Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, April 2, 2024

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
City Manager
Hans Uslar
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
 In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is recommended and encouraged.
 Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.  Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay).

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 4/2/2024 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 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY24 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Proclamation Declaring April 7th through April 13th National Library Week (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.

Approval of Minutes

3. March 19, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

4. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei, Inc. for Completion of the Sewer Utility Master Plan and Rate Study (“Project”) to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $192,000 to $289,816 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 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. 4/2/2024 4:00:00 PM
3 5. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 17 Relating to the East Moorings, Sales of Whole Fish from Boats, Inoperable Vessels, and Parking Permit Policies (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace Monterey City Code Section 20-40 Pertaining to Decreased Speed Limits on Certain Street Segments (Not a project under CEQA 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.

7. Adopt the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan (Categorical Exemption per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 - Minor Alterations to Existing Facilities)

8. Adopt the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023) (Categorical Exemption per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 - Minor Alterations to Existing Facilities)

9. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with United Way Monterey County to Participate in the Smart Referral Network (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Other

10. Authorize the City Manager to Send a Letter of Intent to Monterey One Water Affirming the City of Monterey’s Intent to Move the City’s Fees for Wastewater (Sewer) Collection to the County of Monterey Property Tax Bill (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) *** End of Consent Agenda ***
Adjourn to City Council Meeting

PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

11. 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 22 and 38 of the Monterey City Code, Establishing Exemption Criteria and Minimum Performance Standards Relating to the Use of Emergency Generators During Emergency Power Outages; Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15269(c) 4/2/2024 4:00:00 PM
4 PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

12. Receive an Update on the State of the Library from the Board of Library Trustees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

RECESS

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

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED
Any person who did not offer a general public comment in the afternoon session may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

13. Receive Community Feedback on Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Program and Direct the Monterey Police Department to Proceed with ALPR Program Implementation (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Receive a Report on the Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

15. Receive a Presentation on the Wastewater (Sewer) Rate and Capacity Fee Study and Direct Staff to Initiate the Property Owner Notice, Hearing, and Protest Process as Required by Proposition 218 for the Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate and Capacity Fee Increases (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
4/2/2024 4:00:00 PM
5 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.

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:

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
№09/24
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY24 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY24 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) Awards.

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:

None.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY24 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) Awards.

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 DISCUSSION:

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

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

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

The Mayor and City Council will recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY24 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on April 2, 2024:
 Lance Corporal Matthew Bronico, from the U.S. Marine Corps  Lance Corporal Damarys Flores, from the U.S. Marine Corps  Staff Sergeant Alexandra Kocurek, from the U.S. Air Force  Detective Sergeant (SSG) Anthony Rivera from the U.S. Army [HG]
Attachments: 1. Proclamations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library and Museums Director
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring April 7th through April 13th National Library Week (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council proclaim the week of April 7th through April 13th as National Library Week.

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:

None
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 12 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None
DISCUSSION:

National Library Week began in 1958 as a way to celebrate and promote reading in communities nationwide by the American Library Association and the National Book Committee.

Since that time libraries continue to grow and adapt to different learning styles and promote intellectual freedom and stir curiosity. Libraries continue to thrive in the 21st century and adapt to the world around us.

The Monterey Public Library is the first public library in California and is celebrating 175 years of service to the community in 2024. Founded as the Monterey Library Association in 1849 with a collection of books in English and Spanish shipped from New York around Cape Horn; El Cuartel served as the first site of the library. The library moved many times in the first few decades including being located at Colton Hall.

In 1906 the City of Monterey took over operation of the Monterey Public Library. By 1911 a Carnegie Library was built on Van Buren Street, and a New Monterey Library was built in 1931 .

The 1911 library was the first building acquired by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (formerly Monterey Institute of International Studies) and is their logo, while the New Monterey Library was moved down the road to become the Scholze Park Center. The Library today on Pacific Street was built in 1953 and Bookmobile service first began in 1956.

These services and sites continue today.

Libraries today continue to thrive and serve as community hubs, cultural institutions, houses of knowledge, and places for continuous, self-guided learning. Children and families continue to thrive with story times, summer reading programs, and self-directed learning. Adults and seniors find welcoming spaces, places to engage and debate, ways to volunteer in their community, and the serendipity of learning new information. The Monterey Public Library looks forward to continue to thrive and serve our community.

BE
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, 4/2/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 13 -+
Office of the Mayor
Monterey, California 93940
Proclamation declaring
April 7
th.through April 13th 2024
National Library Week
Tyller Williamson
WHEREAS, in 1849, Colton Hall schoolmaster Reverend Dr. Samuel H. Willey, Jacob P. Leese, Milton Little, David Spence� and Timothy L. Andrews established the Monterey LibranJ Association to create the first Public Library in the State of California with the goal to //afford amusement, entertainment, and profit to a large class ofpeople who, without its aid, would waste their time in the frivolities and questionable pastimes so prevalent in our. State."; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library is celebrating 175 years of operation; and, • WHEREAS, the American Library Association chose the second week of April starting in 1958 as National Library Week with the goals of "encouraging people to read in their increasing leisure time" to "improving incomes and health" and udeveloping strong and happy family life."; and WHEREAS, libraries have long served as trusted institutions, striving to ensure equitable access to information and services for all members of.the community regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status; and, . . . WHEREAS, libraries adapt to the ever-changing needs of their communities, developing and expanding collections, programs, and services that are as diverse as the populations they serve; and, WHEREAS, libraries are accessible and inclusive places that promote a sense of local connection, advancing understanding, civic engagement, and shared community goals; and, WHEREAS, libraries are treasured institidions that preserve our collective heritage and knowledge, safeguarding both physical and digital resources for present and future generations; and, WHEREAS, libraries are an essential public good andftmdamental institution in a democratic society, working to frnprove communities, protect the right to education and literacy, and promote the freedom of information and ideas for all; 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 Week of April 7th through April 131
1i, 2024 as National Library Week.

Dated: April 2024
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Attachment 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 14

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson*

Absent: Haffa
* Attended remotely by teleconference pursuant to Gov. Code sec. 54953(f)(2)(A) for just cause
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Planning Manager, Housing Manager, Senior Engineer, Recreation Manager, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Lieutenant, Engineering Assistant, HCD Coordinator, Assistant Human Resources Director, Engineering Projects Manager
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Vice Mayor Barber called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.

TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
Mayor Williamson confirmed that he could hear the meeting proceedings, gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to his need to appear remotely pursuant to the “Just Cause” clause (official travel on behalf of the City of Monterey), and stated that his partner Ivan was present in the room with him during the meeting.

City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of March 2024 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized March 2024 as American Red Cross Month Lee Hedgepeth, of American Red Cross of the Central Coast, made brief remarks. Vice Mayor Barber read the proclamation.

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
2 2. Recognize the Finance Department for Receiving the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for 2023-24 Fiscal Year. (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized the Finance Department for Receiving the Award City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who praised the Finance Department's work to make the budget transparent and easier to understand.

The Council congratulated the Finance Department on their well-deserved award.

3. Recognition of the Monterey High School Basketball Team’s 2024 State Division IV Championship Award (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued to April 16, 2024 (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) This item was heard first. City Manager Uslar explained that staff recommended continuing the recognition to the April 16, 2024 Council meeting due to meeting falling during the school’s spring break. Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council continued the recognition to the Council meeting on April 16, 2024:

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

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Steve Lightfoot, Alan Romero, Dave Caneer, and Bryan Rosen.

CONSENT AGENDA
Vice Mayor Barber stated that Item 12 had been pulled from the Consent Agenda at the request of a member of the public.

Engineering Assistant II Garcia answered Councilmembers' questions on Item 9. Pursuant to questions from Councilmembers about Item 13 relating t to the Housing Element, Community Development Director Cole provided a brief update on the status of the MidPen Housing project at Madison and Van Buren behind City Hall.

Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT AGENDA except Item 12:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
3 AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Approval of Minutes

4. February 20, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

5. February 28, 2024 Special Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

6. March 5, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)
Award of Construction Contracts

7. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $638,700.19 to Arizona Continental Flooring Company for the Replace Flooring Project at the Presidio of Monterey (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(g)(1), CEQA Not a Project) ***IGSA*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-030 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

8. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $273,368.00 to St Francis Electric, LLC for the Traffic Signal Reflective Backplates Systemic Improvements Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP***
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-031 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) Ordinances

9. First Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace Monterey City Code Section 20-40 Pertaining to Decreased Speed Limits on Certain Street Segments (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Passed Ordinance to Print (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

10. Second Reading 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)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3680 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) Resolutions

11. Award Four 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) KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc.; (2) BKF Engineers; (3) Harris & Associates, Inc.; and (4) 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 and March 5, 2024
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
4 Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 24-032, 24-033, 24-034, and 24-035 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

12. Award Five Professional Services Agreements for On-Call Construction Management Services Each with a Not-To-Exceed Limit of $500,000.00, for Projects with the City of Monterey to: (1) Consor PMCM, Inc.; (2) CSG Consultants, Inc.; (3) Harris & Associates, Inc.; (4) 4LEAF, Inc.; and (5) Wallace Group, a California Corporation. ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Continued to April 16, 2024 (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)
City Manager Uslar recommended continuing the matter to April 16, 2024. Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council continued the matter of Awarding Five Professional Services Agreements for On-Call Construction Management Services to the Council meeting on April 16, 2024:

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

13. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the 2023 General Plan Annual Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-036 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)

14. Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Extension with MidPen Housing for Development of Affordable Housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street, 424 and 450 Madison Street (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-037 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent) *** End of Consent Agenda ***
Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda The Council adjourned to the Ocean View Community Services District meeting.

15. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
City Attorney Davi stated that the current report was fully contained in the written report provided in the agenda packet. Public comment was not received.

Adjourn to City Council Meeting
The Ocean View Community Services District adjourned to the City Council meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
5 PUBLIC APPEARANCE

16. Receive a Report on the Draft Sewer Utility Master Plan and Draft Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study for the City Sewer Utility (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received report
Senior Engineer Harty gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who said that utility costs were already too high and expressed concern about the impact to lower income residents, and Tom Rowley of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, who expressed concern, stating that the proposal was unexpected and that the association would be watching closely.

The Council discussed the matter. It was questioned whether the City should be considering raising the sewer rates at this time, citing current activity by Monterey One Water (M1W) relating to fees and stating that there would be a lot of confusion about increasing fees at the same time as a change to the fee collection mechanism. In opposition to this position it was stated that it didn't make sense to continue to operate at a deficit. City Attorney Davi advised the Council to receive the report and wait until the matter was agendized for action on the April 2, 2024 meeting to deliberate on the matter.

It was noted that the City had joined together with M1W to provide utility assistance for residents with lower incomes.

Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 5:13 p.m. and returned at 5:15 p.m.

17. Approve Monterey Rental Assistance Program Guidelines (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-038 C.S. as amended (4-0-1, Councilmember Haffa absent)
Staff’s recommended amendments to the resolution were made public prior to the meeting and were presented at the dais.

Housing Manager Wyatt gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Kent Glenzer, who stated that the Council should treat the program as a learning opportunity for continual improval and should review the program guidelines quarterly; Jean Rasch, who expressed concern that families with children were not listed in the program guidelines as a priority for receiving assistance; Adam Pinterits, of Monterey County Association of Realtors, who echoed interest in including homeowners in the program and asked questions about logistics for deposit assistance; and Esther Malkin, who echoed the call for quarterly review of the program, said deposit assistance was needed together with somehow ensuring that the deposits would be fruitful in resulting in viable leases, and said that landlords should be required to share applications to reduce the burden of paying numerous application fees.

The Council discussed the matter. Regarding the program in general, the City staff was congratulated for their work and public engagement on the proposed program. It was stated that the program would help a lot of people, and it was stressed that there was a need to treat every case individually. It was questioned how the City could support people who could not find housing within the City. It was suggested that interested community agencies could offer a Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
6 collaborative grant that would work in harmony with the City's program. It was stated that the program was an opportunity to develop partnerships with other jurisdictions, citing that some families have had to move out of the City of Monterey in order to find affordable housing. It was stated that most landlords would welcome the opportunity to support tenants in their units.

Regarding details of program funding, the question was posed how much legal support could be provided to an applicant within the scope of the $3,000 of additional assistance. It was agreed that $250,000 was the right total amount to dedicate to a new and unique program, but it was stressed that there was a need to distribute the funds widely, with a lower dollar amount allocated per applicant, in order to help the most people.

Regarding updates on and future adjustments to the program, it was expressed that check-ins would be beneficial and it was discussed whether quarterly or another regular schedule would be best. It was stated that there would naturally be adjustments to the program as the Council learned more.

Regarding the idea of providing assistance to property owners, it was stated that the program should remain strictly for providing rental assistance due to the limited funds available. It was noted that property owners typically had more options such as equity lending and renting out rooms. It was stated that the Council could consider helping with homeowners down the road.

On the other hand, it was stated that there was some interest in providing assistance to homeowners at the present time.

In response to questions from the Council, Housing Manager Wyatt said that deposit assistance would be provided through low-interest loans and would be assessed on an individual basis, ensuring that there would be a viable lease resulting from the deposit. She said the allowed allocation of legal assistance per applicant could be reassessed in the future. She said rental application fee assistance would likely be based on the needs of the person coming in and whether or not they met the program guidelines.

In response to Council statements City Manager Uslar clarified that the program would not end at the end of fiscal year but instead when the allocated funding was completely spent. He stated that staff would bring updates to the Council at their pleasure.

