management related)
825K pounds of total quota
leased (local, CA, other)
pounds of groundfish
leased to local
fishermen and $3.9K
saved in lease fees
53K
2022 Accomplishments
"As long as the Trust is here, we will have additional groundfish quota for my operation when I need it and at a discounted rate. Given so many uncertainties with fishing nowadays, having that dependability is golden."
– Jiri Nozicka F/V San Giovanni
Jaima Jolin and
Eric McKee,
F/V Hannah J
© David Hills
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 17, Packet Page 113 Through the Monterey Bay Community Seafood Program we
continued to partner with fishing businesses and food relief programs to donate thousands of healthy, sustainable seafood meals to those in need of food assistance while supporting our local seafood economy. This program has illustrated the often understated importance of California seafood to our region’s overall economy and food security in a time of increasing climate disruption. In 2022, we launched a new Get Hooked dinner series to promote the benefits of local seafood and build relationships among consumers, fishermen, chefs, and seafood suppliers. We held six dinners at restaurants throughout Monterey and Santa Cruz counties that raised over $7,000 for the Community Seafood Program. MBFT also continued to
engage in the broader local food system network, serving as co-chair of the Monterey County Food System Coalition.

Promoting Access to Local,
Healthy Seafood For All
Building a Local, Sustainable
Seafood Movement
In 2022, we continued to promote sustainably harvested Monterey Bay seafood. We connected consumers with local seafood and the men and women who make up our region’s fishing community and seafood businesses. Through our website, digital storytelling, newsletters, social media, and online “Local Catch Guide” we spotlighted those who harvest, process, and sell local seafood, helped consumers identify and prepare seasonal seafood, built
relationships among consumers and seafood
businesses, and drove consumer traffic to dock sales
and businesses that sell locally-sourced seafood.
12K+ views of the Local
Catch Guide
98K unique website
visitors, a 28% increase
from 2021
11 newsletters, 16 unique
stories featuring local
seafood and the fishing
community
2K pounds of local
seafood purchased
5K+ healthy seafood
meals distributed
people attended six
300 Get Hooked dinners
Get Hooked Dinners:

Wild Fish, Pacific Grove
Big Sur Bakery, Big Sur
Colectivo Felix, Santa Cruz
HOME, Soquel
La Posta, Santa Cruz
Folktale, Carmel Valley
Food Relief Partners:

Meals on Wheels of the
Monterey Peninsula
Pajaro Valley Loaves and Fishes
Food Bank for Monterey County
Al and Friends
The Big Share
Fishing Industry Partners:

Lusamerica
Sea Harvest
Ocean2Table
Real Good Fish
Rick Richards
and volunteers
at Al & Friends
Eric McKee,
F/V Hannah J
© David Hills
“We serve the people that are most in need of nutrition, and fish is something we don’t normally get enough donations to cover the cost for. When [the Trust] came to us and said [they] could do this, it was just amazing!” – Al Siekert, Founder, Al & Friends
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 18, Packet Page 114 Thanks to our 2022
funders:

The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
City of Monterey
Monterey Peninsula Foundation, host
of the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am
Community Foundation for Monterey
County
Repass-Rodgers Foundation
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
Clif Family Foundation
The Campbell Foundation
MUFG Union Bank Foundation
Whole Foods Market
Monterey Bay Aquarium
City of Santa Cruz
© David Hills
A very special thanks to the
many generous individuals who
contributed $46,944 in 2022
via Monterey County Gives and
other direct donations!
For the sixth year in a row, we coordinated the Lost Gear Recovery project, which aims to reduce the risk of marine life entanglements with dungeness crab fishing gear that may have been lost or abandoned. This was made possible through the voluntary efforts of nine local fishermen, in partnership with staff from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, and local harbormasters.

We facilitated face-to-face dialogue and collaboration among fishermen, conservationists, scientists, local government, and legislators, such as with Congressman Jimmy Panetta. We provided technical and informational resources through our monthly Buoy Bulletin newsletter, Fishermen’s Portal on our website, and community meetings, and continued to support fishermen’s education through the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) scholarship program.

Supporting Stakeholder
Engagement in Conservation
and Management
767 stakeholders received
resources via the monthly
Buoy Bulletin newsletter (an
18% increase over 2021)
3 fishermen received
scholarships to attend
the 2022 MREP
workshops
9 fishermen actively
kept the Bay free of
lost gear
“Learning the council process was valuable. I think if more fishermen understood [that] you have to be involved, our fisheries would look different than they do today.” — Valerie Phillips, MREP participant and third-generation Monterey Bay fisherman Joeleen Lambert,
F/V Pioneer
© David Hills
Giovanni Nevoloso,
F/V Gabbiano
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 19, Packet Page 115 194,138
105,293
72,504
42,000
36,466
$450,400
Programs
Salaries & Related Expenses
Professional Fees
Depreciation Expense (quota)
Other Operating Expenses

TOTAL EXPENSES
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Quota Lease - net

TOTAL ASSETS
Accounts Payable
Notes Payable
Equity

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
589,820
99,931
1,169,187
$1,858,939
6,812
269,514
1,582,613
$1,858,939
Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Foundation Grants
Government Grants
Individual Donations
Quota Lease Revenue
Other

TOTAL INCOME
281,119
72,000
46,944
99,920
9,192
$509,175
Financials
2022 Income
2022 Expenses
43%
Programs
24% Salaries
& Related
Expenses
8% Other
Operating Expenses
9% Depreciation
Expense (Quota)
16% Professional
Fees
55%
Foundation
Grants
63%
Quota
Shares
85%
Equity
32%
Cash
14% Notes
Payable
20% Quota Lease
Revenue
2% Other
.03% Accounts Payable
5% Accounts
Receivable
14% Government
Grants
9% Individual
Donations
The numbers provided in this report have not yet been reviewed or audited by our CPA.

NET INCOME $58,775
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 20, Packet Page 116 Steve Scheiblauer
Marine Alliances Consulting
Chair
David Crabbe
Buccaneer Fishing
President
Margaret Spring
Chief Conservation & Science
Officer, Monterey Bay
Aquarium
Vice President
Melissa Mahoney
(through March 2022)
Pacific Fisheries Policy
Manager, Environmental
Defense Fund
Secretary
Monica Galligan
Faculty Member, California
State University Monterey Bay
and Middlebury Institute of
International Studies
Treasurer
Robert Dooley
Pacific Fisheries Management
Council Member and
Commercial Fisherman
Member
Our 2022 Team
Melissa Mahoney
Executive Director
(as of August 2022)
Sherry Flumerfelt
Executive Director
(through June 2022)
Shelley Dearhart
Community Outreach Manager
STAFF

CONTRACTORS
Kelley Johnson
Development Manager
Dwayne Oberhoff
Quota Manager
Julie Flanders
Bookkeeper
Mark Anderson
Multimedia Storyteller
Zina Oliver
Graphic Design
Tracy Corbin
Data Management
Autumn Rossi
Hayashi Wayland Accountant
Ally Faurot
Event Planner
Sarah Schulman
Human Resources

BOARD ADVISORS
Barbara Meister
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Blake Anderson
Santa Cruz Harbor
Calder Deyerle
F/V Sea Harvest
Ian Cole
Ocean2Table
Hans Haveman
H&H Fresh Fish
Jana Henig
Positively Groundfish
Kevin Butler
F/V Lisa Marie and F/V Timothy J
Melanie Wong
Nutrition and Fitness Collaborative
for the Central Coast and
California Food Policy Council
Mike Conroy
Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations
Mike Ricketts
F/V Sea Hawk
Reed Geisreiter
Santa Cruz Port Commission
Alan Lovewell
Real Good Fish
Alyson Hunter
City of Marina
101 Cooper St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 233-3101 [email protected] www.MontereyBayFisheriesTrust.org ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 21, Packet Page 117 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: First Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Recodify and Amend the City Code to Name the Old Monterey Business Association as the Official Advisory Board to the City for the Monterey Downtown Promotion District (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council waive a first reading and introduce by title only, an Ordinance to recodify Ordinance 1953, as amended by Ordinance 2223, in Article 4 of Chapter 18 of the Monterey City Code and designate the Old Monterey Business Association as the Advisory Board to the City for the Monterey Downton Promotion District.

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:

The Old Monterey Business Association must comply with the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with the recodifying and amendments to this ordinance. The Monterey Downtown Promotion District is self-sustaining and does not affect the General Fund. This action does not modify the amount of any existing tax.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the transition from at-large to by-district elections for city councilmembers 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. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 118 therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5). 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. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

This action is requested by the Old Monterey Business Association, and no alternatives are recommended by Staff. One optional provision pertains to the classification of businesses.