On a motion by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-035 C.S. adopting the Monterey Rental Assistance Program Guidelines, as amended:

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Garcia stated that he had attended the CivicWell Policymakers Conference, which he said touched on topics including transportation, energy, and housing. He said that there had been panels discussing challenges throughout the state, and conversations with policymakers about strategies. He said that one main theme discussed had been the need to work together with other regional agencies and build partnerships. He referred to recent comments made by residents interested in bringing light rail transportation to the Monterey Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes March 19, 2024
7 Peninsula, and stated that many agencies would need to be involved and working closely together to make such a development happen.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was received from Michael Ungaro, of San Pedro Fish Market, addressing item cs1 and speaking about his business and what it could bring to Monterey.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:06 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
cs1. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 30 Fisherman’s Wharf
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Michael Ungaro (San Pedro Fish Market Company, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement Action: Confidential direction given to real property negotiators on a roll-call vote of 4-0- 1, with Councilmember Haffa absent

cs2. Conference with Agency Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations
Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal, Gina Russo
Employee Organizations: General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Management Employees' Association (MEA), Monterey Police Association (MPA), Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA), Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA), Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA), Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) Action: No reportable action taken

cs3. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Jackson Sherry v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 5:23-CV-03903-SVK) Action: Confidential direction given to legal counsel on a roll-call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Haffa absent
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 21 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Thomas Harty, PE, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei, Inc. for Completion of the Sewer Utility Master Plan and Rate Study (“Project”) to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $192,000 to $289,816 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei, Inc. for completion of the Sewer Utility Master Plan and Rate Study (“Project”) to increase the not-toexceed amount from $192,000 to $289,816, an increase to the contract of $97,816.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns”, Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement”, and Active Mobility – “Maintain and repair core street, roadway, and storm drain infrastructure.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council approved $475,000 for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update as part of the 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program budget. To date, the project has incurred approximately $415,539 of staff and consultant costs toward the completion of this project, leaving a balance of approximately $168,829. The proposed professional services contract amendment is for a not-to-exceed amount of $97,816. Sufficient funding is available for this action within the project account (33c1804).

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could elect not to amend the agreement; however, this is not recommended. This agreement will allow the City to continue to utilize G7ei, Inc. to finalize the Sewer Utility Master Plan through the adoption of a new ordinance and completion of the project. A change in consultants at this point in the project would jeopardize the adoption of updated sewer rates and fees prior to the annual billing cycle being implemented by Monterey One Water on July 1, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

The Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP) consists of a single comprehensive document that reflects the community’s requirements, legal responsibilities, and environmental changes (e.g., sea level rise) for the City’s sewer system. On April 16, 2019, City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement for the Preparation of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to G7ei, Inc. for a fee not-to-exceed $359,289 (Resolution No. 19-050). The term of the original agreement (Ag-8232) expired on December 31, 2020. At that time, the consultant had expended approximately $168,000.

On April 19, 2022, Council awarded a second Professional Services Agreement to G7ei, Inc. for completion of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for a fee not-to-exceed $192,000.00 (Resolution No. 22-034, Ag-11041). This agreement was amended to extend the term to June 30, 2024.

At this time, the Sewer Utility Master Plan (“SUMP,” formerly Sewer System Master Plan) and the Rate Study are complete and being presented to City Council for approval. In order to ensure adequate funding for this effort, an amendment is needed to cover the cost of additional services and requests that were not included in the second agreement (e.g., Prop 218 Notice preparation and mailing, investigation of new funding options, project contingency).

Further, Monterey One Water, the entity that processes invoices for the City Sewer Utility is changing their billing format beginning July 1, 2024. Monterey One will transition from a bi-monthly cycle to an annual billing cycle included with the property tax invoices issued by the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector. In order to meet the deadline to include adjusted Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 23 sewer rates with the County’s property tax bill, adjusted sewer rates must be adopted by midJune.

The amended agreement is required to retain the consultant team who prepared the SUMP and Rate Study through the rate adoption process, in order to respond to questions or analyses requested during the public review process and finalize the documents as needed upon adoption by City Council. The amended agreement will extend the contract term through October 31, 2024, and provide additional funding of $97,816.00.

AR/th
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Paul H. Greenway, President, G7ei, Inc.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 24 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH G7EI, INC. FOR COMPLETION OF THE SEWER UTILITY MASTER PLAN AND RATE STUDY (“PROJECT”) TO INCREASE THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT FROM $192,000 TO $289,816
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2019, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement for the Preparation of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to G7ei, Inc., for a fee not-to-exceed $359,289.00;
WHEREAS, due to unavoidable delays, the term of the agreement expired prior to completion of the scope of work;
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the City Council awarded a second Professional Services Agreement for Completion of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to G7ei, Inc., for a fee not-to-exceed $192,000.00;
WHEREAS, an amendment to the existing contract is necessary to finalize the Sewer Utility Master Plan and Rate Study through adoption of adjusted sewer rates and fees by the City Council in 2024 in order to generate sufficient revenue to fund system operations into the future;
WHEREAS, this action uses funds that have been allocated for this action in the Capital Projects Fund, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update account (33c1804) for which no additional appropriation is required to process this amendment; 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 City Manager, or their designee, to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei, Inc. for completion of the Sewer Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 25 2 Utility Master Plan and Rate Study (“Project”) to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $192,000 to $289,816, an increase to the contract of $97,816.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 26 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Brian Nelson, Harbormaster
SUBJECT: 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 17 Relating to the East Moorings, Sales of Whole Fish from Boats, Inoperable Vessels, and Parking Permit Policies (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce by title only an ordinance to amend Monterey City Code Chapter 17 relating to the East Moorings, sales of whole fish from boats, inoperable vessels, and parking permit policies.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City’s policy to review and amend Monterey City Code as necessary to remain current with local and state laws and regulations and to reflect changes to current policies.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No Fiscal Implications
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 27 on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

No alternatives are recommended because the requested action is to ratify amendments to the existing Section 17 ordinances. These amendment updates bring current the existing ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed amendments to the Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapter 17, which govern the waterfront area, will simplify and modernize the Code. The Harbor Division manages three distinct areas: the Marina, East Moorings, and the Outer Harbor moorings. There are several amendments that simply differentiate between the East Moorings and the Outer Harbor Mooring programs.

Resolution 00-11 dated January 4, 2000 has been updated and added in Chapter 17 Sec.18 – Deliveries and Sales of Seafood at the Harbor. The remaining changes are provided below, as they are likely to be of public interest.

Map of Monterey Harbor. The City’s Harbor Division manages the Marina, Outer Harbor Mooring, and East Mooring Areas
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 28 Key proposed amendments include:

1. MCC 17-3(f) “Dinghy” means a small boat propelled by oars, sails or motor which is capable of being carried aboard the vessel and which does not exceed 12 feet in length and 5 feet in width, provided, however, upon prior written authorization from the Harbormaster or his designated representative, said dinghy may be longer than 12 feet.” The amendment defines the maximum width of the dingy to match the maximum width of a dingy berth spot:
(5) feet

2. MCC 17-7(a) Vessels berthed, moored or anchored in the Harbor and Outer Harbor must be operable, maintained in a seaworthy condition, and be of a design suitable for operation on the open waters of Monterey Bay in the typical range of sea conditions. Dinghies side-tied by special permit shall not be required to be seaworthy or operable, as defined in this Chapter, if they are used to access moored vessels within the breakwater.” The amendment adds the area “Outer Harbor” to the section

3. MCC 17-18 has been added. This section incorporates Resolution 00-11 dated January 4, 2000. This has been updated – Deliveries and Sales of Seafood at the Harbor. This Resolution enabled local fishers to sell their catch directly from their vessel. Known in the community as “Fresh off the Boat”. The proposed amendments and will make this process easier for our local fishers to sell direct to the public.

4. MCC 17-36(a)(4)(ii) addresses the 30-month rule when transferring a slip to a new owner.

This rule does not apply to active commercial fishers. If the vessel is damaged to extent it is no longer feasible to remain in a seaworthy or operable condition, the vessel shall be removed at the owner’s expense and the license agreement will be revoked.

5. MCC 17-37(h) better defines berth licensees may purchase no more than two annual Waterfront Lot passes.

6. MCC 17-39(d)(4) requires moored vessels to have a minimum of two independent pendants for safety reasons

7. MCC 17-40 the title change seeks to clarify and obligates sub leased vessels to the same rules and obligations that are required of the mooring licensee holder.

8. MCC 17-45 Adds and defines the operation and use of the East Mooring area.

AR/bn
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Thomas Levendowski, Deputy Public Works Director- Administration Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 29 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:
er
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 30 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 17 RELATING TO THE EAST MOORINGS,

SALES OF WHOLE SEAFOOD FROM BOATS, LIVEABOARD PERMITS, INOPERABLE

VESSELS, AND PARKING PERMIT POLICIES FOR BERTH LICENSEES THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Chapter 17 of the Monterey City Code regulates the Harbor and Marina; WHEREAS, the City desires to update Chapter 17 to simplify and modernize the code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 17-3(f) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“f. “Dinghy” means a small boat propelled by oars, sails or motor which is capable of being carried aboard the vessel and which does not exceed 12 feet in length and 5 feet in width, provided, however, upon prior written authorization from the Harbormaster or his designated representative, said dinghy may be longer than 12 feet.” SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 7(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“a. Vessels berthed, moored or anchored in the Harbor and Outer Harbor must be Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 31 2 operable, maintained in a seaworthy condition, and be of a design suitable for operation on the open waters of Monterey Bay in the typical range of sea conditions. Dinghies side-tied by special permit shall not be required to be seaworthy or operable, as defined in this Chapter, if they are used to access moored vessels within the breakwater.” SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 18 is hereby amended to read:
“Sec. 17-18. Deliveries and Sales of Seafood at the Harbor. a. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and unlawful for any person to offer for sale or make deliveries of fresh fish or other seafood at the Monterey Harbor or on City-owned parking areas except as provided by the terms of a lease, permit, or contract that has been specifically authorized by the City Council.
b. Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Harbormaster shall have authority to issue fifteen (15) permits to commercial fishing vessels for the sale of whole, fresh fish and other seafood directly from their vessel pursuant to the following conditions:
i. Permits shall be issued on a first-come, first-served basis and must be renewed annually.
ii. The fee for the annual permit shall be adopted and integrated into the City’s Master Fee Schedule by resolution of the City Council. iii. All sales shall occur from the K-Dock area as directed by the Harbormaster.
iv. Only whole, fresh seafood may be sold. No steaking or filleting, other than gilling and gutting, shall occur.
v. Only retail sales to the ultimate consumer are allowed. No sales to restaurants or markets are allowed.
vi. Seafood must be sold from the vessel that caught it or, if the Harbormaster determines that vessel is too large to safely dock at the K-Dock, then the sales may occur from another vessel or dinghy owned by the same person.
vii. Upon request of the Harbormaster, the permittee shall provide a daily accounting of the amount of seafood brought to the dock for sale, the amount sold, and the amount remaining.
viii. Due to the size of the K-Dock, vessels with permits must rotate and spend only a reasonable amount of time at the dock. The Harbormaster shall have the authority to set and enforce a rotation of vessels.
ix. No signs or other obstructions may be placed by permitees on the dock.
x. Permitees must obtain a City business license.
xi. All other applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and rules shall be followed by permitees.
xii. Violation of any condition in this section shall result in the Harbormaster’s revocation of the permit.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 33(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 32 “a. Every vessel entering the Outer Harbor and Harbor shall immediately become subject to the authority and direction of the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster shall direct where each vessel shall be berthed, moored, or anchored.”
SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 35(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“a. Assignment. No person shall berth or moor a vessel in the Harbor, Outer Harbor, or Marina without first having been issued a berth or mooring assignment by the Harbormaster and signed a license agreement, been issued a temporary transient assignment and signed a transient vessel license agreement, or in the case of a mooring only, having been issued a sub-license permit. Unauthorized berth or mooring occupancy is prohibited. License fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The Harbormaster is authorized to move, secure, cite, and/or impound any vessel occupying an unauthorized berth or mooring. All fees involved in such action will be charged to the vessel’s owner.”
SECTION 8: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 36(a)(4)(ii) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“ii. Remain in the berth or mooring provided by the Harbormaster for at least 30 months to continue the license agreement. Additionally, for every two months which that individual has been on the Monterey berth or mooring waiting list, one month may be deducted from the required wait for vessel replacement, as calculated at the time of the license transfer.

Exceptions will be made to this provision if the vessel departs on an extended voyage, including commercial fishing operations, provided it is still owned and operated by the licensee upon its return to Monterey. If the vessel is damaged to the extent it is no longer feasible to remain in a seaworthy or operable condition, the vessel shall be removed at the owner’s expense and the license agreement will be revoked.”
SECTION 9: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 37(h) is hereby added to read as follows:
“Parking. Berth licensees may purchase from the Harbormaster no more than two annual Waterfront Lot or Wharf No. 2 Lot parking permits at the rate established in the Master Fee Schedule. Additional permits or permits for non-licensees may be obtained by applying to the City’s Parking Division pursuant to its standard procedures.” SECTION 10: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 39 is retitled “Outer Harbor Mooring Regulations” and the following paragraph is added before subsection (a):
“The regulations in this section apply to moorings in the Outer Harbor.” SECTION 11: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 39(d)(4) is hereby added to read as follows:
“d. 4. Pendants. Outer Harbor Mooring licensees are required to have two independent pendants securing their mooring ball.”
SECTION 12: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 40 is retitled “Outer Harbor Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 33 4 Mooring Sub-Licenses” and the paragraph before subsection (a) is amended to read:
“Outer Harbor mooring licensees must occupy their moorings with a vessel they own for a minimum of six months out of any 12-month period, except as described below. No Outer Harbor mooring licensee may sublease, sub-rent, or sub-license the mooring to another person or entity except through the Harbormaster’s Office and according to the procedure established in this Section. The use of a mooring by any boat other than the licensee’s must be reported promptly to the Harbor Office and approved in writing by the Harbormaster .” SECTION 13: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 43(b) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“b. A maximum of 15 liveaboard vessels will be permitted to occupy berths in Monterey Marina and a maximum of 15 liveaboard vessels will be permitted to occupy moorings in the Outer Harbor. In the event a vessel with a liveaboard permit is reassigned from a mooring to a berth, or a berth to a mooring, the liveaboard permit shall remain valid even if the reassignment exceeds the maximum allowable number of liveaboards for the newly assigned area; however, no further liveaboard permits will be issued until the number of liveaboards for the area affected is back under the maximum 15 permitted.”
SECTION 14: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Subsection 43(d)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2. At least one applicant must have a berth or mooring license agreement. The application must list all other occupants who will be living aboard. The vessel shall be equipped with an operable Marine VHF radio, which shall be maintained in good working order during the liveaboard term. An operable cellular phone is required in addition to the marine radio. Both the radio and the cellular telephone must be on when the vessel is occupied.” SECTION 15: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section (43)(e)(9) is hereby deleted.

SECTION 16: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Sections 45 through 54 are renumbered and restated as Sections 46 through 55.

SECTION 17: Monterey City Code, Chapter 17, Section 45 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 17-45. East Mooring Regulations.
a. General regulations. All East Mooring vessels and licensees are subject to the regulations stated in Section 17-33 (a) through (f).
b. Vessel Size. Vessels in the East Mooring area must be between 20-feet and 45-feet in length (measured using extreme length of vessel), and may not exceed 10 tons in weight.
c. Use of Mooring. Except for dinghies, only one vessel is allowed on an East Mooring ball at any one time. An East Mooring license shall authorize the holder thereof to use the facilities for mooring purposes only and grants no further rights, privileges or uses.

No sublicenses are permitted in the East Mooring area. Additional or varying uses shall not be allowed except as provided in this Chapter, City Council resolutions, or with the written permission of the Harbormaster.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 34 d. Blocks. The Harbormaster shall maintain all blocks, chains and mooring balls in the East Mooring area.
e. Maintenance and care of mooring. Vessel owners are responsible for their mooring lines and chafe gear, and for the safe and secure mooring of their vessels. They are liable for damage to their own vessel, and to other vessels, caused by their negligent, reckless, or willful acts or omissions. Boat owners will be billed for labor and materials to secure vessels which are improperly or inadequately secured, or to repair mooring facilities which are damaged by said acts or omissions. f. Participation in the Seasonal East Mooring program. East Moorings are available for use from April through October. From November through March, East Mooring licensees have the option of moving the vessel into the Marina and will be provided the use of an appropriately sized berth, paying the 1.5 times the berth rate rather than the transient rate. In order to take advantage of Marina berthing and the 1.5x’s rate, the vessel must have been assigned to, used, and paid for an East Mooring license for a minimum of 90 days during the preceding April through October period. g. Dinghy space. The City will provide, at no cost from April through October, a dingy space located either in the Marina or at Wharf 1, for any licensee participating in the seasonal East Mooring program.
h. Overnight stays. No one is permitted to stay aboard a vessel on an East Mooring overnight, which shall be from 10 pm to 6 am. Licensees may, however, bring their boats into the Marina for an overnight stay as a transient vessel, paying the appropriate transient fees, and following all other transient regulations as found in Section17-42. i. Inoperable vessels. All East Mooring vessels are subject to the regulations as stated in Section 17-7.”
SECTION 18: City Council Resolution No. 00-11 “Resolution Authorizing up to Fifteen Concession Permits for Sale of Whole, Fresh Fish Directly from Boats in Monterey Marina” and all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 19: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 35 6 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 36 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
REPEALING AND REPLACING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 20-40 PERTAINING TO

DECREASED SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREET SEGMENTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, speed limits on city streets are set based on engineering and traffic surveys that are required to be conducted every five years, with the ability to extend up to fourteen years in certain circumstances. Without a current engineering and traffic survey, radar evidence for speed enforcement would not be admissible in court;
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and the State of California established the method of calculating speed limits to clarify the process and to set speed limits that are uniform, rational and enforceable with full support of the judicial system; WHEREAS, the Public Works Engineering Division worked with the engineering consulting firm Kimley-Horn and Associates to conduct engineering and traffic surveys for various street segments in the City of Monterey, which adhere to the provisions in California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 627, 21400, 22352, 22357, 22358, 22358.5, 22358.6, and 22358.8;
WHEREAS, surveys show the following street segments are recommended to be decreased by 5 mph pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22358.8:

1. Aguajito Road between Mark Thomas Drive and Monhollan Road from 40 to 35 mph

2. Del Monte Avenue between East City Limit and Sloat Avenue from 40 to 35 mph

3. Del Monte Avenue between Sloat Avenue and Camino El Estero from 35 to 30 mph

4. English Avenue between Del Monte Avenue and Highway 1 NB Ramps from 30 to 25 mph

5. Fairground Road between Garden Road and Airport Road from 35 to 30 mph

6. Viejo Road between Soledad Drive and City Limits from 40 to 35 mph WHEREAS, the results of the engineering and traffic surveys, available in the City Clerk’s Office for review, recommend decreases in speed limits on various segments throughout the City of Monterey; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 2 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, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 20. Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article 4 Operation of Vehicles, Section 20-40, is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
“Sec. 20-40. Designation of speed limits.

It is hereby determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the speed limit is more than is reasonable or safe upon the following streets is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist upon such streets, and it is hereby declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as set forth as follows upon those streets or parts of streets designated as follows when signs are erected giving notice thereof, in accordance with the California Vehicle Code:
(a) 15 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 15 miles per hour is established for the following location(s):

Eddie Burns Lane
(b) 25 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour is established for the following location(s):

Airport Road from North Fremont Street to Monterey Regional Airport David Avenue from Wave Street to Hawthorne Street
English Avenue from Del Monte Avenue to Highway 1 NB Ramps Franklin Street from Van Buren Street to the Presidio of Monterey Hawthorne Street from David Avenue to Dickman Avenue
Herrmann Drive from Larkin/Madison Street to Via Del Rey Jefferson Street from Van Buren Street to High Street
Pacific Street from Lighthouse Avenue to Grove Street
Sylvan Road from Mark Thomas Drive to South City Limit
Tyler Street from Del Monte Avenue to its intersection with Custom House Tunnel Veterans Drive from Jefferson Street to Skyline Drive
Via Gayuba from San Bernabe Drive/Martin Street to Mar Vista Drive (c) 30 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 30 miles per hour is established for the Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 following location(s):

Camino Aguajito from Fremont Street to Del Monte Avenue Camino El Estero from Fremont Street to Del Monte Avenue David Avenue from Hawthorne Street to Devisadero Street Del Monte Avenue from Camino El Estero to Sloat Avenue
Del Monte Avenue from Washington Street to Camino El Estero Fairground Road from Garden Road to Airport Road
Foam Street from Lighthouse Avenue to David Avenue
Fremont Street from Camino El Estero to Munras Avenue
Glenwood Circle from Iris Canyon Road to Via Lavendera
Josselyn Canyon Road from State Highway 68 to Deer Forest Drive Lighthouse Avenue from David Avenue to Private Bolio Road Olmsted Road from State Highway 68 to Monterey Regional Airport Pacific Street Soledad Drive to Grove Street
Prescott Avenue from Hawthorne Street to Devisadero Street Sloat Avenue from Mark Thomas Drive to Del Monte Avenue Soledad Drive from Viejo Road to Pacific Street
Soledad Drive from Pacific Street to Monte Vista Drive
York Road from Monterey-Salinas Highway (State Highway 68) to South Boundary Road (d) 35 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 35 miles per hour is established for the following location(s):

Abrego Street from Eldorado Street to Fremont Street
Aguajito Road from Fremont Street to Mark Thomas Drive
Aguajito Road from Mark Thomas Drive to Monhollan Road
Del Monte Avenue from Sloat Avenue to East City Limit
Garden Road from Sky Park Court to Olmsted Road
Iris Canyon Road from Barnet Segal Drive to El Dorado Street Josselyn Canyon Road from Mark Thomas Drive to City Limit Lighthouse Avenue (Curve & Tunnel) from Del Monte Avenue to Private Bolio Road Lower Ragsdale from Ragsdale Drive to Wilson Road
Mark Thomas Drive from Aguajito Road to Fairground Road Monhollan Road from City Limit west of Deer Forest Drive to City Limit east of Via Malpaso North Fremont Street from State Highway 1 to City Limit Ragsdale Drive from Monterey-Salinas Highway (State Highway 68) to Lower Ragsdale Drive Skyline Drive from Mar Vista (South Intersection) to Veterans Drive Skyline Forest Drive from Holman Highway (State Highway 68) to Skyline Drive Upper Ragsdale from Ragsdale Drive to Wilson Road
Viejo Road from Soledad Drive southerly to City Limit
Wilson Road from Lower Ragsdale Drive to York Road
(e) 40 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 40 miles per hour is established for the following location(s):

Barnet Segal Drive from Soledad Drive to Iris Canyon Road Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 39 4 Fremont Street from Camino Aguajito to Camino El Estero Garden Road from Fairground Road to Sky Park Court
Munras Avenue from State Highway 1 to Eldorado Street
(f) 45 miles per hour. A prima facie speed limit of 45 miles per hour is established for the following location(s):

South Boundary Road from North City Limit to South City Limit SECTION 9: The City is authorized to issue warning citations for violations of exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour or less for the first 30 days that the new lower speed limits are in effect.

SECTION 10. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 11: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 40 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., NCIP Staff Coordinator SUBJECT: Adopt the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan (Categorical Exemption per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 – Minor Alterations to Existing Facilities)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan, March 2023.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City of Monterey’s Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Manual (September 2021) and Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (January 2013) that provide uniform guidance to neighborhoods wishing to implement traffic calming projects on their residential streets.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No funding is requested at this time. Funding for individual traffic calming projects included in the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan will be allocated through the NCIP or CIP process.

The neighborhood may pursue NCIP funding for specific projects contained in the plan in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The adoption of the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan would not result in direct physical impacts on the environment. However, implementation of the Plan would have potential indirect impacts from installation of the recommended traffic calming measures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 categorical exemption consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing licensing, or minor Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 41 alteration to existing public or private structures that involve negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails are examples provided in subsection (c) of Section 15301. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the Class 1 categorical exemption includes minor alterations to existing streets.

All of the recommendations in the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan, as well as other identified traffic calming measures identified in the Plan, consist of minor improvements within existing developed streets and rights-of-way, such as restriping and installation of medians and signs. None of the recommendations would result in new or expanded lanes or roadway capacity. Thus, the project is exempt from the CEQA per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 categorical exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities.

The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) for certain classes of categorical exemptions due to locations with particularly sensitive environmental conditions;
(b) when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;
(c) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; (d) where the project 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; (e) where the project is located on a state designated hazardous waste site; and (f) where the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as explained below.

Exception (a) - Location. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a), a categorical exemption for 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. The consideration includes where the project may impact an environmental resource of “hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” The project does not qualify for Exception (a) because this exception does not apply to Class 1 categorical exemptions.

Exception (b) - Cumulative Impact. All categorical exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed project does not qualify for Exception (b) because there is no evidence of a potential significant cumulative impact due to successive projects of the same type in the same place. There are no other known traffic calming or road improvement projects of the same type planned in the same locations as those specified for the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood, which comprises the project area in the Traffic Calming Plan. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 42 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 project does not qualify for Exception (c) because no potential significant impacts have been identified based on site and project reviews.

The recommended traffic calming improvements would occur within paved streets, and there may be removal of some adjacent landscaping and small trees to implement the traffic calming recommendations along Josselyn Canyon Road. However, minor removal of non-native vegetation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats or special status species as none are known to exist within the developed street and adjacent ROW based on site reviews.

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. Highway 68, located north of the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood that comprises the project area, is a designated a state scenic highway. None of the sites recommended for traffic calming measures in the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan are visible from Highway 68, except for the existing private church site at the corner of Josselyn Canyon Road and Highway

68. While the Plan recommends installation of a median or curb, the improvement would be located within existing pavement and would not damage any trees, historic buildings, or other features that may be considered scenic. Therefore, the project does not qualify for Exception (d) because the project areas are not adjacent to or visible from a designated scenic highway, and the one location that is would not impact scenic resources given the minor nature of recommended improvements.

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, known as the Cortese list. The proposed project does not qualify for Exception (e) because none of the project area, including existing streets, is an identified hazardous waste site or is included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code as identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.

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 area subject to implementation of traffic calming measures include specific recommendations for three locations and other general traffic calming measures, all of which are located within City streets, except for one private property driveway. All improvements would be located in paved areas that are regularly maintained; therefore, no potentially historic or historic structures would be affected by the improvements. In addition, the Fishermen’s Flat’s Neighborhood is Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 43 partially located within a sensitive archeological area as identified on Figure 8 of the General Plan. A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted, and no significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources were identified. The investigation found no recorded prehistoric or historical period resources within the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood, and concluded that the future improvements identified in the Plan would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Given the lack of nearby prehistoric and historical period resources and the low sensitivity noted from the survey of the Project area, the investigation concluded that excavation related to the future installation of traffic calming measures would likely not encounter any potentially significant archaeological resources. The investigation recommended that project improvements could proceed without a qualified archaeological monitor on-site during ground disturbing activities; however, the project will require compliance with regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to approve the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan; however, that is not recommended. Fishermen’s Flats community members met four times to discuss their traffic-related concerns and look at appropriate traffic calming measures. During these meetings, the community considered multiple traffic calming measures, including installing medians at the intersection of Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola, installing a traffic circle at the intersection of Via Isola and Via Marsala Circle, additional police enforcement of speed limits, and installing speed radar feedback signs.

DISCUSSION:

The Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan must be adopted by the City Council prior to implementing the proposed traffic calming projects. This would be the first Traffic Calming Plan adopted for Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood. The plan was prepared in accordance with the City of Monterey’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (January 2013).

The goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program are to:
 Improve local residents’ sense of well-being about their neighborhood streets and enhance traffic safety in residential areas.
 Evaluate Monterey’s neighborhood traffic challenges and produce adopted plans for each residential neighborhood.
 Provide a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program format that is responsive to all neighborhoods in the City of Monterey.

The Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood completed the traffic calming plan process for neighborhood-wide improvements, as outlined in the Traffic Calming Program. During the process, residents identified and agreed upon specific traffic calming devices for locations within the neighborhood and the benefits and impacts of all the proposed devices were evaluated.

Residents discussed and reached a consensus on the concepts.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 44 The NCIP funded the development of a Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan. The residents worked with a consultant hired to develop a Traffic Calming Plan. A series of three (3) meetings with the residents of Fishermen’s Flats were held on April 8, 2019, May 6, 2019, and September 23, 2019, at the Living Hope Church of the Nazarene (1291 Josselyn Canyon Road). City staff mailed notifications to residents as well as owners of the Fishermen’s Flats properties for each one of these meetings. At these meetings, residents were asked to identify specific neighborhood traffic concerns. Public input was summarized in the study (Exhibit A).

Consultants collected traffic volume, speed, and accident data (Exhibit A) to help residents understand the traffic patterns associated with each specific concern. During the three (3) meetings, the discussion focused on various traffic calming devices that could address resident concerns about speeding, pedestrian safety, and school traffic. The calming devices that were identified in the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan included speed radar feedback signs and striped painted medians. The last meeting was used to review the plan the residents had created with the help of the consultant and build consensus on the proposed traffic calming devices for the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood.

The Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan was presented to the City Council on August 3, 2021, for adoption. However, the resolution was tabled to allow the neighborhood additional time to discuss the plan including recommendations with the neighborhood given the changing nature of the traffic in the neighborhood following the installation of speed radar feedback signs and the proposed closure of Foothill Elementary School. A fourth neighborhood meeting was held on October 10, 2022, at Living Hope Church of the Nazarene to reach a consensus on the proposed traffic calming measures. This meeting resulted in the two recommended traffic calming options in the Final Traffic Calming Plan. The Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan was also reviewed an additional time by Fishermen’s Flats Homeowners and Residents Association on February 27, 2023, to ensure consistency with neighborhood wishes.

The Police and Fire Departments were involved in the process and were included in the plan review process.

Residents who live directly adjacent to proposed traffic calming projects will be surveyed before a device is constructed.

Therefore, Staff recommends that that the City Council adopt the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan, March 2023.

AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan, March 2023 e: NCIP Committee Fishermen’s Flats Representative
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 45

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
MARCH 2023
PREPARED BY:

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 46

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
ii

CONTENT
BACKGROUND 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
Existing Transportation System 3
Existing Transit Service 3
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 3
Traffic Data Collection 5
Traffic Collisions 14
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX 15
COMMUNITY INPUT 23
Meeting #1 23
Meeting #2 24
Meeting #3 25
Meeting #4 25
Community Input Summary 25
RECOMMENDATIONS 26
Next Steps 30
APPENDIX 31
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 47

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
iiii

LIST OF FIGURES
2 4
6 6
7 8
8 9
9 9
10 10
11 12
14 20
26 27
28 Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Fishermen's Flats Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Figure 3 - Average Weekday and Weekend Traffic Comparison Figure 4 - Neighborhood Weekday Traffic
Figure 5 - Neighborhood Weekend Traffic
Figure 6 - Speed profile for Josselyn Canyon Road
Figure 7 - Speed Profile for Via Isola
Figure 8 - Neighborhood Speeds
Figure 9 - Speed profile for Via Isola
Figure 10 - Speed Profile for Via Isola
Figure 11 - Josselyn Canyon Road speed profile
Figure 12 - Josselyn Canyon Road speed profile
Figure 13 - Percentage of drivers traveling 10+ mph over speed limit.

Figure 14 - Neighborhood Vehicle Classification
Figure 15 - Speed profile for school traffic compared to all other times. Figure 16 - Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolbox Figure 17 - Via Isola Radar Speed Signs
Figure 18a - Josselyn Canyon Road Median Concept
Figure 18b – Josselyn Canyon Road Striped Bulbout Concept Figure 19 - Living Hope Church Driveway, Existing Conditions 29

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Speed Radar Feed Back Signs Before and After Speeds 12 Table 2 - Traffic Calming Devices 15
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 48

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1 1

BACKGROUND
Fishermen's Flats is a residential neighborhood in the City of Monterey. It is bounded by Josselyn Canyon Road to the north, Deer Flats Neighborhood to the west, and Monterey City Limits to the south and east. This residential area encompasses Foothill Elementary School in the southeast corner of the neighborhood. Neighborhood boundaries are shown in Figure 1.

The Fishermen's Flats neighborhood, through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) requested a comprehensive traffic calming plan. This request was by a resident and put before the NCIP committee for approval. Once approved by NCIP, City Council approved the request and appropriated funding for the plan. In order for traffic calming projects for a neighborhood to be approved and funded by the NCIP program, a neighborhood must have an approved neighborhood traffic calming plan. NCIP directs tourists generated dollars back to the community to decide what neighborhood and community improvements are needed. At least 16 percent of the money collected through hotel taxes (Transient Occupancy Tax) is allocated for this program every year.

Traffic calming plans must follow the City’s comprehensive Traffic Calming Program.

The goals of this program are to improve local residents’ sense of well-being about their neighborhood streets and enhance traffic safety in residential areas, evaluate Monterey’s neighborhood traffic problems and produce plans for each residential neighborhood, and provide a traffic calming program that is responsive to all neighborhoods in the City of Monterey. To do this the City has produced a number of objectives to ensure that these goals are met. Some of these objectives are to encourage positive driver behavior in residential areas, provide each neighborhood the opportunity to develop and implement a traffic calming plan for their neighborhood, enhance and maintain the primary visitor routes, and to allow communities to amend their traffic calming plans.

To ensure that the Traffic Calming Plans are addressing the issues encountered by each neighborhood, at least three meetings are held. The meetings are designed to engage the neighborhood residents while keeping key stakeholders and city agencies involved in the development and implementation of the traffic calming plan. For the development of the Fishermen's Flats Traffic Calming, three meetings were held. The first meeting was held to gather information on neighborhood concerns and traffic calming project suggestions. A second meeting was held to show preliminary traffic calming concepts and gather feedback. The third meeting was held to review newly collected data and to see if there were any additional concepts that could be developed.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 49

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
Figure 1 - Project Location MapSource: Kimley-Horn, 2019. 2 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 50

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood. The neighborhood is primarily comprised of single-family homes. Foothill Elementary School, located at the southeast corner of the neighborhood, can be accessed via the neighborhood.

The following principal roadways are located within the study area:

Josselyn Canyon Road is an east-west street that extends from Highway 68 to Mark Thomas Drive. Josselyn Canyon Road is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph). The roadway width along Josselyn Canyon Road is 30 - 35 feet wide. Josselyn Canyon Road is considered a primary route of travel of the City Fire Department. Josselyn Canyon Road is not entirely within City Limits, some segments are in County of Monterey jurisdiction.

Via Isola is a north-south street that extends from Josselyn Canyon Road to a cul-de-sac at the southern end of Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood. It is a two-lane residential street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway width along Via Isola is 30 - 35 feet wide. Via Isola is considered a primary route of travel of the City Fire Department.

Via Casoli is a north-south street that is from San Vito Circle to Foothill Boulevard. It is a two-lane residential street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway width along Via Casoli is 35 feet wide. This street is the main access point for Foothill Elementary School.

There are no Transit facilities within the neighborhood area.

Pedestrians
Sidewalk exists throughout most of the neighborhood, the location of sidewalks is shown in Figure 2.

Bicycles
There are no existing bicycle facilities within the neighborhood, as shown in Figure

2. Class II bicycle lanes are striped along Olmsted Road, however this is not within the Fishermen's Flats neighborhood, and there is no direct connection from the neighborhood to the Class II bicycle lanes.

Planned Bicycle Facilities
There are no planned bicycle facilities within the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood.

Existing Transportation System
Existing Transit Service
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
3 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 51

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
Figure 2 - Fishermen's Flats Bicycle and PedestrianFacilitiesSource: Kimley-Horn, 2019 4 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 52

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
55 Traffic data was collected over the course of a week from December 2-8, 2018. Data was collected while school was in session at Foothill Elementary. Data collection occurred along the following segments:
1 Via Isola, from San Vito Circle to Trapani Circle;
2 Via Isola, from Messina Place to Etna Place;
3 Josselyn Canyon Road, from Monterey Woods to Via Isola; and 4 Josselyn Canyon Road, from Via Isola to Via Marettimo Vehicle volume, speed and functional classification was collected using pneumatic tube counters. The AM Peak was 7:15 am and the PM Peak was 4:45 pm on weekdays for Via Isola and Josselyn Canyon Road from Monterey Woods to Via Isola. The AM Peak was 7:30 am and the PM Peak was 3:15 pm on weekdays for Josselyn Canyon Road from Via Isola to Via Marettimo. The weekend Peak for Via Isola was 11:45 am from San Vito Circle to Trapani Circle and 1:15 pm from Messina Place to Etna Place. The weekend Peak for Josselyn Canyon Road was 12:00 pm from Via Isola to Via Marettimo and 12:30 pm from Monterey Woods to Via Isola.

Traffic data can be found in Appendix A.

Traffic Volumes
As illustrated in Figure 3, weekday volumes are consistently higher than they are for weekend volumes. Josselyn Canyon Road carries higher vehicle volumes as it acts a collector of traffic from the Fishermen's Flats and Deer Flats residential neighborhoods.

Figure 4 shows the Neighborhood Weekday Daily Traffic by Location and Figure 5 shows the Neighborhood Weekend Daily Traffic by location.

Traffic Data Collection
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 53

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
66 Figure 3 - Average Weekday and Weekend Traffic Comparison Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Figure 4 - Neighborhood Weekday Traffic
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 54

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
77 Figure 5 - Neighborhood Weekend Traffic
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Traffic Speed
The traffic speed profile for Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. The speed profiles are shown separately as the speed limit varies between the two roadways. The speed limit on Josselyn Canyon Road (between Highway 68 and Deer Flats Park) is 30 mph and the speed limit on Via Isola is 25 mph.

The average speed and 85th percentile speed of the study segments is shown on Figure 8.

The 85th percentile speed is included in the analysis because, California state law requires that speed limits be set using the 85th percentile speed, meaning that 85 percent of the drivers are measured driving at or below this speed. Per the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, a minimum of 100 vehicles speeds must be collected for vehicles in a “free-flow” condition. Vehicles that are free-flowing would not be influenced by traffic control devices, weather, or other slower vehicles such as trucks or buses.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 55

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
88 Figure 6 - Speed profile for Josselyn Canyon Road
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Figure 7 - Speed Profile for Via Isola
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 56

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
99 Figure 8 - Neighborhood Speeds
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
The average speed on Via Isola is 28 mph for the segment between Messina Place and Etna Place and the 85th percentile speed is 33 mph. For the segment between San Vito Circle and Trapani Circle, the average speed is 22 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 26 mph. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the portion of vehicles that drive at or below the speed limit, 5-10 mph above the speed limit, and more than 10 mph above the speed limit. The segment closer to the entrance of Fishermen's Flats (between Messina Place and Etna Place) experiences a higher proportion of vehicles that drive above the speed limit.

Figure 9 - Speed profile for Via Isola
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Figure 10 - Speed Profile for Via Isola
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 57

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1010
The average speed on Josselyn Canyon Road is 27 mph for the segment between Monterey Woods and Via Isola and the 85th percentile speed is 33 mph. For the segment between Via Isola and Via Marettimo the average speed is 23 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 28 mph. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the portion of vehicles that drive at or below the speed limit, 5-10 mph above the speed limit, and more than 10 mph above the speed limit. The segment closer to the intersection with Highway 68 (between Monterey Woods and Via Isola) experiences a higher proportion of vehicles that drive above the speed limit.

Figure 11 - Josselyn Canyon Road speed
profile
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Figure 12 - Josselyn Canyon Road speed
profile
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 58

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1111
Often the drivers that residents remember the most are those driving much higher than the posted speed limit. Figure 13 shows the percentage of drivers by study segment that drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit, over the course of the week. The study segment with the greatest proportion of drivers speeding more than 10 mph over the speed occurred on Via Isola between Messina Place and Etna Place with 5 percent.

Figure 13 - Percentage of drivers traveling 10+ mph over speed limit.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 59

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1212
Radar Speed Signs
The Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood requested speed radar feedback signs in a previous NCIP project cycle, and in September 2019 the requested signs were installed. The speed radar feedback signs have the ability to record data and three days of data was captured from September 20-22, 2019 (Friday – Sunday). The following table is a summary of change in average and 85th percentile speed after the installation of the new speed signs. It should be noted that this is preliminary after-study data.

Table 1 - Speed Radar Feed Back Signs Before and After Speeds Before
(December 2018)
After
(September 2019)
Percent Change
Average Speed: 27 mph 23 mph -15%
85th Percentile Speed: 33 mph 27 mph -18%
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019 and City of Monterey, 2019
Vehicle Classification
Vehicles were classified into four
categories. (1) Motorcycles/Passenger Cars [Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, Class 1-2],
(2) Pick Ups, Sport Utility Vehicles,
SUVs, and Heavy pick-up trucks
[FHWA Class 3, 5], (3) Buses [FHWA
Class 4], and (4) Heavy Vehicles,
such as semi-trucks or delivery
trucks [FHWA Class 6-13]. Figure 14
illustrates the vehicle classification
categories for the neighborhood.

Appendix B provides examples of
vehicles in the 13 FHWA classification categories Passenger cars and motorcycles are the primary
vehicles using the Fishermen's Flats
neighborhood. Figure 14 - Neighborhood Vehicle Classification Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 60

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1313
School Traffic
Foothill Elementary School is located within the neighborhood, and school-related traffic has been a frequent neighborhood concern. Due to the configuration of the school, the main drop off point is located off of Via Casoli which is accessed by driving through the neighborhood. Based on community input, it is noted that Via Casoli is the preferred drop off location for parents with younger students due to the proximity of the main school building from the drop off area. Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) organizes school buses for Foothill Elementary, and the school has several buses that primarily uses the Olmsted Road drop off area.

School begins at 8:00 AM. The neighborhood AM Peak period occurs during the same time period from 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM. Approximately 25 percent (220 vehicles) of the daily volume on Via Isola from San Vito Circle to Trapani Circle is occurring in a onehour window in the morning.

School ends between 2:00-2:25 PM, depending on the day. This corresponds with the School PM Peak from 1:45 PM to 2:45 PM. This peak accounts for approximately 15 percent (140 vehicles) of the daily volume on Via Isola from San Vito Circle to Trapani Circle. The PM Peak for this segment occurs from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM and it only accounts for approximately 7 percent (62 vehicles) of the total volume. The AM Peak is higher than the School PM Peak and PM Peak, this is expected due to the overlap of school traffic with trips made by residents going to work in the morning.

Figure 15 illustrates the speed profile for school traffic compared to all other times.

School traffic has a higher portion of vehicles traveling between 0-5 mph over the speed limit (5% difference). However, the portion of vehicles traveling more than 5-10 mph over the posted speed limit is one percent regardless of school related traffic.

The speed profile of school time in comparison to all other times is similar. Regardless of time of day, only one percent of vehicles are traveling more than 5 – 10 mph over the posted speed limit.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 21, Packet Page 61

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1414
Figure 15 - Speed profile for school traffic compared to all other times.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Traffic collision data was reviewed for a four-year period from January 2014 – December 2018. The traffic collision data was collected from a combination of City of Monterey Police Department reports and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Collision Volumes
Three (3) collisions occurred over the four-year period from January 2014 to December 2018. In 2016, there was one collision at the intersection of Marsala Circle and Via Isola.

The other two collisions occurred in 2018; one collision occurred at the intersection of Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola and the other at the intersection of Via Isola and Trapani Circle.

Collision Type
There are eight types of vehicle collision classifications, these are bicycle, broadside, head-on, hit object, improper turning, rear-end, sideswipe, and unknown. Of the three reported collisions in the neighborhood, there was one broadside, one improper turning and one sideswipe collision in the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood from January 2014 to December 2018.