Streets & Highways Code section 36040 provides: “[f]or purposes of the tax or additional tax to be imposed pursuant to this part, the city council may make a reasonable classification of businesses, giving consideration to various factors, including the degree of benefit received from parking only.” The proposed Section 18-4.08(c) carries forward the reasonable business classification set forth in Resolution 12,417, but this is optional.

DISCUSSION:

In May 1974, the Monterey Downtown Promotion District (“District”) was formed under Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1965 (Streets & Highways Code section 36000 et seq.) when the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1953. Pursuant to this ordinance, all business licensees in the District pay a supplemental business license tax that is collected by the City for the following purposes: (1) decoration of any public place in the area; (2) promotion of public events within the area; (3) furnishing of music in any public place in the area; and (4) the general promotion of business activities in the area.

The amount of the tax was reduced from 50% to 25% of the annual business license tax in July 1974 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2223.

Streets & Highways Code section 36003 provides: “[t]he city council shall have sole discretion as to how the revenue derived from the tax is to be used within the scope of the above purposes; however, the city council may appoint existing advisory boards or commissions to make recommendations as to its use, or the council may create a new advisory board or commission for the purpose.” In November 1974, the City Council appointed the Monterey Downtown Council as the Advisory Committee. (Resolution 12,417.) The City has not located any legislation appointing the Old Monterey Business Association (“OMBA”) as the advisory committee. This action clarifies that OMBA is appointed as the Advisory Committee to the City Council for the District. If so appointed, OMBA, as the official advisory board described in Streets & Highways Code section 36003, will have the authority to suggest to the City Council how to spend tax revenue, while the City Council maintains ultimate authority to approve how to spend that revenue. OMBA may advise the City on how much to request for the voluntary contribution from businesses that do not pay the tax and authorizes OMBA to solicit those contributions.

It is recommended that the City Council recodify Ordinance 1953, as amended by Ordinance 2223, in Article 4 of Chapter 18 of the Monterey City Code, appoint OMBA as the advisory committee of the District, and that Resolution 12,417 be repealed.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 119 KC/cd
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance

2. Ordinance 1953

3. Ordinance 2223

4. Resolution 12,417
e: Virginia Howard, Esq.

[email protected]
Businesses in the Monterey Downtown Promotion District
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 120 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

RECODIFY AND AMEND THE CITY CODE TO NAME

THE OLD MONTEREY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AS THE OFFICIAL ADVISORY BOARD

TO THE CITY FOR THE DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, In May 1974, the Monterey Downtown Promotion District (“District”) was formed under Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1965 (Streets & Highways Code section 36000 et seq.) when the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1953.

WHEREAS, all business licensees in the District pay a supplemental business license tax that is collected by the City for the following purposes: (1) decoration of any public place in the area; (2) promotion of public events within the area; (3) furnishing of music in any public place in the area; and (4) the general promotion of business activities in the area; WHEREAS, the amount of the tax was reduced from 50% to 25% of the annual business license tax in July 1974 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2223; WHEREAS, in November 1974, the City Council appointed the Downtown Monterey Council as the Advisory Committee to the City Council for the District. (Resolution 12,417.) City records demonstrate that the Downtown Monterey Council changed its name to Old Monterey Council in approximately 1975. The City has not located any legislation appointing the Old Monterey Business Association (referred to herein as “OMBA” or the “Association”)) as the advisory board, although OMBA has acted as in that capacity for decades; WHEREAS, this action appoints OMBA as the Advisory Board to the City Council for the District. If so appointed, OMBA, as the official advisory board described in Streets & Highways Code section 36003, will have the authority to recommend to the City Council how to spend tax revenue, while the City Council maintains ultimate authority to approve how to spend that revenue;
WHEREAS, OMBA may advise the City on how much to request for the voluntary contribution from businesses that do not pay the tax, and the City Council may authorize OMBA to solicit those contributions;
WHEREAS, this action recodifies Ordinance 1953, as amended by Ordinance 2223, as Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 121 2 Chapter 18, Article 4, of the Monterey City Code without substantive changes. This action does not modify or extend the amount of any tax that has been in effect since the adoption of Ordinance 2223 in 1974;
WHEREAS, this action repeals Resolution 12,417 in its entirety; WHEREAS, the OMBA must comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that appointing a new advisory committee for a business improvement district 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. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5). 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. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

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: Ordinance 1953, as amended by Ordinance 2223, is recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 18, Article 4, Monterey Downtown Promotion District, Sections 18-

4.00 through 18-4-06.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 18, Article 4, Section 18-4-07, Advisory Board, is added to read as follows:
“(a) The Old Monterey Business Association (the “Association”) is appointed, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36003, as the as the Advisory Board to make recommendations to the City Council as to the use of the funds of the Monterey Downtown Promotion District, and to expend such funds in compliance with the adopted budget for such District.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 122 (b) The Advisory Board may recommend to the City Council, at the time it submits its proposed budget pursuant to Section 18-4.08, an amount of voluntary contribution that may be requested from businesses that do not pay the tax. Upon approval by the City Council, the Advisory Board is authorized to solicit those voluntary contributions. (c) When the Association takes action that requires a vote of its members, businesses that voluntarily pay the dues, as established by the Association from time to time, shall have equal voting rights with the businesses that are members of the Association by virtue of paying the business license tax levied on behalf of the District. The Association may also establish, from time to time, one or more classes of non-voting members for businesses located outside the geographic boundary of the District.”
SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 18, Article 4, Section 18-4-08, Annual Budget and Expenditure Reports, is added to read as follows:
“(a) Annually, but not later than May 1 of each year, the Advisory Board shall submit a budget to the City Council for approval that shows the anticipated revenues and expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. (b) Annually, but not later than September 30 of each year, the Advisory Board shall submit a report to the Finance Director of the City of Monterey that shows how the revenues for the prior fiscal year were spent.
(c) The Finance Director is authorized and directed to establish such rules and procedures as necessary or desirable to ensure that the funds of the District are lawfully expended and to audit the expenditure of such funds whenever the Finance Director should determine that an audit is necessary or desirable.”
SECTION 6: It is the intent of the City Council that Ordinance 1953, as amended by Ordinance 2223, shall not be considered repealed and reenacted in its recodified and amended form; that the portions which are not altered are to be considered as having been the law from the time when they were enacted; that the new provisions are to be considered as having been enacted at the time of the amendment; and that the omitted portions are to be considered as having been repealed at the time of the amendment.

SECTION 7: Resolution 12,417 is hereby repealed.

SECTION 8: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

SECTION 9: It is the intent of the City Council that this ordinance does not enact a new tax or increase a tax. The tax remains unchanged from that adopted in Ordinance 2223 in 1974.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this action is subject to Proposition 13, Proposition 218, and/or Proposition 26, then this action is void.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 123 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 124 . '

FOLLOWS
ORDINANCE NO. ------- 1953 c.s.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS AND

IMPROVEMENT AREA TO BE KNOWN AS THE
"MONTEREY DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT"

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN AS
SECTION 1. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the
Resolution of Intention No. 12,295 C.S adopted on the 23rd day of April, 1974.

SECTION 2 Pursuant to said Resolution of Intention,
a Public Hearing was held, protests heard and evidence taken for and against the formation of said proposed MONTEREY DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT on May 7, 1974, at 8 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Few Memorial Hall of Records, City Hall, Monterey.

All of said protests are hereby overruled.

SECTION 3. A Parking and Business Improvement Area
to be known as the MONTEREY DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT is hereby established in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Sections 36000 et seq and the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. The boundaries of said MONTEREY DOWNTOWN
PROMOTION DISTRICT are
Bounded on the north by the northerZymost
boundary of the Urban RenewaZ area, runn�ng southerZy
to FrankZ�n Street �naZud�ng aZZ property front�ng on
Paa�f�a Street, then southerZy to Jefferson Street �naZud�ng aZZ property front�ng on P�erae Street, then southerZy to Mad�son Street �naZud�ng aZZ property
front�ng on Dutra Street, then easterZy foZZow�ng the
- 1 -
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 125 souths�de of Mad�son Street to the east boundary of
the property hous�ng the C�ty Publ�a L�brary, then
southeast from that po�nt to Cass Street inalud�ng
excluding Parcel No. 1-591-52,
all property front�ng on Hartnell StreetJ then east
to exclude property hav�ng frontage on Sargent Court
to a po�nt to the rear of property front�ng on the
east s�de of Cass Street, then north to �nalude all
property front�ng on Cass Street then east to the
rear of propert�es front�ng on Webster Street, then
south to �nalude all property front�ng on Munras
Avenue to a po�nt �here �t �nterseats the extens�on
of the south s�de of Fremont Street, then east to
�nalude all property front�ng on Fremont Street to
the southeast aorner of the property at the southeast aorner of Fremont and Abrego, then northerly to Pearl Street to �nalude all property front�ng on
Abrego Street, then northerly to a po�nt �here �t
�nterseats ��th the Southern Paa�f�a r�ght-of-�ay
�naluding all property front�ng on Wash�ngton
Street, then northwest follow�ng the Urban Renewal
boundary to the Po�nt of Beg�nn�ng.

SECTION 5. All business licensees in the District
shall be subject to an annual tax in an amount equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the annual business license tax levied for any one business notwithstanding the fact that one business may have more than one license issued under separate classifications. A schedule establishing an equitable amount for businesses which are lawfully exempt from business license - 2 -
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 126 taxation shall be established by the City Council of the City of Monterey. Said businesses shall be requested to voluntarily make contributions in said amounts.

SECTION 6. Revenues collected pursuant to this Ordinance may be used only for the following purposes (a) Decoration of any public place in the area.
(b) Promotion of public events within the area.
(c) Furnishing of music in any public place in
the area.
(d) The general promotion of business activities
in the area
SECTION 7. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTEREY this 21st day of
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST
COUNCILMEN.

COUNCILMEN

COUNCILMEN
Date of Publication
May 13, 1974
May , 1974, by the following vote

FRY, RUDOLPH, ANSEL
NONE

BOULDRY, CONIGLIO

APPROVED
- 3 -
Gf ANSEL
m of said City
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 127 I
'
ORDINANCE NO 2223 C S
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE NO
1953 C.S. TO REDUCE THE ANNUAL TAX IN THE DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT FROM 50% TO 25% OF THE

ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE TAX

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1 Section 5 of Ordinance No 1953 CS is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sect�on 5 All bus�ness l�censees �n the D�str�ct
shall be subJect to an annual taz �n the amount
equ�valent to tuJenty-f�ve percent (25%) of the
annual bus�ness l�cense taz lev�ed for any one
bus�ness notuJ�thstand�ng the fact that one
bus�ness may have more than one license �ssued
under separate class�f�cat�on A schedule
establ�sh�ng an equ�table amount for bus�nesses
wh�ch are lawfully exempt from bus�ness l�cense
ta.xat�on shall be establ�shed by the C�ty
Counc�l Sa�d bus�nesses shall be requestedc to
voluntar�ly make contnbut�ons to the D�str�ct
�n sa�d amounts
_ SECTION 2. The tax imposed by Section 1 herein shall be applicable to business license taxes due on and after July 1, 1978 SECTION 3 This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
days from and after its final passage and adoption
- 1 -
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 128 : , ,, PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this
following vote
5th day of __
J
_
u
_
l
_
y ___
, 1978, by the
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COUNCILMEN BO�RY-, �OLD, HOOKER, PAGE, FRY

COUNCILMEN NONE
COUNCILMEN . NONE
'-- - .... ---,. -

APPROVED
Mayor
/s/ G: � GERALD
of said
T. 11.,� City FRY
1'1:L
Assistant City Clerk thereof
Date o blication·
June 25, 1978
- 2 -
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 129 RESOLUTION NO _.;::cl_2 "-' 4,
-'-
_7__ 1 C S

A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MONTEREY DOWNTOWN PROMOTION DISTRICT

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTEREY that
1 The DOWNTOWN MONTEREY COUNCIL is hereby appointed as the ADVISORY COMMITTEE of the Monterey Downtown Promotion District formed pursuant to Ordinance No 1953 C,S 2 The ADVISORY COMMITTEE is hereby empowered to
make recommendations to the City Council for the expenditure of Promotion District funds and to expend said funds in compliance with the adopted budget 3 The Finance Director of the City of Monterey is
directed to make rules and regulations necessary to insure that said monies are lawfully expended and to audit the expenditure of said funds 4 The bylaws of the Downtown Monterey Council shall
at all times provide that membership shall be open to all persons within the District who are subject to assessment under Ordinance No. 1953 CS without further qualification, particularly the payment of dues, and that all members shall have equal voting rights

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTEREY this 19th day of November, 1974, by the following vote - 1 -
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 130 J. ...
·�
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ATTEST

COUNCILMEN ANSEL, BOULDRY, FRY, RUDOLPH, CONIGLIO
COUNCILMEN. NONE

COUNCILMEN NONE
'fh:.���. Assistant City Clerk thereof
I
I
- 2 -
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 131 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Authorize Agreement with Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc. in the Amount of $417,554 for Purchase of Multi-function Printer Copiers, Supplies, Services, and Maintenance (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize an agreement with Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc. for a term of five (5) years with a total not to exceed fee of $417,554 for the purchase of color multi-function printer copiers, supplies, services, and maintenance.

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:

The choice of Monterey Bay Office Products Inc. as the solution vendor is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive, quality, and cost-effective information technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.

This action is also consistent with Council policy to approve Professional Services Agreements exceeding $75,000.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code section 28-15(c)(3) allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from Monterey Bay Office Systems, Inc. by utilizing the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Value Point agreement #140597 for copiers and managed print services. The Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on February 21, 2024.

The cost proposal is $220,304 for the purchase of 51 multi-function copiers with an estimated yearly cost of $40,170 for a total not to exceed cost of $417,554 over the five (5) year agreement. The funding for this project will come from the Information Services Division Equipment Outlay Account (710-030-0340-0000-4505). As of February 20, 2024, sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 132 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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to replace the existing multi-function copiers. This is not recommended due to the age, system downtime, and higher costs associated with maintaining end-of-life equipment.

DISCUSSION:

Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc., will provide the full range of services, including delivery, installation, training, equipment relocation, supplies, and maintenance for five (5) years.

Project goals are to:
1) optimize the environment by providing black and white, and color prints from the copiers instead of separate color printers,
2) standardize on models and configuration,
3) improve efficiency in resources and costs,
4) maintain good customer support, and
5) lessen environmental impact.

Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc. (MBS). has experience with projects of similar scopes with several local government agencies, school districts, and corporate offices. MBS, in business for 42 years, presents a team with a combined 107 years of experience in the field of business systems with an office and warehouse located within 20 miles of City Hall. MBS provided a comprehensive project plan addressing the City’s project goals and included a process to gain insights into the City’s printing expenses to identify opportunities to cut costs. The plan includes site surveys, end-user interviews, assessment of existing equipment and printing, staff training, and environmentally sound e-waste procedures. In addition, MBS agreed to and provided additional favorable terms to the City’s professional services agreement.

The Konica Minolta NASPO contract provides discounts of up to 71% for the proposed equipment to the City. MBS provided an additional discount of 26% off the base machine and more than 50% off accessories to provide the best competitive bid possible.

The estimated savings to the City is $887,640.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 133 The annual printing and maintenance costs are $10 per month per device, a color page per print cost of $0.0295, and after 1500 prints monthly, a black/white per print cost of $0.0048. If a device needs to move to a different location, there will be no additional cost. The estimated annual printing and maintenance cost for all multi-function copier systems is $12,770.

MBS will provide 30 and/or 45 pages per minute color and/or black/white multi-function printer copiers based on the City’s assessed total printing usage. The device purchase cost range is $2,478 to $5,859.

The library is in the process of evaluating software solutions to replace their end-of-life patron print management solution. The cost to replace the (2) coin accepting devices attached to the (2) new multi-function copier systems is $9484 with an annual maintenance agreement cost of $500 per year. The new units will accept credit cards, bills, and coins.

In rare cases, where staff is unable to use a multi-function copier and requires a laser printer, the all-inclusive service contract cost is $500 per device per year with a color page per print cost of $0.15 and a black/white cost of $0.035. Staff estimates 12 devices with a cost of $6900 per year.

MBS is offering their backfile conversion scanning services to the City as part of this agreement.

Backfile conversions eliminate costs associated with physical storage, allows staff to easily search, retrieve, share files digitally, frees up staff time to focus on core tasks, and documents are more secure and less likely to be misplaced or damaged. The scanning service cost is $0.0750 for 11 x 17 or smaller documents, $2 scanning of large documents, indexing per field $0.0630, coversheets per document $0.0390, document preparation $35 per hour, per GB electronic delivery $94, and $3522 for white glove packing and transport services for up to 44 bankers’ boxes. Staff estimates backfile conversion scanning costs of $20,000 per year.

Item Purchase Cost Yearly Service Fee
Multi-function Copiers (51) $210,820 $12,770
Library Coin Towers (2) $9,484 $500
Laser Printer Services (12) $6,900
Backfile Conversion Scanning $20,000
The total not to exceed the five-year (5) price for this agreement is $417,554.