Collision Severity
Collision severity is broken down into five main categories. Property Damage Only is the lowest severity of collision with no reported personal injuries, the highest severity is a fatal collision. In the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood from 2014 to 2018, all reported collisions were determined to be Property Damage Only, a non-injury type.

Traffic Collisions
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 22, Packet Page 62

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1515

TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
To achieve traffic calming there is a toolbox developed by the City of Monterey of different measures that can be used to visually and physically alter the roadway. The devices considered in the toolbox are described in Table 2, a copy of the handout provided to meeting attendees is shown in Figure 16.

Table 2 - Traffic Calming Devices
Traffic Calming Device & Description Examples
Curvilinear Street
A curved street alignment, sometimes
called as Chicane, can be used to
narrow the street and cause the driver to
do additional maneuvering and reduce
drivers’ line of sight distances.

Source: City of Monterey
Diagonal Diverter
Diagonal diverters use raised areas
placed diagonally across a four-way
intersection to restrict through movements
in all directions, they are used where cut
through traffic is a concern.

Source: National Association of City Transportation
City Officials
Entrance Barrier
A physical barrier that restricts turns into
a street. Creates a one-way segment at
the intersection while maintaining twoway traffic for the rest of the block, used where cut-through traffic is a concern
and where vehicles from nearby facilities
circulate looking for parking.

Source: City of Monterey
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 23, Packet Page 63

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1616
Traffic Calming Device & Description Examples
Entry Island with Neighborhood
Identification Sign
Neighborhood signs placed in a center
island median can be used to define
entry to a residential area, in addition to
narrowing the street, and interrupting line
of sight distances.

Source: Google Earth, 2019
Median
A raised median island in the center of
the roadway with one-way traffic on each
side, used to narrow wide streets and to
interrupt sight distance down center of
roadway.

Source: City of Monterey
Neckdown/Curb Extensions
Neckdowns or curb extensions are
segments where curbs are extended
toward the center of the roadway, this
can be used to narrow a roadway and/or
shorten pedestrian crossing.

Source: City of Monterey
Neighborhood Sign Program
A neighborhood sign program would
be the implementation of signs unique
to a neighborhood which assist drivers
in recognizing they have entered a
residential neighborhood and encourage
them to observe the posted speed limits.

Source: Google Earth, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 24, Packet Page 64

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1717
Traffic Calming Device & Description Examples
Pavement Treatment
Varied pavement texture or color to
create visual and tactile focus point, used
where pedestrian crossings are a concern
and speeding is a problem. Treatments
may include colored pavement, pavers,
or textured concrete.

Source: Ennis-Flint
Police Enforcement
Additional Police enforcement presence
to monitor speed and issue citations
can be requested for brief time periods,
this is often used where streets have
documented speed or restriction
violations.

Source: City of Monterey Police Department, 2019
Radar Speed Display Signs
Radar Speed Display signs are a
permanent version of the Speed
Monitoring Trailer Speeds are displayed in
flashing or static lights on the sign panel.

These signs are intended for residential
streets with moderate traffic volumes and
where speeding is a problem.

Source: City of Monterey
Realigned Intersection
Intersections can be realigned to make
the “through movement” a turning
movement, used where it is desired to
redirect traffic to a higher classification
roadway or where slowing traffic as it
enters the neighborhood is desired.

Source: Federal Highway Administration
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 25, Packet Page 65

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1818
Traffic Calming Device & Description Examples
Restricted Movement Barrier
A barrier island that prevents certain
movements at an intersection, used
where reducing cut through traffic is
desired.

Source: City of Monterey
Restricted Movement Signing
Signing can be used to restrict
movements which may help with
reducing neighborhood cut-through
traffic.

Source: City of Monterey
Speed Limit Sign
Speed Limit signs are signs that define
the legal driving speed under normal
conditions, used where speeding is a
problem and ongoing enforcement is
realistic
Source: Google Earth, 2019
Speed Monitoring Trailer
A speed monitoring trailer is a mobile
trailer with a mounted radar display that
informs drivers of their speed, used on any
street where speeding is a problem. Trailers can be made available upon request to Monterey Police Department for brief
time periods, provided it is not in otherwise
use. Source: City of Monterey
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 26, Packet Page 66

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
1919
Traffic Calming Device & Description Examples
Street Closure
The full closure of a street, used where cut
through traffic is the major concern. Typically, considerations need to be made to ensure emergency vehicle access as wells
as bicycle and pedestrian access.

Source: National Association of City Transportation
Officials
Traffic Circle
A raised circular median in an intersection
with counterclockwise traffic flow,
typically controlled by a “Yield on Entry”
on all approaches, used where speed
control is desired, improved side street
access is desired, and with relatively low
proportion of left turn movements.

Source: City of Monterey
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 27, Packet Page 67

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
Figure 16 - Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood Traffic CalmingToolboxSource: Kimley-Horn, 2019 20 Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 28, Packet Page 68

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
21 Treatments Not Approved As Traffic Calming Tools
The following items are not approved treatments for use as traffic calming tools by the City of Monterey on public streets within its jurisdiction:

Stop Signs
Stop signs are traffic control devices meaning that they are intended to control the right-of-way at intersections. They are not effective in the reduction of speed and can have unintended negative consequences such as noise, increased speeding, or decreased stop compliance. The installation of a stop sign requires an engineering study which demonstrates that the installation of a stop sign is warranted per state and federal standards.

Children at Play Signs
These signs are not standard traffic control devices or warning signs per state and federal standards. These signs have not shown to increase safety. The sign is a direct and open suggestion that it is acceptable for children to play in the street which should not be encouraged.

Traffic Signals
Traffic Signals, like stop signs, are intended to control the right-of-way at intersections.

They are designed to improve safety on higher volume roads and are installed where significant traffic conflicts require them. The installation of a traffic signal requires an engineering study which demonstrates that the installation of a traffic signal is warranted per state and federal standards.

Speed Humps, Bumps, or Dips
Many residents throughout the City have requested speed humps, bumps, dips or raised crosswalks. Speed humps are vertical changes to the roadway that require drivers to maintain the posted speed to traverse them comfortably. It is against City Policy to implement these devices since they have a negative effect on emergency vehicle response time, increasing emergency response times up to 10 seconds for each hump that a fire truck needs to travel over. To be effective speed humps must be placed in a series resulting in much greater impact to vehicle response time. Speed humps can also damage fire apparatus. Much like stop signs, speed bumps can have unintended negative consequences such as increased speed in between humps by drivers “making up” for lost time due to humps or stops. Speed humps are located along Josselyn Canyon Road outside of the City of Monterey jurisdiction.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 29, Packet Page 69

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
22 Mirrors
Mirrors are often requested by residents to improve sight distance. However, the City no longer installs mirrors on City Streets as they present a maintenance issue as they were frequently tampered with or vandalized in the past.

Additionally, mirrors do not function as well at night as they can be difficult to see and light from vehicles reflects in various directions. On higher speed roadways, they can distort the image, speed, and distance of the oncoming traffic. Weather, such as rain or fog, can also hamper the effectiveness of mirrors.

Flashing Lights
Flashing beacons or flashing signs are only used in very specific applications in the City such as an approach to a change in condition such as roads ends or a pedestrian flashing beacon. If too many signs or flashing lights or signs are installed (e.g., they are installed at locations with no heavy pedestrian use or change in road condition), then the unintended consequence is that the flashing lights or signs that are truly necessary will start to be ignored. When this happens, the effectiveness of all flashing lights and signs are reduced, and crashes can result.

On-Street Parking
On-street parking is not a traffic calming treatment; however, studies have shown that on-street parking can have an effect on vehicle speeds. On-street parking can visually narrow the roadway and give drivers the impression that the road is narrowing, encouraging them to slow down.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 30, Packet Page 70

CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
23 COMMUNITY INPUT
Community input and engagement is important at every stage in the planning, development, and implementation of the Traffic Calming Plan. Meetings are required to approve a traffic calming plan to ensure that the community was consulted. This section discusses the findings from the three neighborhood community meetings held.

The first meeting for the Traffic Calming Plan for the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood was held on April 8, 2019 at Living Hope Church of the Nazarene (1291 Josselyn Canyon Road). Most of residents in Fishermen's Flats are self-identified as long-time Fish Flats residents with some being residents since the 1960’s. The meeting had over twenty attendees.

The primary concern is school-related traffic speeding and using the neighborhood to cut through. As discussed in the meeting, the school in the 2018-2019 school year had approximately 300 students. Based on neighborhood comments, few students were reported to live in the neighborhood in comparison to many years prior. School buses are estimated to drop off nearly 150 students. School buses use the Olmsted Road drop-off location outside of the neighborhood. Meeting attendees desired to know more about the school traffic. The neighborhood did note that school-traffic is a temporary traffic issues that occurs mainly around the pick-up and drop-off times.

Another identified concern is an issue with drivers cutting the corner and crossing into the opposing vehicle lane turning when turning into Fishermen's Flats at the intersection of Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola.

There are two planned radar speed display signs on Via Isola, between Messina Place and Etna Place, which are approved NCIP projects. Additionally, there is a proposal for additional radar speed display signs along Josselyn Canyon Road between the Deer Flats and Fishermen's Flats neighborhoods.

Meeting notes and materials from the first meeting can be found in Appendix C.

Meeting #1
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 31, Packet Page 71 24 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
24 The second neighborhood meeting for the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan was held on May 6, 2019 at Living Hope Church of the Nazarene. The meeting had 18 attendees.

In this meeting the neighborhood was shown traffic data that was collected along Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola. Additionally, residents were shown preliminary traffic calming concepts for the intersections of Josselyn Canyon Road and Via Isola; Via Isola and Marsala Circle; Via Isola and San Vito Circle; as well as Via Casoli and San Vito Circle.

Several concerns about the concepts were expressed, as listed below:
• Concern about U-turns at Living Hope Church Driveway
• Would like to see additional improvement options for Josselyn Canyon Road • Concern that the median would make it more difficult to access Via Isola from Josselyn Canyon Road and if it would impact drainage
• Concern about the traffic circle proposal being expensive and unnecessary, also concern about spending money on the intersection that would require all the new curb ramps to be replaced
• Concern with construction traffic and timelines based on prior project experience
• Concern with spending money on infrastructure near schools for walking kids when we do not see a lot of kids walking; there are very few kids that live in the neighborhood.
• Concern with expense of some of the projects to treat a temporary traffic issue; the solutions implemented be permanent and will affect residents outside of the peak times.

Additionally, the idea of additional police enforcement was expressed, and many attendees were found the idea favorable. It was expressed anecdotally that other Fishermen's Flats residents have asked for increased enforcement to cease as they received tickets for speeding or other traffic violations.

At the end of the meeting, the attendees decided that before proceeding with any of the proposed concepts that they would like to see results from the new speed radar signs that were to be installed on Via Isola between Messina Place and Etna Place and then discuss if any improvements are needed.

Meeting notes and materials from the second meeting can be found in Appendix D.

Meeting #2
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 32, Packet Page 72 25 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
25 The third meeting for the Traffic Calming Plan for the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood was held on September 23, 2019 at Living Hope Church of the Nazarene. The meeting had 22 attendees.

As part of the third meeting, new speed data was presented from the radar speed signs, due to the delays from the sign manufacturer data from the signs was collected for the prior three days. Preliminary after study data was presented and demonstrated a reduction in both the average and median speed, the reductions are shown in Table

1. Speed collected during the School PM Peak also experienced a similar reduction in speed. Meeting attendees were pleased with the preliminary results.

Given the speed results, the meeting attendees discussed the necessity of the traffic calming concepts shown at the second meeting. Attendees ultimately decided not to include any of the concepts discussed to be included in the final recommendations for traffic calming concepts. Attendees did revisit the issue of speeding on Josselyn Canyon Road and what could be done to slow vehicles approaching the neighborhood so that residents can safely enter the neighborhood.

Meeting notes and materials from the third meeting can be found in Appendix E.

A fourth meeting was held on October 10, 2022 at Living Hope Church of the Nazarene to discuss the improvements at Josselyn Canyon Road/Via Marettimo. Meeting discussion and conclusion resulted in the recommendations included in Figure 18a and Figure 18b. Appendix F includes the presentation materials for the meeting.

The primary concern for the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood is school-related traffic, from Foothill Elementary, using the neighborhood to drop off and pick up school children. Residents were pleased with the preliminary results of radar speed signs on Via Isola. Due to the radar speed sign results, residents did not feel that the proposed traffic calming projects were necessary at this time as the benefits did not exceed the cost of the proposed projects. A demonstration project will be implemented, as depicted in Figure 18b, to test the effectiveness and operation of the proposed permanent improvement in Figure 18a.

Note: Foothill Elementary School was closed by MPUSD after the 2021/22 school year and leased it out to Monterey Bay Charter School. Monterey Bay Charter School intends to use the facility for five years starting in 2022/23 school year. Additionally, the former Foothill Elementary School campus is used by Monterey County Office of Education (MCOE) or MPUSD for other purposes.

Meeting #3
Community Input Summary
Meeting #4
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 33, Packet Page 73 26 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
26 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section describes recommendations for traffic calming measures in the Fishermen's Flats neighborhood.

Radar Feedback Signs
Radar feedback signs were recently installed in the Fishermen's Flats neighborhood and have been generally well received by residents that attended the traffic calming community meetings. Additionally, there is a proposed location to implement radar feedback signs on Josselyn Canyon Road between the Deer Flats and Fishermen's Flats neighborhood. Figure 17 below shows the existing radar speed Signs on Via Isola.

Figure 17 - Via Isola Radar Speed Signs
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 34, Packet Page 74 27 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
27 Josselyn Canyon Road
A preliminary concept showing a median on Via Isola at Josselyn Canyon Road was shown to the community at the second and third meeting, the community ultimately decided that the median location was not effectively addressing the problem of speeding on Josselyn Canyon Road. Due to the restrictions with driveways, a series of striped medians is proposed along Josselyn Canyon Road between Deer Forest Drive, Via Marettimo and Via Isola. The use of medians is recommended to reduce speeds along Josselyn Canyon Road as they approach the entrance to Via Isola so that drivers have an adequate gap for turning left into the Fishermen's Flats neighborhood on Via Isola. This concept was developed as result of feedback from the third meeting; however, it was not approved by the community. At the fourth community meeting, median and intersection alignment improvements were discussed at the intersection of Josselyn Canyon Road/Via Marettimo. The improvements would provide for a perpendicular approach on Via Marettimo, construct bulbouts/tighter turning radii to slow down vehicles, and install striped median improvements to slow traffic down on Josselyn Canyon Road. Figure 18a below shows the proposed concept for striped medians along Josselyn Canyon Road. Figure 18b below shows the proposed concept for the striped bulbouts at Josselyn Canyon Road/Via Marettimo as a demonstration project before a decision is made whether to implement the improvements shown in Figure 18a.

Figure 18a - Josselyn Canyon Road Median Concept
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2022
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 35, Packet Page 75 28 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
28 Figure 18b - Josselyn Canyon Road Striped Bulbouts Concept Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023
Detailed drawings can be found in Appendix G.

Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 36, Packet Page 76 29 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
29 Living Hope Church Driveway
The Living Hope Church of the Nazarene, is located at the intersection of Highway 68 and Josselyn Canyon Road and can be accessed via Josselyn Canyon Road. As residents discussed during the traffic calming meetings, this intersection is the first signalized intersection on Highway 68 after the Highway 68/Highway 1 Interchange. Residents expressed that they believe lost travelers use the Living Hope Church as a turn around in order to return to Highway 1. The driveway was not intended for the use of a turnaround and results in drivers turning around partially in the driveway and roadway. To deter drivers from using the driveway as a turn around, the property owner may consider a painted median, asphalt concrete dike or some type of mountable curb or median be installed.

Although this project is located within the Fishermen's Flats Neighborhood, it is a private driveway of a non-residential use. Therefore, it will not be implemented using Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program funding.

Figure 19 below shows the existing conditions of the Living Hope Church driveway.

Figure 19 - Living Hope Church Driveway, Existing Conditions Source: Google, 2019
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 37, Packet Page 77 30 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
30 Following the adoption of the Fishermen's Flats Traffic Calming Plan, residents may apply for traffic calming projects in the next available project nomination period for the NCIP Program. When funding for a traffic calming project is approved adjacent property owners will again be asked to affirm their support of the project. The project will then begin the full design and construction phase.

Next Steps
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 38, Packet Page 78 31 CITY OF MONTEREY

FISHERMEN'S FLATS

TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
31 APPENDIX
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC COUNTS
B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION C. MEETING #1 MATERIALS – Presentations, Posters, and Feedback D. MEETING #2 MATERIALS – Presentations, Posters, and Feedback E. MEETING #3 MATERIALS – Presentations, Posters, and Feedback F. MEETING #4 MATERIALS – Presentations, Posters, and Feedback G. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING CONCEPTS
Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 39, Packet Page 79 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
ADOPT FISHERMEN’S FLATS TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN, MARCH 2023 WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 13-010 adopting the City of Monterey Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program; WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 21-095 adopting the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Policies and Procedures Manual;
WHEREAS, the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan is consistent with the City of Monterey Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which provides uniform guidance to neighborhoods wishing to implement traffic calming projects on their residential streets; WHEREAS, the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan must be adopted by the City Council prior to implementing the projects it recommends; WHEREAS, the funding for individual traffic calming projects will be allocated through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) process; WHEREAS, the adoption of the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan would not result in direct physical impacts on the environment. However, implementation of the Plan would have potential indirect impacts from installation of the recommended traffic calming measures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 categorical exemption consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing licensing, or minor alteration to existing public or private structures that involve negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails are examples provided in subsection (c) of Section 15301. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the Class 1 categorical exemption includes minor alterations to existing streets.

The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) for certain classes of categorical exemptions due to locations with particularly sensitive environmental conditions;
(b) when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;
(c) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 40, Packet Page 80 2 (d) where the project 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; (e) where the project is located on a state designated hazardous waste site; and (f) where the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as explained below.

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 project does not qualify for Exception (c) because no potential significant impacts have been identified based on site and project reviews.

The recommended traffic calming improvements would occur within paved streets, and there may be removal of some adjacent landscaping and small trees to implement the traffic calming recommendations along Josselyn Canyon Road. However, minor removal of non-native vegetation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats or special status species as none are known to exist within the developed street and adjacent ROW based on site reviews.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 41, Packet Page 81 3 highway. Highway 68, located north of the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood that comprises the project area, is a designated a state scenic highway. None of the sites recommended for traffic calming measures in the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan are visible from Highway 68, except for the existing private church site at the corner of Josselyn Canyon Road and Highway

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 area subject to implementation of traffic calming measures include specific recommendations for three locations and other general traffic calming measures, all of which are located within City streets, except for one private property driveway. All improvements would be located in paved areas that are regularly maintained; therefore, no potentially historic or historic structures would be affected by the improvements. In addition, the Fishermen’s Flat’s Neighborhood is partially located within a sensitive archeological area as identified on Figure 8 of the General Plan. A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted, and no significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources were identified. The investigation found no recorded prehistoric or historical period resources within the Fishermen’s Flats Neighborhood, and concluded that the future improvements identified in the Plan would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Given the lack of nearby prehistoric and historical period resources and the low sensitivity noted from the survey of the Project area, the investigation concluded that excavation related to the future installation of traffic calming measures would likely not encounter any potentially significant archaeological resources. The investigation recommended that project improvements could proceed without a qualified archaeological monitor on-site during ground disturbing activities; however, the project will require compliance with regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the Fishermen’s Flats Traffic Calming Plan, March 2023, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 42, Packet Page 82 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, 4/2/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 43, Packet Page 83 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., NCIP Staff Coordinator SUBJECT: Adopt the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023) (Categorical Exemption per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 – Minor Alterations to Existing Facilities)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023).

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No funding is requested at this time. Funding for individual traffic calming projects included in the Monterey Vista Traffic Calming Plan can be allocated through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) or CIP process. The neighborhood may pursue NCIP funding for specific projects contained in the plan in the future.

Table 3 in the Traffic Calming Plan contains the original cost estimates for Proposed Plan Improvements from 2003. The cost estimates were not updated in 2023 because the decision was made to base project cost estimates on project plans and specifications, as those estimates would be more accurate to the specific projects and costs at the time of project implementation.

Project plans were not developed as a part of the Traffic Calming Plan revision. Additionally, potential projects contained in the Traffic Calming Plan may or may not be implemented; Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 84 however, the project must be identified in the Traffic Calming Plan to be implemented in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The adoption of the Monterey Vista Traffic Calming Plan would not result in direct physical impacts on the environment. However, implementation of the Plan would have potential indirect impacts from installation of the recommended traffic calming measures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 categorical exemption consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing licensing, or minor alteration to existing public or private structures that involve negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails are examples provided in subsection (c) of Section 15301. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the Class 1 categorical exemption includes minor alterations to existing streets.

All of the specific recommendations in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood 2023 Traffic Calming Plan consist of minor improvements within existing developed streets and rights-of-way, such as installation of medians and curb extensions and intersection improvements, including a potential new roundabout at the Soledad Drive / Soledad Place intersection. None of the recommendations would result in new or expanded lanes or roadway capacity. Thus, the project is exempt from the CEQA per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 categorical exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities.

The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) for certain classes of categorical exemptions due to locations with particularly sensitive environmental conditions;
(b) when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;
(c) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances;
(d) where the project 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;
(e) where the project is located on a state designated hazardous waste site; and (f) where the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as explained below.

Exception (a) - Location. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a), a categorical exemption for 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. The consideration includes where the project may impact an environmental resource of “hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” The project Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 85 does not qualify for Exception (a) because this exception does not apply to Class 1 categorical exemptions.

Exception (b) - Cumulative Impact. All categorical exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed project does not qualify for Exception (b) because there is no evidence of a potential significant cumulative impact due to successive projects of the same type in the same place. There are no other known traffic calming or road improvement projects of the same type planned in the same locations as those specified for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, which comprises the project area in the Traffic Calming Plan. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.

The recommended traffic calming improvements would occur within paved streets, and there may be removal of some adjacent landscaping and small trees to implement the traffic calming recommendations at the Soledad Drive / Soledad Place if the roundabout alternative identified in the Traffic Calming Plan is implemented. However, most of the area of potential disturbance would be within road pavement, and the potential minor removal of non-native vegetation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats or special status species as none are known to exist within the developed street and adjacent rights-of-way (ROW) based on site reviews.

Furthermore, the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project area is located within an existing developed residential neighborhood, and the recommended improvements consist of minor improvements, such as installation of medians, curb extensions, and intersection reconfiguration in the case of the roundabout alternative considered for the Soledad Drive / Soledad Place. However, these improvements would be within existing paved roads and adjacent ROW. There are no “unusual circumstances” that differentiate the project from the general class of similarly situated streets throughout the City that are subject to minor improvements to provide traffic calming and safety in accordance with the City’s comprehensive Traffic Calming Program. Furthermore, the project consists of an update to the Traffic Calming Plan prepared in 2003 for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, under which a number of traffic calming measures have been installed or implemented. Thus, the project would not result in any 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. Highway 1, located along the southern boundary of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood that comprises the project area, is a state-designated state scenic highway in this area. None of the sites recommended for traffic calming measures in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan are visible from Highway 1 due to intervening development and vegetation.

Furthermore, improvements considered in the Traffic Calming Plan would not damage any trees, historic buildings, or other features that may be considered scenic. Therefore, the project does not qualify for Exception (d) because the project areas are not adjacent to or visible from a state-designated scenic highway.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 86 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, known as the Cortese list. The project does not qualify for Exception (e) because none of the project area, including existing streets, is an identified hazardous waste site or is included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code as identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.

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 area subject to implementation of traffic calming measures include specific recommendations that are located within City streets. All improvements would be located in paved areas that are regularly maintained; therefore, no potentially historic structures would be affected by the improvements. The Monterey Vista Neighborhood is partially located within a sensitive archeological area as identified on Figure 8 of the General Plan EIR. A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted for the project, and no significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources were identified. The investigation found no recorded prehistoric or historical period resources within the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, and concluded that the future improvements identified in the Plan would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Given the lack of nearby prehistoric and historical period resources and the low sensitivity noted from the survey of the Project area, the investigation concluded that excavation related to the future installation of traffic calming improvements and measures would likely not encounter any potentially significant archaeological resources. The investigation recommended that project improvements could proceed without a qualified archaeological monitor on-site during ground disturbing activities; however, the project will require compliance with regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to approve the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023); however, that is not recommended. Monterey Vista community members met three times to discuss their traffic-related concerns and look at appropriate traffic calming measures. During these meetings, the community considered multiple traffic calming measures on Mar Vista Drive and Soledad Drive, including removing the left turn lane from Mar Vista Drive /Soledad Drive to Soledad Drive and installing a traffic island or roundabout at the intersection of Soledad Drive and Soledad Drive.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update must be adopted by the City Council prior to implementing the proposed traffic calming projects. This Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan is an update to the plan finalized in August 2003. The plan was prepared in accordance with the City of Monterey Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (January 2013).

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 87 The goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program are to:
 Improve local residents’ sense of well-being about their neighborhood streets and enhance traffic safety in residential areas.
 Evaluate Monterey’s neighborhood traffic challenges and produce adopted plans for each residential neighborhood.
 Provide a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program format that is responsive to all neighborhoods in the City of Monterey.

The Monterey Vista Neighborhood completed the traffic calming plan process for neighborhoodwide improvements, as outlined in the Traffic Calming Program. During the process, residents identified and agreed upon specific traffic calming devices for locations within the neighborhood, and the benefits and impacts of all the proposed devices were evaluated. Residents discussed and reached a consensus on the concepts.

NCIP funded the creation of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan. The residents worked with a consultant hired to develop a revised Traffic Calming Plan to address current neighborhood conditions. A series of three meetings with the residents of Monterey Vista were held on February 8, 2017, October 10, 2018, and January 14, 2020 at the City Council Chamber and the Monterey Public Library. City staff mailed notifications to residents as well as owners of the Monterey Vista properties for each one of these meetings. At these meetings, two alternative traffic calming measures that were not included in the 2003 Traffic Calming Plan were selected to be added to the 2023 Traffic Calming Plan Update: eliminate the southbound left turn lane from Mar Vista Drive /Soledad Drive to Soledad Drive; and add a roundabout option at the intersection of Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive. Public input was summarized in the study (Exhibit A).

Consultants performed a Left Turn Lane Warrant Study for the southbound left turn lane from Mar Vista Drive/Soledad Drive to Soledad Drive to help residents understand the traffic patterns associated with the intersection of Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive (Exhibit A). The study determined that the southbound left turn lane is warranted and, therefore, should not be removed.

During the three workshops, the discussion focused on various traffic calming devices that could address resident concerns about speeding, pedestrian safety, and school traffic. The calming devices that were identified in the Monterey Vista Traffic Calming Plan included updates to Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive. The last meeting was used to review the plan the residents had created with the help of the consultant and build consensus on the proposed traffic calming devices for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood.

It should also be noted that the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) has consolidated Monte Vista Elementary School and Walter Colton Middle School. TK to 8th grade has been consolidated at the Walter Colton Middle School Site and has been renamed Monte Vista School.

Monterey Police and Fire Departments were involved in the process and were included in the plan review process.

Residents who live directly adjacent to proposed traffic calming projects will be surveyed before a device is constructed.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 88 Therefore, Staff recommends that that the City Council adopt the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023).

AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update e: NCIP Committee Monterey Vista Neighborhood Representative Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 89 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

ADOPT THE MONTEREY VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN UPDATE (MARCH 2023)
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 13-010 adopting the City of Monterey Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program; WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 21-095 adopting the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Policies and Procedures Manual;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update is consistent with the City of Monterey Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which provides uniform guidance to neighborhoods wishing to implement traffic calming projects on their residential streets;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update must be adopted by the City Council prior to implementing the projects it recommends; WHEREAS, the funding for individual traffic calming projects can be allocated through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) or CIP process; WHEREAS, the adoption of the Monterey Vista Traffic Calming Plan would not result in direct physical impacts on the environment. However, implementation of the Plan would have potential indirect impacts from installation of the recommended traffic calming measures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 categorical exemption consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing licensing, or minor alteration to existing public or private structures that involve negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails are examples provided in subsection (c) of Section 15301. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the Class 1 categorical exemption includes minor alterations to existing streets.