Moving the City to a managed print service with MBS will reduce printing costs, improve productivity, and free up IT staff time to focus on implementing new technology solutions. [NR/ab]
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 134 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH MONTEREY BAY OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $417,554 FOR THE PURCHASE OF MULTI-FUNCTION PRINTER

COPIERS, SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 28-15(c)(3) allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements); WHEREAS, this acquisition is to be made through Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc by utilizing the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) agreement for Copiers and Managed Print Services;
WHEREAS, as of January 23, 2024, sufficient funding is available for this project in the Information Services Division Equipment Outlay Account (710-030-0340-0000-4505); WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office 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;

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, or their designee, to execute an Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 135 2 agreement with Monterey Bay Office Products, Inc. for a term of 5 years with a total not-toexceed fee of $417,554 for the purchase of color multi-function printer copiers, supplies, services, and maintenance.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 136 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Andrew Easterling, City Engineer
Jason Bradley, Facilities Coordinator
SUBJECT: Authorize an Appropriation from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance in the Amount of $184,407.45 to the Miscellaneous Building Repairs Project and Award a Professional Services Agreement in the Amount of $184,407.45 to Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC for Facilities Condition Assessments (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) ***CIP*** RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee to appropriate $184,407.45 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Capital Projects Fund, Miscellaneous Building Repairs Project (36c1803) (“Project”);

2. Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC for a term of one year with a not-to-exceed fee of $184,407.45 for Facilities Condition Assessments; and,

3. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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 Vision and Strategic Initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents” by ensuring that the City’s infrastructure meets the needs of the community, including those who work to provide services to the City.

This action is also in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires Professional Services Agreement awards exceeding $75,000 to be approved by City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost proposal for the top-ranking firm was $184,407.45.

Unassigned fund balances can be used to fund reserves and one-time efforts, as opposed to funding new programs, since they are not a reliable ongoing source of revenue. Staff recommends appropriating $184,407.45 from the General Fund’s unassigned fund balance to Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 137 the Capital Projects Fund, Miscellaneous Building Repairs Project (36c1803) to fund this Project.

As of February 14, 2024, sufficient funding is available to complete the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project consists of facilities condition assessments of the City's buildings. This would involve basic information gathering, data collection, and research and would not result in a disturbance to environmental resources.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The study is to assess the condition of the City's buildings, which is located in an urban, built out environment.

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 project involves a building condition assessment; therefore, would not contribute to a cumulative impact.

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 study is to assess the condition of the City's buildings, which is located in an urban, built out environment; therefore, there would be no significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project involves a study; therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City's buildings are not located on the state's Cortese List.

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 involves a study; therefore, there would be no potential impacts to historic or archeological resources.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 138 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

No alternatives are recommended, as seven (7) well-qualified firms submitted responsive, technical proposals. If Council does not award a contract for the facilities condition assessment, any current issues and the standard maintenance and upkeep of City buildings may not be identified.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s facilities serve as key infrastructure to both residents and visitors of the Monterey Peninsula, and as with any piece of infrastructure, standard maintenance is critical to ensure longevity. Performing regular condition assessments of our facilities is an essential part of keeping them in a safe operating state. The condition assessments will identify immediate repairs, ongoing maintenance, and long-term improvements to maximize the service life of the City’s facilities.

A request for proposal was prepared by staff and advertised on November 8, 2023, to solicit proposals from qualified firms. Selection of the best-qualified firm was made in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. On December 13, 2023, seven (7) proposals were received, evaluated, and ranked by staff, consisting of Engineering and Building Maintenance staff. Proposals were rated based on seven (7) criteria with a maximum score of 90 points. The evaluation criteria included:

1. Ability to Design an Approach and Work Plan to Meet the Project Requirements – 20

2. Ability of the Proposer to Carry Out and Manage the Proposed Project – 20

3. Staff – 20

4. Familiarity with Locality – 10

5. Willingness to Comply with the proposed Agreement Terms – 10

6. Reputation – 10

7. Cost of Proposal (not determinative)
The evaluation team concluded that all the consultants could successfully perform the project.

Each firm presented solid proposals and showed relevant experience. However, the top-ranking firm based on staff evaluations was Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC.

The scope of work includes an inspection of each building, a comprehensive asset inventory list per facility, condition assessment and documentation of existing assets, and lifecycle replacement analysis, including estimated replacement cost of sixty-four (64) City buildings. In effect, the City requests a 20-year replacement schedule of all assets/systems with associated and escalated costs. Primary systems to be assessed include Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Roofing, Flooring, Furniture, Exterior, HVAC, Conveyance, Fire/Life Safety, Ceiling, and Emergency Generators.

The consultant shall inspect all identified facilities to produce an accurate analysis that identifies all components and elements requiring maintenance, repair, and/or major capital investment. It is anticipated that the consultant team will be an interdisciplinary team likely to include a California licensed Civil/Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Architect and Appraiser, as appropriate. The consultant will thoroughly examine building systems using non-destructive, on-site observations to compile a complete understanding of current conditions for each facility. The consultant will ensure the inspection staff has the appropriate training and Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 139 equipment to record and produce consistent and accurate data. The final deliverables will help the City plan, budget, and schedule critical maintenance work for its buildings.

JB/ae
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Evaluation Score Card
c: Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC, 180 Promendale Circle, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95834
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 140 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE GENERAL FUND’S UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,407.45 TO THE MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING

REPAIRS PROJECT AND AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,407.45 TO BUREAU VERITAS TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS LLC FOR FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ***CIP***
WHEREAS, facilities condition assessments of city buildings are needed to identify repairs, ongoing maintenance items, and long-term improvements, WHEREAS, a request for proposal was prepared by staff and advertised on November 8, 2023 to solicit proposals from qualified firms,
WHEREAS, selection of the best-qualified firm was made in accordance with Section 28- 30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance,
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2023, seven (7) proposals were received, evaluated and ranked by staff members within the Engineering and Building Maintenance Divisions from the Public Works Department,
WHEREAS, the selection committee agreed that Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC was the most qualified firm for this project,
WHEREAS, unassigned fund balances can be used to fund reserves and one-time efforts, as opposed to funding new programs, since they are not a reliable ongoing source of revenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project consists of facilities condition assessments of the City's buildings. This would involve basic information gathering, data collection, and research and would not result in a disturbance to environmental resources.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The study is to assess the condition of the City's buildings, which is located in an urban, built out environment.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 141 2 significant. The project involves a building condition assessment; therefore, would not contribute to a cumulative impact.

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 study is to assess the condition of the City's buildings, which is located in an urban, built out environment; therefore, there would be no significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project involves a study; therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City's buildings are not located on the state's Cortese List.

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 involves a study; therefore, there would be no potential impacts to historic or archeological resources.

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

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

1. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee to appropriate $184,407.45 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Capital Projects Fund, Miscellaneous Building Repairs Project (36c1803) (“Project”);

2. Awards a Professional Services Agreement to Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC for a term of one year with a not-to-exceed fee of $184,407.45 for Facilities Condition Assessments; and

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 142 3 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 143 Project Name: Project Code:

Service Area:

Rater’s Name:

Criteria Max Points
Bureau Veritas
Technical
Assessments
LLC
ECS Pacific,
LLC
Facilities
Optimization
Solutions
Property
Condition
Assessments,
LLC
Sazan Group,
Inc.

Terracon
Consultants,
Inc. The KPA Group
Ability to Design an Approach and
Work Plan to Meet the Project
Requirements.
10 9 7 9 9 8 7 9
Ability of the Proposer to Carry Out
and Manage the Proposed Project. 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 9
Staff. 10 8 9 9 8 7 6 9
Familiarity with Locality. 10 10 8 8 7 8 7 7
Willingness to Comply with the
Proposed Agreement Terms. 10 5 5 5 7 6 5 5
Reputation. 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total Score 60 46 43 45 45 43 38 44
Staff Date: 2/1/2024
Consultant Selection Evaluation Scorecard
Facility Condition Assessment N/A
Citywide Include On-Call Services: Yes Capital Projects Division ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 144 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
Prepared By: Kyle Olsen, Finance Analyst
SUBJECT: Amend Resolution 23-067 Authorizing Changes to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in the General Fund and Other Funds, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Reserve, and Update the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the attached resolution amending the FY 2023-24 Budget and FY 2023-24 Position Control List.

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:

It is good fiscal and budget policy to regularly review the financial results of City operations. In addition, governmental accounting standards require that the City Council be regularly updated as to the financial condition of the City.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On June 6, 2023, Monterey City Council adopted a balanced budget for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year. The General Fund's appropriated revenues and expenditures were $99.4M and $97.8M, respectively. After a review of the City’s operations, City Staff recommends amending the FY 2023-24 General Fund revenues by an increase of $405K and increasing expenditures by $771K to a total of $100.2M in revenue and $101.3M in expenditures. When taking into consideration amendments made during the first six months of the fiscal year, these proposed mid-year amendments, adopted transfers, and other uses, the current year deficit of revenues to expenditures is $4.2M.