The City has further considered whether the project is subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

This section prohibits the use of categorical exemptions under the following circumstances:
(a) for certain classes of categorical exemptions due to locations with particularly sensitive environmental conditions;
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 90 2 (b) when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;
(c) where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; (d) where the project 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; (e) where the project is located on a state designated hazardous waste site; and (f) where the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as explained below.

Exception (b) - Cumulative Impact. All categorical exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed project does not qualify for Exception (b) because there is no evidence of a potential significant cumulative impact due to successive projects of the same type in the same place. There are no other known traffic calming or road improvement projects of the same type planned in the same locations as those specified for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, which comprises the project area in the Traffic Calming Plan. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.

The recommended traffic calming improvements would occur within paved streets, and there may be removal of some adjacent landscaping and small trees to implement the traffic calming recommendations at the Soledad Drive / Soledad Place if the roundabout alternative identified in the Traffic Calming Plan is implemented. However, most of the area of potential disturbance would be within road pavement, and the potential minor removal of non-native vegetation would not result in significant impacts to sensitive habitats or special status species as none are known to exist within the developed street and adjacent rights-of-way (ROW) based on site reviews.

Furthermore, the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project area is located within an existing developed residential neighborhood, and the recommended improvements consist of minor improvements, such as installation of medians, curb extensions, and intersection reconfiguration in the case of the roundabout alternative considered for the Soledad Drive / Soledad Place. However, these improvements would be within existing paved roads and adjacent ROW. There are no “unusual Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 91 3 circumstances” that differentiate the project from the general class of similarly situated streets throughout the City that are subject to minor improvements to provide traffic calming and safety in accordance with the City’s comprehensive Traffic Calming Program. Furthermore, the project consists of an update to the Traffic Calming Plan prepared in 2003 for the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, under which a number of traffic calming measures have been installed or implemented. Thus, the project would not result in any 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. Highway 1, located along the southern boundary of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood that comprises the project area, is a state-designated state scenic highway in this area. None of the sites recommended for traffic calming measures in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan are visible from Highway 1 due to intervening development and vegetation.

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, known as the Cortese list. The project does not qualify for Exception (e) because none of the project area, including existing streets, is an identified hazardous waste site or is included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code as identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.

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 area subject to implementation of traffic calming measures include specific recommendations that are located within City streets. All improvements would be located in paved areas that are regularly maintained; therefore, no potentially historic structures would be affected by the improvements. The Monterey Vista Neighborhood is partially located within a sensitive archeological area as identified on Figure 8 of the General Plan EIR. A Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted for the project, and no significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources were identified. The investigation found no recorded prehistoric or historical period resources within the Monterey Vista Neighborhood, and concluded that the future improvements identified in the Plan would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Given the lack of nearby prehistoric and historical period resources and the low sensitivity noted from the survey of the Project area, the investigation concluded that excavation related to the future installation of traffic calming improvements and measures would likely not encounter any potentially significant archaeological resources. The investigation recommended that project improvements could proceed without a qualified archaeological monitor on-site during ground disturbing activities; however, the project will require compliance with regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

In consideration of all of the aforementioned, the City documents that the project qualifies for the Categorical Exemption found in CEQA Guidelines Sections15301, and that none of the potential exceptions to the use of a categorical exemptions apply to this project or the project area; and Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 92 4 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 adopts the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update (March 2023) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 93 8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 1
Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
August 2003
Updated March 2023
Pat Noyes & Associates
Updates by Whitson Engineers
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 94 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 2
Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan (TCP)
Background
The Monterey Vista Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood bounded by Skyline Drive on the southwest, Veterans Park and the Old Town Neighborhood on the north, Munras Avenue on the east, and the Alta Mesa Neighborhood and Highway 1 to the south. The neighborhood encompasses three schools: Monte Vista Elementary School; Walter Colton Middle School: and Monterey Union High School.

The City worked with neighborhood residents in 2003 to develop a traffic calming plan for the Monterey Vista neighborhood to address traffic speed, cut-through traffic, and safety issues in the neighborhood. The planning process followed the approach laid out in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which outlines policies, planning processes, and traffic calming tools approved for use in the city.
2023 TCP Update
This update to the 2003 TCP incorporates proposed changes to the traffic calming measures on Mar Vista Drive and Soledad Drive based on preliminary engineering completed for the Mar Vista Drive corridor. Three community meetings were held February 8, 2017, October 10, 2018, and January 14, 2020 to present the proposed TCP revisions.

Existing Conditions
Monterey Vista is a residential neighborhood with some commercial development along the east end of Soledad and the north end of Pacific. Street widths vary in the neighborhood and most of the streets are narrow with limited curbs and sidewalks. There are standard curb, gutter and sidewalk on sections of Mar Vista but most of the walkways in the neighborhood are decomposed granite. Many of the streets have no designated walkway at all and the cross section is rural in character with ditches rather than curb and gutter.

Traffic Data
Data collected in the neighborhood for the 2003 TCP show traffic volumes as follows on the local streets:

Table 1: Traffic Volumes
Street Location Northbound
AADT
Southbound
AADT
Via Del Rey Between Via Chular and Herrman 505 716
Via Paraiso Between Herrman and Via Del Rey 255 288
Via Gayuba Between Mar Vista and El Callejone 643 655
Mar Vista Between Toda Vista and Via Gayuba 1252 1243
Soledad Between Soledad Drive and Soledad Place 1458 1485 Mar Vista Between Skyline and Soledad Place 156 157
Monte Vista Between Mar Vista and Porta Vista 1476 1394 San Bernabe Between Via Descanso and Pacific 160 521
San Bernabe Between Colton and Via Encanto 343 na
Plan Development Process
The 2003 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan was developed following the process laid out in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. City staff and neighborhood Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 95 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 3
representatives worked together to:
• Identify residents’ concerns with neighborhood traffic • Identify desired neighborhood outcomes for traffic calming • Review traffic calming tools that fit the character of the neighborhood • Consider various traffic calming applications
• Recommend a neighborhood traffic calming plan
The first step in the planning process was to send out surveys to every residence in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood. The City received 131 responses to the survey and the results were compiled and presented at the first meeting with the neighborhood. Table 2 shows the results of the neighborhood survey:

Table 2: Summary of Neighborhood Survey
Question Response

1. Please rank each of the following Ranked as most important:
neighborhood traffic issues in order of Excessive traffic speeds – 53% concern to you. Non-resident cut-through traffic – 14%
Pedestrian safety – 11%
Bicycle safety – 10%
Traffic noise – 10%
Street maintenance –8%
Operation of on-street parking – 6%
Availability of on-street parking – 4%
Street landscaping 3%
Other – 5%

2. What, if any, concerns do you have Visibility – 52%
about driving safety in your Right-of-way control – 31% neighborhood? Street curvature and grades – 28%
Signing – 24%
Street width – 20%
Striping – 8%
Other – 15%

3. What activities do you or members Walking – 83%
of your household use neighborhood Bicycling – 32%
streets for regularly? Skating or skateboarding – 5%
Other – 19%

4. If there are school children in your Automobile – 25% house, what is the most common Walking – 12%
method of travel to and from school? School Bus – 1%
Bicycling – 1%
Transit – 0%

5. What types of traffic control devices do
you feel would be appropriate for use in
your neighborhood?
Signs – 47%
Devices that restrict movements – 23%
Physical changes to the street – 22%
Pavement markings – 19%
Pedestrian crossings – 17%
Landscaping – 13%
Other – 20%
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 96 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 4
The neighborhood met three times in 2003 (May 7, June 10, and July 9) to work through each step of the process. The first meeting provided an overview of traffic calming and the tools used in other communities to address residential traffic concerns. Residents were also asked to identify the traffic issues in Monterey Vista that should be the focus of the traffic calming planning process.

The neighborhood met three times subsequently in February 2017, October 2018, and January 2020 to specifically review the revised traffic calming measures proposed in this TCP Update.

Problem Identification
At the first neighborhood meeting in 2003, residents of Monterey Vista were asked to identify and prioritize traffic concerns. Residents provided the following list of concerns they wanted to address with traffic calming:
• Speeds on Martin
• Speeds on Soledad and cars crossing over the centerline on curves • Safety issues with middle school student drop off on Mar Vista • Monte Vista cut-through traffic
• Speeds on Monte Vista
• Sight distance problems from driveways on Soledad above Soledad Place (curve warning sign blocks visibility from 209 Soledad driveway)
• Need to define intersection of Soledad Place and Mar Vista to keep cars in their lane • Speeds on Mar Vista between Skyline and Monte Vista
• Cut through traffic on Mar Vista, Crescent and Skyline • Cars don’t stop at Mar Vista and Monte Vista stop signs, visibility is limited there • Speeds and school access on Via Gayuba
• School busing was reduced so more parents have to drive children to school • “Joy riding” on Via Paraiso in the evening
• Motorized scooters being used by underage kids in the neighborhood – loud and dangerous
• Absence of walkways
• Esperanzo from Soledad to Pacific is too narrow, causes pedestrian safety concerns • Speeds on Pacific
• Hard for pedestrians to cross Pacific
• Speeds on Soledad in the lower section where it starts to widen out • No connections between the various parts of Skyline neighborhood, necessitating the use of Skyline Drive for access between neighborhood segments • Kids doing “wheelies” on the high school track at night • Safety concerns with the access (entrance and exit) to the high school parking lot between El Caminito and Madison
A number of additional concerns were raised at the second meeting with the residents in 2003:
• The need for sidewalks, particular in areas where children are walking to school • Pacific Street – a residential street posted 30 mph, truck traffic, and increased traffic with Soledad signal
• Large vehicles parked on Monte Vista create safety problems • Cielo Vista Drive has parking on both sides and is too narrow • Traffic speeds on Via Gayuba
• Mar Vista near the Elks club has high demand for on-street parking, narrow • Mar Vista and Via Costanada needs a stop sign
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 97 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 5
• Mar Vista and Monte Vista sight distance
• Martin – move parking to other side of street next to sidewalk • Mar Vista/Crescent/Skyline safety and operations
• Soledad at shopping center – sight distance problem coming out of parking lot • Via Cimarron – motorized skateboards
City staff and the consultant met with several of the residents the day after the second meeting to review their concerns.

Neighborhood Priorities
At the first neighborhood meeting in 2003, residents expressed their preferences for certain traffic calming devices and made suggestions regarding locations. The following suggestions were made:
• Pavement treatment on Mar Vista between Skyline and Monte Vista • Entry treatments on Mar Vista, Crescent and Skyline
• Walkways in critical pedestrian and school route locations (gravel) • One-way Esperanzo uphill from Pacific to Soledad
• Entry median on Soledad at the west end of the commercial area • Define intersections with treatments (striping, curb extensions, islands) • Neighborhood sign program
• Entry islands at major entry points into the neighborhood These ideas were combined with those of City staff and the consultant to develop concept plans and variations. These were discussed and revised at the second neighborhood meeting.

Additional suggestions were incorporated from that meeting, individual meetings with residents in the field, and subsequent meetings with City staff.
2023 Updates Regarding Improvements to Mar Vista Drive and Soledad Drive In 2015, the City began design of traffic calming measures on Mar Vista Drive and Soledad Drive from Dry Creek Road to the Soledad Drive / Soledad Drive intersection. Several alternative traffic calming measures were evaluated and specific alternative projects were discussed with the community in 2017, 2018, and 2020. Two alternative traffic calming measures that were not included in the 2003 TCP were selected to be added to this TCP Update, as described below.

Preliminary mapping and design determined that the four medians shown in the 2003 TCP were not preferred due to 1) Mar Vista Drive’s steep cross-slope outside the existing traveled way (in the current on-street parking zone), which would require substantial amount of pavement reconstruction to correct; and 2) the loss of parking in the vicinity of the islands. The curb extensions (bulb-outs) at Toda Vista and Via Gayuba and the narrowing and redefining of the roadway edges at the intersection of Mar Vista Drive and Soledad/Soledad are still proposed.

During the last two community meetings, members voiced preference for implementing the bulbouts at Toda Vista and Via Gayuba first and the improvements at Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive as a subsequent project.

Preliminary design also indicated that a roundabout (formerly known as a “traffic circle”) could be a traffic calming measure at the Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive intersection, due to the available pavement and right-of-way widths. A preliminary design study was prepared in August 2019, and the results were presented in the subsequent neighborhood meetings: Figure 12: Option 3:

Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 98 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 6
Roundabout.

A left turn lane warrant study was prepared in 2021 for the Soledad Drive / Soledad Drive intersection, which is located approximately 200 feet east of the Mar Vista Drive / Soledad Drive intersection, and approximately 300 feet west of the southwest entrance to Monte Vista Elementary School. One of the intersection designs included eliminating the southbound left turn lane, therefore the warrant study evaluated if the existing southbound left turn lane could be removed. The study determined that the southbound left turn lane is warranted and therefore should not be removed.

It should also be noted that the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) is in the process of consolidating schools, the current proposal is to move Kindergarten to 8th grade to the Walter Colton Middle School Site by the 2023 – 2024 school year. The future use of the current Monte Vista Elementary School Site is not known at this time.

Final Recommendations
The Monterey Vista Neighborhood recommended a number of traffic calming devices to be installed on neighborhood streets. These recommendations were the result of the neighborhood planning process outlined above. The potential costs associated with implementing the recommendations include construction costs, loss of on-street parking and estimated delay to emergency vehicles. The estimated costs are based on similar installations and may vary with actual design and construction. These are shown in Table 3.

Figures 1, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 12 show the neighborhood’s recommendations. Several tools were included to address specific resident concerns with traffic speed, cut-through traffic, and pedestrian safety. Figure 1 includes an entry median on Soledad Drive between Monte Vista Drive and Via Arcerolo to narrow the street and help define the entrance to the residential area. (Two Monterey Vista neighborhood signs have been installed on the side of Soledad Dr near Monte Vista Drive; however, the entry median was not installed.) Curb extensions on Via Gayuba at Mar Vista Drive and at Walter Colton Drive, shown in Figures 1 and 2, were included to slow traffic and enhance safety for students crossing the street to and from the middle school. (These bulbouts have been installed.) The intersection of Soledad Drive /Soledad Place is currently an expanse of pavement with low, unlandscaped medians. Figures 10, 11 and 12 show three alternative traffic calming projects for this intersection. This intersection is discussed in more detail in the next section of this report.

Figures 3, 10, 11 and 12 show the proposed improvements on Mar Vista Drive. This street is wider than most of the streets in the neighborhood and connects Skyline Drive to downtown.