In the General Fund, at the time of adoption, City Staff projected a June 30, 2023 unassigned fund balance of $10.5M. The audited FY 2022-23 unassigned General Fund balance is $15.5M.

This increase is attributed to revenues coming in above projections, close monitoring of expenses, deferring needed costs/repairs, and unfilled positions.

Unassigned funds can be used to fund reserves and one-time efforts, as opposed to funding new programs, since they are not a reliable ongoing source of revenue. The FY 2023-24 Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 145 budget also included a comprehensive set of reserve policies. Included in these policies was the setting of the City Economic Uncertainty Reserve fund to 20% of the City’s General Fund expenditures. Consistent with this City Staff proposes to contribute $773K to the Economic Uncertainty Fund. This would bring the total amount in the Economic Uncertainty Fund to $20.3M, 20% of the City’s Amended Budget.

Outside the General Fund, City Staff recommends amendments to several Special Revenue Funds and Enterprise Funds. This includes increases in expenditures of $234K to the Community Development Block Grant Fund, $174K to the Vehicle Maintenance Fund, $47K to the Information Services Fund, and $123K to the Museum Trust Fund.

A full description of the City’s proposed amendments to the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Enterprise Funds can be found later in this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to approve budget adjustments or designate funds for the Economic Uncertainty Fund; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Budgets are a compilation of estimates (i.e., about economics, programs, projects, service demands, emergencies, etc.), and such estimates are based upon information known at the time the budget is developed. The budget process consists of activities that encompass the development, implementation, and evaluation of a plan for the provision of services and capital assets. The process helps decision-makers make informed choices about the provision of services and capital assets and promotes stakeholder participation in the process. Financial forecasting is a best practice recommended by Government Fiscal Officers Association (GFOA) because it evaluates current and future fiscal conditions to guide policy and programmatic decisions.

The City’s fiscal year spans July 1 to June 30 and currently uses the annual budget model. A critical feature of effective governance, transparency, and financial management is budget monitoring and reporting. This FY 2023-24 update reflects information known about halfway Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 146 through the fiscal year (from July 2023 to January 2024), and this helps plan for the upcoming FY 2024-25 budget and the five-year forecast.

FY 2022-23 Financial Results
The FY 2022-23 audited financial statements confirm a larger-than-expected increase in unassigned balance fund as shown in Table 1
Table 1: General Fund Balance
6/30/2023
(Estimated)
6/30/2023
(Audited)
FY 2023-24
Proposed MidYear
Adjustments
Non-spendable $3,354,228 $3,548,938
Total Committed, Assigned,
Unassigned $46,515,860 $50,207,655
Fund Balance - June 30 estimates $49,870,088 $53,756,593 Budgetary Fund Balance" or
Committed, Assigned, Unassigned
Economic Uncertainty Reserve $17,312,093 $17,241,473 $772,997 Capital Projects (on-going) $2,500,000 $4,657,164
Other Designations $2,700,000 $2,531,324
Encumbrances $2,797,630 $2,605,280
Conference Center Facilities
Reserve $1,838,739 $1,838,739
Sport Center Facilities Reserve $1,875,140 $1,750,000
Pension Reserve $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Technology $2,500,000 $2,500,000
City Facilities $300,000 $600,000
Safety Building Reserve
Library Building Reserve
Rental Registry
Unassigned $10,692,258 $15,503,059
The General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance is further broken down in the table below to show the changes made to date during the 2023-24 fiscal year along with other anticipated reductions in the available balance. The contributions to the various reserve accounts have already been processed according to the adopted budget. Other contingencies are estimated amounts expected to be used in the upcoming months demonstrating the reservation of funding for these activities at amounts known today. Although the net available Unassigned Fund Balance is a negative number, it is important to note some of those numbers are flexible and the total will be offset by any surplus at the end of fiscal year 2023-24.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 147 Revenues
Revenues generally exceeded projections in FY 2022-23. The General Fund revenue finished at 105% of total projections. While some areas of the City’s revenues came in slightly lower than projected, the City’s five key revenue areas1 met or exceeded projections. Of note:
 Transient Occupancy Tax came in at 105%, equaling more than $1.5M over projections.

Half of this unexpected increase is attributable to funds received due to audits of prior year TOT received from hotels.
 Property Taxes came in at 107%, equaling more than $970K over projections.  Fees and Charges came in at 107%, equaling more than $1.2M over projections.

A few areas came in just under projections. Of note:
 Business License Fees came in at 99.9%, just $3K under projections.  Sales Tax came in at 99.6%, just $60K under projections.  Rents came in at 91%, $215K under projections.

The revenues exceeding projections and revenues below projections equate to a net increase of $3.3M in the top General Fund revenue categories.
1 More than 85% of the City’s revenue comes from five key areas: 1) Transient Occupancy Tax; 2) Property Tax; 3) Utility Users Tax; 4) Sales Tax; and 5) Business License Tax Balance at: 6/30/2023
General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance $15,503,059
Reserve Accounts FY 24 Contributions
Economic Uncertainty (2,262,400)
Pension Obligation (2,000,000)
Technology (500,000)
Sports Center (750,000)
ConferenceCenter (750,000)
CityFacilities (250,000)
PublicSafetyFac&Main (250,000)
LibraryFac&Main (250,000)
Rental Registry (250,000)
Subtotal of FY 24 Reserve Contributions ($7,262,400)
Other Contingencies
Other Contingencies (1,500,000)
CIP (5,000,000)
Economic Development (4,000,000)
Economic Uncertainty@Mid-Year (772,997)
Subtotal of Other Contingency Contributions ($11,272,997) Available Unassigned Fund Balance ($3,032,338)
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 148 Expenditures
As noted previously in this report, Expenditures generally came in under initial projections.

There are many reasons for these underspent categories, including unexpected staffing challenges or staff departures, close monitoring of spending, deferring costs, or identifying programmatic alternatives. Overall, the General Fund came in at 92.5% of projected spending, equaling approximately $7.2M in savings. Of note:
 Salaries and Benefits came in at 93.2%, equaling more than $4.6M under projected spending.
 Services and Supplies came in at 85.5%, equaling more than $2.3M under projected spending.
 Equipment Outlay came in at 78.2%, equaling more than $200K under projected spending.

These savings of $7.2M combined with the net increase of $3.3M in revenues contribute to the higher than anticipated fund balance mentioned above.

FY 2023-24 Year to Date Update and Year End Projections On June 6, 2023, Monterey City Council adopted a balanced budget for the FY 2023-24 Fiscal Year. The General Fund projected revenues and appropriated expenditures were $99.4M and $97.8M, respectively. This resulted in a projection of approximately $1.5M more revenues than expenditures. After taking into consideration transfers in/out, the City projected at the time of adoption an operating deficit of $1.5M.

During the first six months of the fiscal year, the budget has been amendment through various council actions via resolutions. The effect on the General Fund was an increase in revenue of $470K and an increase in expenses of $2.8M, increasing the net operating deficit to $3.8M.

As of December 31, 2023, the City has collected approximately 41.8% of General Fund Revenues2 and spent 47% of budgeted expenditures. While generally, the City’s finances are trending in a positive direction, there are different cycles throughout the fiscal year and not all revenues are received on a monthly, steady basis. Some revenues are received on a monthly, quarterly or bi-annual basis. This is the same for expenditures. The City will continue to monitor revenues and expenditures closely.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments (Exhibit A shows a full listing requested amendment by Account)
General Fund
After review and consideration of the City’s operations and finances, City Staff recommends amending the FY 2023-24 General Fund by an increase in revenues of $405K and increasing expenditures by $711K to a total of $100.2M in revenue and $101.3M in expenditures. Taking into consideration all revenues, expenditures, transfers in, and transfers out, the amended estimated deficit is $4.1M. This can be seen in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. There is adequate one-time 2 At time of this report, the City has not yet collected any property taxes from the County. If Property Taxes are excluded from the total, the City has collected 49% of all other revenue sources.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 149 savings in the unassigned fund balance to absorb the deficit, as well as transfer $773K from the unassigned fund balance to the Economic Uncertainty Reserve Fund (Table 3) Table 2.1: FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget Update
General Fund
FY 2023-24 Proposed
Mid-Year
Adjustments
FY 2023-24 Amended
Budget
Revenue $405,280.40 $100,289,836.26
Expenditure $711,304.29 $101,384,347.83
Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditure ($306,023.89) ($1,094,511.57) Transfer In $678,715.00
Transfer Out Other ($140,000.00)
Transfer Out - ISD ($1,090,000.00)
Transfer Out Debt Service ($542,316.00)
Transfer Out CIP ($2,000,000.00)
Net Transfer (Use) ($3,093,601.00)
FY 2023-24 Estimated Surplus
(Deficit)
$
(306,023.89)
$
(4,188,112.57)
Table 2.2: FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget Update (Details) General Fund
FY 2023-24
Adopted
Budget
Amendment
s
FY 2023-24
Amended
Budget (as of
12/31/23)
FY 2023-24
Proposed MidYear
Adjustments
FY 2023-24
Amended
Budget
Revenue $99,414,556 $470,000 $99,884,556 $405,280 $100,289,836 Expenditure $97,872,467 $2,800,577 $100,673,044 $711,304 $101,384,348 Revenue Over/(Under) Expenditure $1,542,089 ($2,330,577) ($788,488) ($306,024) ($1,094,512) Transfer In $678,715 $678,715 $678,715
Transfer Out Other ($140,000) ($140,000) ($140,000)
Transfer Out - ISD ($1,090,000) ($1,090,000) ($1,090,000) Transfer Out Debt Service ($542,316) ($542,316) ($542,316) Transfer Out CIP ($2,000,000) ($2,000,000) ($2,000,000) Net Transfer (Use) ($3,093,601) ($3,093,601) ($3,093,601) FY 2023-24 Estimated Surplus
(Deficit) ($1,551,512) ($2,330,577) ($3,882,089) ($306,024) ($4,188,113) Table 3: Economic Uncertainty Fund
Total General
Fund
Expenditures
Economic
Uncertainty
Fund Balance
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget $97,872,467 $19,503,873
FY 2023-24 Proposed Amended Budget $101,384,348 $20,276,870 Total Added to Economic Uncertainty Fund $772,997
As shown in Table 4 below, the total expected increase in General Fund Revenues are $405K.

While we expect the revenue trends to stay strong throughout the remainder of the fiscal year, we are, as always, cautious about the results. As mentioned previously in the report, the City’s Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 150 key financial sources are strong, but we must continue to monitor these closely. As such, the City is taking a moderate position with regards to revenues and only adjusting the revenue budget to reflect reimbursement from State agencies for firefighting services.

Table 4: General Fund FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment (Details) Title Amended Budget
FY 2023-24 Proposed
Mid-Year Adjustments
FY 2023-24 Amended
Budget
PROPERTY TAXES $15,055,291 $15,055,291
SALES TAX $15,528,406 $15,528,406

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAXES $30,306,295 $30,306,295
BUSINESS LICENSE $3,870,000 $3,870,000
UTILITY USERS TAXES $4,468,520 $4,468,520
FRANCHISE FEES $2,755,000 $2,755,000
OTHER TAXES $503,548 $503,548
LICENSES & PERMITS $1,817,000 $1,817,000
FINES & FORFEITURES $243,500 $243,500
INTERGOVERNMENTAL $1,429,000 $381,933 $1,810,933
INTEREST $913,218 $913,218
RENTS $2,542,466 $2,542,466
FEES & CHARGES $18,787,829 $23,348 $18,811,177
OTHER REVENUES $1,664,483 $1,664,483
TOTAL REVENUE $99,884,556 $405,280 $100,289,836
As shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2, the total expected increase in expenditure is $711K. This is spread throughout four of the City’s departments: Human Resources, Fire Department, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Non-Departmental. A more detailed account of the City’s expense amendments can be viewed after Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1: General Fund Expenditures Amendment Overview Department Name Amended Budget
FY 2023-24
Proposed MidYear
Adjustments
FY 2023-24
Amended
Budget
MAYOR/COUNCIL $193,052 $193,052
CITY MANAGER $2,010,507 $2,010,507
CITY ATTORNEY $1,303,864 $1,303,864
HUMAN RESOURCES $1,341,903 $100,000 $1,441,903
FINANCE $3,907,908 $3,907,908
POLICE $24,086,425 $24,086,425
FIRE $27,244,674 $413,662 $27,658,336
PUBLIC WORKS $8,769,055 $8,769,055
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $8,385,267 $120,243 $8,505,510
PARKS AND RECREATION $14,570,201 $62,400 $14,632,601
LIBRARY $3,052,830 $3,052,830
CONFERENCE CENTER $5,089,759 $5,089,759
NON-DEPARTMENTAL $717,597 $15,000 $732,597
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $100,673,044 $711,304 $101,384,348
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 151 Table 5.2: General Fund Expenditures Amendment Details
Title
Adopted
Budget
Budget
Amendment
s
Amended
Budget
FY 2023-24 Proposed
Mid-Year Adjustments
FY 2023-24
Amended
Budget
MAYOR/COUNCIL $193,052 $0 $193,052 $193,052
CITY MANAGER $1,995,207 $15,300 $2,010,507 $2,010,507
CITY ATTORNEY $1,303,864 $0 $1,303,864 $1,303,864
HUMAN RESOURCES $1,282,012 $59,891 $1,341,903 $100,000 $1,441,903 FINANCE $3,794,228 $113,680 $3,907,908 $3,907,908
POLICE $23,924,778 $161,647 $24,086,425 $24,086,425
FIRE $27,013,338 $231,337 $27,244,674 $413,662 $27,658,336 PUBLIC WORKS $8,411,133 $357,922 $8,769,055 $8,769,055

COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT $7,055,396 $1,329,871 $8,385,267 $120,243 $8,505,510

PARKS AND
RECREATION $14,214,793 $355,407 $14,570,201 $62,400 $14,632,601 LIBRARY $3,051,806 $1,024 $3,052,830 $3,052,830
CONFERENCE CENTER $4,922,978 $166,782 $5,089,759 $5,089,759 NON-DEPARTMENTAL $709,881 $7,716 $717,597 $15,000 $732,597 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $97,872,467 $2,800,577 $100,673,044 $711,304 $101,384,348 Human Resources
 The Human Resources department is charged with leading the City’s efforts in labor negotiations. Since the budget was adopted, the City has experienced several unexpected costs related to labor arbitration. City Staff recommends an amendment of $100,000 to support the Department’s efforts.

Fire Department
 The City of Monterey has provided services to the State of California. It is City practice to amend the budget at the mid-point to reflect the actual amount provided to the State.

Additionally, funds are needed to support the Fire Department’s renovations at the Airport office location and replenish part-time staff costs that were previously reallocated to support immediate costs at the Airport. City Staff recommends an amendment of $413,662 to support the Department’s efforts.3
Community Development
 Earlier this year, the Community Development Department celebrated the retirement of its Building Inspector necessitating the outsourcing of Building Plan Checks to avoid creating a backlog. Additionally, the Department has been approved for a new Principal Planner position. This amendment request includes three months of salary for this position. City staff recommends amendments totaling $120,243 to support the Department’s efforts.

Parks and Recreation
 The Parks and Recreation Department has had several unexpected expenses in the early part of FY 2023-24. These unexpected costs include: additional overtime (OT) for Recreation Administration, utilities for Scholze Park, and summer pool decking for Camp 3 This expense is largely offset by the increase in revenue shown in Table 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 152 Quien Sabe. Additionally, the Recreation Department’s Ceramics classes have been in high demand, necessitating equipment improvement at Hilltop Park Center. City staff recommends amendments totaling $62,400 to support the Department’s efforts.

Non-Departmental
 The City’s Fourth of July Party continues to be a highlight for the City of Monterey.

However, due to its popularity in previous years, increased funds for operating supplies and services are needed to provide musical entertainment, portable restrooms, and entertainment equipment. City staff recommends an amendment of $15,000 be added to the Non-Departmental budget4.

Along with amendments to the General Fund, City Staff also recommends adjustments to Special Revenue Funds and Enterprise Funds.

Special Revenue Funds Include:
 Community Block Grant Development Fund (270): The City has the ability to provide additional loans than originally budgeted. An increase in budget authority will allow the Community Development Department to adequately spend down Community Development Block Grant Funds. City staff recommends amendments totaling $233,512 to support the Department’s efforts.
 Library Trust Fund (810): The City has received a California State Library Grant in the amount of $123,000 to update the Library’s Children’s Area as an Early Learning Space.

City Staff recommends an amendment of $123,000 to appropriate the grant funds received.5.

Enterprise Funds Include
 Vehicle Maintenance Fund (708): Funds are needed to support a new Automotive Mechanic in the Fleet Division. The Division’s needs have continued to grow as the City’s Fire Department supports the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel-bythe-Sea. City Staff support amendments totaling $82,229 to funds three months of salary and benefits for the new position and increase vehicle depreciation.  Information Services Fund (710): The technology needs of the City continue to outpace the size of the Information Services division. Funds are needed for additional part-time support as well as the addition of a new IT Specialist and a Regular Part Time Administrative Assistant to the Position Control List. City staff recommends amendments totaling $62,268 to fund these part-time hours as well as three months of salary and benefits for the new position.

Position Control Updates
4 The Fourth of July event is put on the by the Parks and Recreation Department. 5 Revenue for this Grant has already been accounted for in the City’s revenue.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 153 The City requests that four positions be added to the Position Control List. Costs for these positions are outlined above. These four positions are listed below and can be seen on the updated Position Control List (Exhibit B):
 Principal Planner – FT (Community Development Department)  Automotive Mechanic - FT (Public Works Department)
 IT Specialist - FT (Information Services Division)
 Administrative Assistant – RPT (Information Services Division) KRO
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A – List of Amendments by Account

3. Exhibit B – Updated Position Control List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 154 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23
AMEND RESOLUTION 23-067 AUTHORIZING CHANGES TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 BUDGET TO INCREASE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IN THE

GENERAL FUND AND OTHER FUNDS, DESIGNATE FUNDS INTO THE ECONOMIC

UNCERTAINTY RESERVE, AND UPDATE THE POSITION CONTROL LIST WHEREAS, on June 06, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-067 adopting the FY 2023-24 Operating Budget and Position Control List of the City of Monterey WHEREAS, FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 updates were summarized and presented to Council;
WHEREAS, budget adjustments are proposed to reflect information known since budget adoption; 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 to:

1. Amend Resolution 23-067 authorizing changes to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget as itemized in Exhibit A (attached hereto)

2. Make the following FY 2023-24 General Fund budget adjustments to increase estimated revenue by $405,280 and estimated expenditures by $711,304 as itemized in the Exhibit A (attached hereto)

3. Designate $772,997 into the Economic Uncertainty Fund Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 155 2 4. Add an “Automotive Mechanic”, “IT Specialist”, “Administrative Assistant” and “Principal Planner” to the Position Control List as shown in Exhibit B (attached hereto).

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 156 Fund
Department/Di
vision Description Account Revenue Expense

GENERAL FUND
Human Resources
Professional Services 101-060-0600-0000-4240 $100,000
$0 $100,000
Fire Department
Part-Time Salaries 101-250-2520-0000-4103 $45,000
Operating Supplies 101-250-2530-AIRP-4205 $15,000
Salaries - Overtime 101-250-2530-0000-4102 $353,662
State Reimbursement 101-250-2530-3490 $381,933
Fire Service Charges 101-250-2530-3640 $23,348
$405,280 $413,662
Community Developent
Salaries - Full Time 101-400-4400-0000-4101 $35,112
Finge Benefits 101-400-4400-0000-4150 $6,971
Retirment Benefits 101-400-4400-0000-4155 $3,160
Professional Services 101-400-4410-0000-4240 $75,000
$0 $120,243
Park and Recreation
Salaries - Overtime 101-500-5110-0000-4102 $8,500
Utilities 101-500-5122-0000-4211 $13,900
Equipment Outlay 101-500-5130-0000-4505 $20,000
Equipment Outlay 101-500-5124-0000-4504 $20,000
$0 $62,400
Non-Departmental
Operating Supplies 101-900-9115-0000-4205 $15,000
$0 $15,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND AMENDMENTS $405,280 $711,304

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS & ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Community Development Block Grants Fund (270)
Community Development
Minor Housing Rehab 270-400-4310-0000-4706 $130,000
Property Acquisition 270-400-4310-0000-4421 $78,512
Housing Rehab 270-400-4310-0000-4705 $25,000
$0 $233,512
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 157 Vehicle Maintanence Fund (708)
Public Works
Salaries - Full Time 708-310-3110-0000-4101 $21,858
Finge Benefits 708-310-3110-0000-4150 $6,785
Retirement Benfits 708-310-3110-0000-4155 $1,967
$0 $30,610
Fire Department
Equipment Replacement 708-250-2530-0000-4601 $51,619
$0 $51,619
Vehicle Maintanence Fund Total $0 $82,229
Information Services Fund
Information Services Department
Salaries - Full Time 710-030-0340-0000-4101 $23,478
Salaries - Regular Part-Time 710-030-0340-0000-4109 $11,289 Fringe Benefits 710-030-0340-0000-4150 $9,279
Retirement Benefits 710-030-0340-0000-4155 $3,223
Salaries - Part Time 710-030-0340-0000-4103 $15,000
$0 $62,268
Library Trust Fund (810)
Library and Museums
Equipment Outlay 810-550-5530-REFE-4500 $123,000
$0 $123,000
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS & ENTERPRISE FUNDS TOTAL $0 $501,010 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 158 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT Administration
Community
Resources/
Education  City Clerk Total Allocation
Fund 101 0210 0211 0321

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.83 0.83

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total  City Manager Dept 2.83 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.83 Conference Center Administration Sales
Event
Operations Maintenance Total Allocation
Fund 101 6210 6220 6231 6232

1.00 1.00
Custodian 1.75 1.75

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Event Coordinator 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

2.50 2.50
Operations Coordinator 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Senior Facility Attendant 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Conference Center 2.00 1.00 9.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.25

INFORMATION RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT
Information
Resources Total Allocation
Fund 710 0340

1.00 1.00

0.17 0.17

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00
Senior Information Tech Specialist 1.00 1.00
IT Application Engineer II 3.00 3.00

1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant 0.75 0.75
Total Information Services Dept 10.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.92

CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT
City Attorney
Administration Total Allocation
Fund 101 0500

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total City Attorney Dept 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 HUMAN RESOURCES Administration (1)
Workers' Comp/
Employee
Benefits(2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/715(2) 0600 0612

1.00 1.00
Assistant HR Director 0.50 0.50 1.00
Human Resources Coordinator 2.00 2.00

0.75 0.25 1.00
Human Resources Specialist 1.00 1.00
Senior Human Resouces Analyst 1.00 1.00
Total Human Resources Dept 6.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Finance
(1) Revenue Accounting Revenue(2)
Risk
Management (3) Total Allocation

AMENDED POSITION CONTROL LIST
FISCAL YEAR 2023‐24
Communications Manager
Administrative Assistant
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
Facility Attendant
Operations Supervisor
Senior Craftsworker
Chief Information Officer
Assistant City Manager
GEO Info System (GIS) Coordinator
City Clerk
Executive Assistant
Conference Center General Mgr
Event & Sales Assistant
Sales Coordinator
Event Supervisor
Legal Secretary
Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources Director
Network Engineer II
Information Technology Specialist
Systems & Network Administrator
Assistant City Attorney
City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit B
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 159 Fund 101(1)/807(2)/716(3) 1110 1120 1130 1120 1143

1.00 3.00 4.00
Accounting Assistant 1.00 1.00

1.70 2.00 0.30 4.00

1.00 1.00
Business License Inspector 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 2.00

0.75 0.25 1.00
Finance Manager 1.00 1.00 2.00
Risk Manager 1.00 1.00
Total Finance Dept 1.750 5.70 9.00 0.300 1.25 0.00 18.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT Administration Field Operations Support Investigations/
Community
Services Total Allocation
Fund 101 2110 2120 2130 2140
Assistant Police Chief 1.00 1.00
Homeless Navigator 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Police Officer 34.00 5.00 39.00

7.00 2.00 9.00

2.00 1.00 3.00
Community Service Officer 2.00 2.00

1.00 2.00 3.00
Police Services Technician 8.00 8.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

3.00 3.00
Total Police Dept 5.00 45.00 14.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT Administration
Fire Prevention
& Emerg.

Preparedness Fire Operations Fire Training Total Allocation Fund 101 2510 2520 2530 2540

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Fire Inspector II 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

3.00 1.00 4.00
Fire Captain 21.00 21.00

24.00 24.00

30.00 30.00

1.00 1.00
Total Fire Dept 5.00 2.00 78.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 86.00

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Administration(1
)
Neighborhood
Improvement
Fund Admin(2)
Presidio Maint.

Admin(3) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/216(2)/650(3) 3110 3110 3110

1.00 1.00
Accounting Assistant 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.10 0.60

0.10 0.10

0.50 0.25 0.75

1.00 1.00
Engineering Project Manager 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Administration 5.00 1.00 2.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.45 Engineering Engineering(1)
Sewer Line
Maintenance‐
Engineering(2)
Storm Drain
Engineering(3)
Presidio Proj
Engineering &
Admin(4) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/279(2)/280(3)/650(4) 3121 3121 3121 3159
Accountant/Auditor
Accounting Specialist
Police Lieutenant
Police Services Assistant
Police Records/Detention Supervisor
Senior Administrative Analyst
Senior Police Services Technician
Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Finance Director
Executive Assistant
Finance Analyst
Finance Director
Police Chief
Police Sergeant
Engineering Programs Analyst
Firefighter
Senior Adminstrative Analyst
Accounting Specialist
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Executive Assistant
Fire Chief
Fire Prevention Technician
Deputy Fire Marshal
Division Chief
Fire Engineer
Executive Assistant
Senior Administrative Analyst
Public Works Director
Deputy PW Director/Admin
Exhibit B
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 160

2.00 2.00

2.85 0.15 2.00 5.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.50 0.20 0.20 0.90

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Engineering Project Manager 1.00 1.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

3.40 0.30 0.30 1.00 5.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 0.42 0.58 2.00

0.14 0.86 1.00
Total Engineering 16.75 1.21 1.94 4.00 0.00 0.00 23.90
Vehicle Management ‐Mechanical Mechanical Total Allocation Fund 708 3154

5.00 5.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Vehicle Mgmt.‐Mechanical 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 Building Maintenance
Building
Maintenance(1)
Presidio Maint.

Bldgs(2)
Presidio Camp
Roberts(2)
Presidio Naval
Research(2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2) 3152 3152 3163 3164

1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 14.00

1.00 3.00 4.00

0.15 0.85 1.00

0.25 0.75 1.00

2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 1.00 3.00

1.00 4.00 5.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Building Maintenance 5.40 33.60 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 Streets/Sewer/Stormdrain
Maintenance Maintenance(1)
Presidio Maint.

Streets(2)
Sewer
Maintenance(3)
Storm Drain
Maintenance(4) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2)/279(3)/280(4) 3151 3151 3153 3155

0.30 0.20 0.30 0.20 1.00

0.49 0.40 0.11 1.00

0.02 0.01 0.03

1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00

1.00 1.00

0.74 1.13 0.13 2.00

2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 6.00

1.00 1.00 2.00
Total Streets 6.53 2.33 5.85 2.32 0.00 0.00 17.03
Custodial Services Custodial Total Allocation
Fund 101 3172

7.00 7.00
Lead Custodian 1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00
Total Custodial Services 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 Marina/Harbor
Administration(1
) Maintenance(1) Security(1)
Administration(2
) Maintenance(2) Security(2) Total Allocation
Fund 600(1)/807(2) 3310 3320 3330 3410 3420/3440 3430
Associate Civil Engineer
City Traffic Engineer
Construction Project Manager
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
Engineering Assistant II
Engineering Technician
Public Works Inspector
Administrative Assistant
Fleet Manager
Lead Mechanic
Building Maintenance Craftsworker
Electrician
General Srvc Superintendent
Admin Services Technician
Senior Engineer
Senior Public Works Inspector
Environmental Reg. Analyst
Environmental Reg. Manager
Automotive Mechanic
Parts Clerk
HVAC Senior Technician
Senior Craftsworker
Senior Locksmith
Senior Parts Clerk
Streets & Utilities Operations Manage
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Building Maintenance Supervisor
Building Maintenance Worker
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator
Historic Facilities Sr. Craftsworker
Custodian
Senior Custodian
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Senior Street Maintenance Worker
Sign Craftsworker
Street Maintenance Leadworker
Street Maintenance Worker
Street & Utilities Supervisor
Exhibit B
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 161

0.50 0.50 1.00
Harbor Coordinator 1.00 1.00 2.00

1.50 1.50

0.80 0.20 1.00

0.10 0.10 0.20

0.04 0.03 0.07

1.00 1.00 2.00

0.50 0.50 1.00

2.775 0.98 3.75
Total Marina/Harbor 2.44 1.50 2.775 1.83 3.00 0.98 12.52 Parking Administration Enforcement Maintenance
Parking
Services Total Allocation
Fund 625 3510 3520 3530 3540

2.75 2.75

1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

1.00 1.00

0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15

8.00 8.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

4.00 4.00

0.50 0.50 1.00

4.50 4.50

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Parking 6.35 10.00 9.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 31.35
Community Development Department Planning
Building Safety
& Inspection Total Allocation
Fund 101 4400 4410

2.00 1.75 3.75

0.00 0.00

0.60 0.60

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Community Development 11.60 6.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.35 Housing & Property Management
Property
Mgmt(1)
Property
Mgmt(2)
Housing
Admin(1)
Housing
Admin(3)
Housing
Admin(4)
Housing
Projects(4) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/807(2)/268(3)/270(4)/274(5) 4300 4300 4305 4305 4305 4310

0.15 0.85 1.00 2.00

0.10 0.30 0.40

2.00 1.00 3.00
Housing Manager 1.00 1.00

0.15 0.85 1.00
Total Housing & Property Mgmt 0.40 2.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.40 Parks & Recreation Department Administration Total Allocation Recreation
Fund 101 5110

1.00 1.00

0.34 0.34

1.00 1.00
Recreation Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Harbormaster
Facility Attendant (RPT)
Marina Harbor Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Parking Superintendent
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Parking Enforcement Officer
Parking Enforcement Supervisor
Deputy PW Director/Admin
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Harbor Maintenance Craftsworker
Harbor Maintenance Leadworker
Harbor Security Worker
Accounting Assistant
Accounting Specialist
Parking Services Representative
Parking Services Specialist
Senior Parking Controls Technician
Administrative Assistant
Associate Planner
Community Development Director
Senior Parking Enforcement Off.

Parking Controls Technician
Parking Maintenance Supervisor
Parking Maintenance Leadworker
Parking Maintenance Worker
Parking Services Coordinator
Building Technician
Chief Of Inspct Srvc/Bldg Off.

Senior Building Inspector
Inspector
Administrative Assistant
Principal Planner
Senior Associate Planner
Code Compliance Coordinator
Sustainability Manager
Sustainability Assistant
Plans Examiner
Community Development Director
HCD Coordinator ‐ Projects/Prgm.

Property Manager
Administrative Assistant
Parks & Rec Director
Recreation Manager
Deputy PW Director/Admin
Exhibit B
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 162 Total Recreation 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34
Recreation Centers
El Estero Park
Center
Scholze Park
Center
Hilltop Park
Center  Casanova Park
Special
Programs &
Events  Sports Total Allocation
Fund 101 5121 5122 5124 5125 5130 5160

1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
Sports Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Lead Preschool Instructor 0.75 0.75

0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00
Total Centers 1.50 1.00 1.75 0.00 1.00 1.50 6.75
Monterey Sports Center Operations Maintenance Total Allocation Fund 101 5180 5189

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Fitness Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Guest Service Specialist 1.00 1.00

0.33 0.33

1.00 1.00
Sports Coordinator 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Sports Center 7.33 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.33
Parks Maintenance(1)
Presidio
Maintenance(2)
Street
Maintenance
District(3)
Vets Park /
Urban
Forestry(1) Cemetery (4) Parking (5) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2)261‐262(3)610(4)625(5) 5210 3210 5210 5220/5230 5240 5210

0.70 0.25 0.05 1.00
Management Analyst I 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Park Maintenance Leadworker 2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00
Park Maintenance Worker 9.10 0.40 0.50 1.00 11.00

0.80 0.03 0.15 0.02 1.00

0.33 0.33

3.00 3.00

0.50 0.50 1.00
Greenbelt Coordinator 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
Total Parks 18.93 0.53 0.40 3.90 2.57 1.00 27.33
Museum Administration Total Allocation
Fund 101 5610
Artifact Specialist 0.75 0.75

0.25 0.25
Total Museum 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
LIBRARY Administration (1)
Reference
Services (1)
Administration
Trust (2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/810(2) 5510 5530 550‐5510

0.75 0.75

1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

3.75 3.75

1.00 1.00

3.75 3.75

1.00 1.00
Total Library 1.75 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00
GRAND TOTAL 145.07                127.62                144.42                   31.35 7.82 3.48 459.75 Park Attendant
Recreation Coordinator
Recreation Specialist
Administrative Assistant
Aquatics Coordinator
Facility Coordinator
Library Assistant I
Library Assistant II
Technology Services Mgr
Librarian
Library Manager
Urban Forester
Cemetery Coordinator
Cemetery Maintenance Worker
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Library Director
Park Maintenance Craftsworker
Park Maintenance Supervisor
Park Operations Manager
Parks & Rec Director
Senior Park Maintenance Worker
Assistant Urban Forester
Parks & Rec Director
Sports Center Manager
Building Maintenance Craftsworker
Senior Craftsworker
Admin Services Technician
Exhibit B
Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 163 Council
No Agenda Report Memo
№10/13
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Andrew Easterling, P.E., T.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Award Five Professional Services Agreements for On-Call Civil Engineering Services Each with a Not-To-Exceed Limit of $500,000.00, for Projects with the City of Monterey to: (1) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; (2) BKF Engineers; (3) Whitson & Associates, Inc.; (4) Harris & Associates, Inc.; and (5) Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Continued from February 6, 2024, Recommended to be Continued to March 19, 2024 There are no written materials for this item. Staff recommends the item be further continued to March 19, 2024.

Date: 3/5/2024
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 164