There are concerns with the speed of traffic on this street as well as traffic cutting through from Highway 68. In the mornings, traffic and pedestrian safety is a challenge due to parents dropping middle school students on Mar Vista Drive at Toda Vista. The stopping cars and the crossing students combined with commuter traffic is a safety concern.

Curb extensions (bulb-outs) are proposed at Toda Vista and Via Gayuba to provide a shorter pedestrian crossing for students accessing the school on Toda Vista and Via Gayuba and to provide a visual narrowing of the roadway.

The intersection of Mar Vista Drive and Soledad Drive just below Toyon Drive is a wide intersection. The plan shows a redefinition of the edge of roadway to remove some of the asphalt and bring traffic on northbound Mar Vista Drive out where it has a better sightline for traffic.

Figure 5 shows the proposed improvements on Martin Street. These include partial medians at Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 99 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 7
each end, one west of Woodcrest Lane and one west of Logan Lane, to break up the straightaway appearance and slow traffic. Additionally, curb extensions are shown at Doud Avenue and Alameda Avenue. The entry median at Logan Lane is shown in the rendering in Figure 8.

Table 3: 2003 Estimated Costs for Proposed Plan
Device
Potential OnStreet Parking
Loss Per Device
Emergency
Vehicle Delay
Per Device
Estimated Cost
Per Device*
# of
Devices
Entry or Partial Median 4-12 Spaces 2 sec. $46,000 8
Curb Extensions – Intersection 4-8 Spaces 1 sec. $71,000 5 Redefine edge of Roadway 0 Spaces n/a $35,000 1
Ped Crossing w/Pavement
Treatment 0 Spaces 0 sec. $10,000 3
Improvements to
Soledad/Soledad/Soledad 0 Spaces 0 sec. $50-100,000 1
Total cost estimate: $838,000 -
$888,000
* Cost range is dependent upon landscaping options and/or drainage considerations In addition to the physical devices, the Monterey Vista Neighborhood provided a number of operational suggestions. These include signing and relocation of curbing that are being addressed by City staff.

Residents also expressed significant concerns with pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. With three schools in the neighborhood and limited walkways and sidewalks, residents were concerned with the safety of students walking to school, as well as the safety of others who walk in the neighborhood. The City worked with the neighborhood to identify critical pedestrian routes between key destinations and a plan for providing adequate pedestrian facilities. The study and concept design was completed in 2018.

Although not directly a part of this plan, the pedestrian plan will consider the proposals in this plan to ensure measures are complementary and the two plans support each other.

Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 100 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 8
Figure 1: Traffic Calming Plan for Monterey Vista Neighborhood Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 101 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 9
Figure 2: Photograph of Existing Curb Extensions on Via Gayuba at Walter Colton Drive Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 102 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 10
Figure 3: Traffic Calming Plan for Mar Vista Drive (2023 update) Figure 4: Visual Simulation Showing Curb Extensions on Mar Vista at Via Gayuba Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 103 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 11
Figure 5: Traffic Calming Plan for Martin Street
Figure 6: Visual Simulation Showing Entry Median on Martin Street Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 21, Packet Page 104 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 12
Improvements to Soledad Drive / Soledad Drive
As mentioned above, the intersection of Soledad Drive poses some unique challenges in terms of traffic speed, visibility, pedestrian safety, and school access. The photographs in Figures 7 and 8 show the existing conditions at this intersection. Figure 9 highlights the concerns.

Figure 7: Mar Vista Drive Toward
Soledad Drive
Figure 8: Soledad Drive Toward
Mar Vista Drive
Figure 9: Existing Conditions
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 22, Packet Page 105 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 13
A number of alternatives were discussed with the neighborhood for this intersection, both in 2003 as well as in the more recent meetings. The alternatives included:

1. Reconstruct the intersection and enlarge and landscape the existing medians; Figure 10

2. Narrow and realign the intersection to remove the through right lane from Monte Vista Elementary School toward Mar Vista; Figure 11

3. A landscaped traffic circle (roundabout): Figure 12

4. Realign the intersection to make the movement from upper Soledad Drive /Mar Vista Drive to Monte Vista Elementary School the through movement, causing the lower portion of Soledad drive to stop

5. Reconstruct and landscape the existing medians in their current configuration Based on input from the neighborhood and review of the traffic counts obtained in 2021 for the left turn lane warrant analysis, options 1, 2 and 3, above, were selected as preferred traffic calming measures for this intersection. These are shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12 below. If the neighborhood chooses to pursue a traffic calming project at the Soledad Drive /Soledad Drive intersection, the City will work with the neighborhood to determine the specific configuration and design.

Figure 10: Option 1: Enlarge and Landscape Existing Islands and Narrow the Intersection Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 23, Packet Page 106 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 14
Figure 11: Option 2: Enlarge and Landscape Medians and Realign Intersection Figure 12: Option 3: Roundabout
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 24, Packet Page 107 Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
8/15/2003, updated 3/2023 Page 15
Improvements Completed As Of March 2023
Subsequent to publication of the 2003 TCP, the City has completed the following traffic calming and safety improvements in this neighborhood:
• Striped bike lane lines on Pacific Street from Soledad Drive to Alameda Street. • Striped edge lines on Mar Vista Drive from Skyline Drive to Soledad Drive. • Striped high-visibility crosswalks at preferred crossing locations as part of various street repaving projects.
• Reduced the width of intersections that previously had long-radius curves or tapering throats. These improvements were implemented under various street repaving projects.

These projects reduce pedestrian crossing distances as well as reduce motorist speeds, especially for vehicles making turns. Locations include: Mar Vista/Via Ladera, Toda Vista/Via Ladera, Via Gayuba/Walter Colton Drive, Via Gayuba/Via Del Pinar. • Constructed curb bulb-outs at various intersections. These improvements were implemented under various street repaving projects, and provide both traffic calming as well as improved pedestrian safety. Locations include: Soledad Drive at Via Encanto, Via Esperanza, and Pacific Vista Place.
• Constructed sidewalk along Pacific Street from Soledad Drive to Whispering Pines Park. • Constructed pedestrian curb ramps at various locations throughout the neighborhood. • Installed rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the mid-block crossing on Via Gayuba.
• Installed speed radar feedback signs on Martin Street. • Installed speed radar feedback signs on Mar Vista Drive.

Follow-up Monitoring and Evaluation
It is important that the effectiveness of the plan be monitored and evaluated. Travel patterns before and after installation of improvements should be observed and documented. This should include traffic speeds and volumes. In addition, resident satisfaction should be evaluated through surveys and neighborhood meetings. Results of traffic calming efforts in Monterey Vista will help the City of Monterey maintain an effective traffic calming program citywide.

Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 25, Packet Page 108 Appendix A
Attendance Sheets from Public Outreach Meetings
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 26, Packet Page 109 Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 27, Packet Page 110 Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 28, Packet Page 111 Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 29, Packet Page 112 Appendix B
2021 Left Turn Lane Warrant Study
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 30, Packet Page 113 2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020
T 408.201.2752 [email protected] WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
November 8, 2021
Nathaniel Milam, Project Manager
Whitson Engineers
6 Harris Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Proposal for Soledad Drive / Mar Vista Drive Intersection Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis, Monterey, California
Dear Nathaniel,
Per your request, this is an analysis of the warrant for the existing eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Soledad Drive / Mar Vista Drive Intersection in Monterey, California. The following scope of work focuses on overall operations and recommends whether the existing left turn lane on Soledad Drive should remain. Other recommendations regarding traffic operations are also suggested.

A. Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Intersection counts were conducted on Thursday, August 26, 2021, at the study intersection during the AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM), School PM (2:00 – 4:00 PM) and Street PM (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak periods. The peak AM, School PM, and Street PM peak one-hour volumes are depicted on Exhibit 1. The raw traffic count data is included as Appendix A.

Very little growth is expected in traffic volumes at the study intersection in the future. However, according to the administrative office, due to the Covid pandemic, Monte Vista Elementary School had a slight reduction in attendance on the day of the traffic count. They were not able to easily provide precise numbers. This is representative of the pattern experienced by most schools in Monterey In addition, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data in Appendix B, overall nationwide vehicle miles traveled during the week ending August 28, 2021, were about 88% of the comparable week in preCovid 2019. Interestingly, trips shorter than 1 mile increased by about 8% while VMT associated with trips between 1 and 25 miles, which would include long commute trips, declined by 18%. Trips between 25 and 100 miles also declined by about 11%. Travel during 2021 has clearly increased above the 2020 travel levels, although not to pre-pandemic levels. Based on the above considerations, the traffic counts conducted at the study intersection are likely below levels that would occur during non-pandemic conditions.

Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 31, Packet Page 114 Nathaniel Milam
November 8, 2021
2 B. Existing Intersection Characteristics
The following are various characteristics of the existing intersection that can affect traffic operations and safety.

1. The existing left turn lane at the intersection is about 60 feet long with a lane width of 12 feet. The through lanes are about 12 feet wide in both directions. A 6-foot shoulder is provided on the inside of the inside of the curve on the lane adjacent to the left turn lane.

2. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour in both directions on Soledad Drive. However, downhill vehicles were observed traveling at speeds of about 30 miles per hour.

3. The intersection is located on a horizontal curve with a radius of 150 feet, which accommodates a comfortable speed of 25 miles per hour, although vehicles travel at speeds up to 30 miles per hour.

4. The sight distance along the downhill travel lane in the middle of the curve is about 125 feet, which accommodates a travel speed of about 20 miles per hour. This is undesirable and should be corrected by trimming or eliminating some vegetation on the inside of the curve.

5. The sight distance of opposing traffic for vehicles stopped in the existing left turn lane is over 350 feet. This accommodates visibility of uphill vehicles traveling at up to 45 miles per hour which is more than acceptable.

6. The northbound downhill grade on Soledad Drive is about 11% from the middle of the Mar Vista Drive intersection to the middle of the Soledad Drive intersection. The grade steepens along Mar Vista Drive to about 18% between Mar Vista Drive and Toyon Drive. The grade flattens to under 5% along Soledad Drive just north of the Soledad Drive intersection. The steep terrain increases the distance required to stop by about 20%. This is the equivalent of sight distance for about 36- 37 miles per hour for an approach speed of 30 miles per hour.

7. A sidewalk is only located along the north side of the intersection and crosswalks are not provided across any intersection approach. No pedestrians were observed crossing any intersection approach during 6 hours of counting.

8. No bicycles were counted on any approach to the intersection in 6 hours of counts.

9. “No parking” signs are posted on the inbound and outbound sides of all three approaches at the intersection.

C. Soledad Drive Left Turn Lane Evaluation
The intersection is located on a relatively tight radius horizontal curve on a steep grade with limited sight distance in the downhill direction, which is the direction of the left turn lane storage lane. The left turn lane warrant analysis is therefore based on a conservative design speed of 40 miles per hour.

Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 32, Packet Page 115 Nathaniel Milam
November 8, 2021
3 The left turn lane warrant worksheet in Exhibit 2 that the left turn lane volumes in Exhibit 1 are about 10% below warrants. However, as indicated by the BTS data in Appendix B, the current counts are likely about 10% below typical non-pandemic volumes. The left turn lane is therefore nominally warranted.

According to “Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections,” US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, left turn lanes reduce crashes by 28% to 48%. The corollary is that the elimination of an existing left turn lane would result in an increase in collision potential. (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/left_right_turn_lanes.cfm) D. Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the above analysis.

1. The left turn lane is marginally warranted and should remain in place or relocated as necessary if intersection geometry is modified.

2. The left turn lane could also be replaced by a roundabout if that is found to be feasible.

3. Sight distance on the inside of the horizontal curve at the intersection should be increased by trimming existing vegetation on the inside of the curve.

4. The existing northbound (downhill) speed limit sign located on the inside of the curve at the intersection should be relocated in advance of the intersection to improve its visibility.

5. Due to limited sight distance and the lack of pedestrian facilities on the inside of the curve, crosswalks are not recommended across the intersection.

If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.

Respectfully submitted,
Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Enclosures
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 33, Packet Page 116 53 (49)
145 (106)
49 (29)
180 (102)
144 (93)147 (78)
NOTES:

1. xx (yy) - AM peak hour volume (PM peak hour volume)

2. AM peak hour occurred from 7:30 to 8:30am.

3. PM peak hour occurred from 2:00 to 3:00pm.

5. No bicycles were counted from 7 to 9am or 2 to 6pm.

6. Source: Manual Counts, Thursday, August 26, 2021.

4. No pedestrians were counted crossing any approach from 7 to 9am or 2 to 6pm.

Soledad Drive (West)
Soledad Drive (East)
Soledad Drive (South)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 1
Soledad Drive (E-W) / Soledad Drive (S)
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 34, Packet Page 117 Intersection #Left-Turn 40
Advancing Opposing % Left-Turn
A. Existing AM 229 291 21% Source: Transportation Research Board, B. Existing AM +10% 254 323 21% "Intersection Channelization Guide", NCHRP Report 279, November, 1985
Scenario
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

OPPOSING VOLUME (VPH)

ADVANCING VOLUME (VPH)
LEFT-TURN WARRANTS - 40 MPH DESIGN SPEED
40% 20% 15% 10% 5%

LEFT-TURN TREATMENT
WARRANTED (40 MPH)
2-LANE ROAD

LEFT-TURN TREATMENT

NOT WARRANTED
Left-Turns in Advancing Volume
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 2
Soledad Drive (E-W) / Soledad Drive (S)
Left Turn Lane Warrant Worksheet
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 35, Packet Page 118 Appendix A
Soledad Drive / Mar Vista Drive
Raw Traffic Counts
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 36, Packet Page 119 www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
1 0
4 1
1 1
8 6
WB 1.0% 0.59
NB 2.7% 0.74
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 3.1% 0.89
Date: 08-26-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 2.4% 0.78
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 1 16 0 2 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
0 6 3 0 0 23
0 0 0 41 0
7:15 AM 0 0 6 22
0 0 17 0 4 0
0 0 0 119 0
7:45 AM 0 0 25 39
0 0 21 0 38 0
84 0
7:30 AM 0 0 9 31 0 16 4
0 24 0 0 0 0
222 466
8:00 AM 0 0 13 49 0 60 24
0 40 20 0 0 34 0 64 0 0 0 0
0 29 5 0 0 42
0 0 0 231 656
8:15 AM 0 0 2 61
0 0 47 0 38 0
0 0 0 56 655
8:45 AM 0 0 1 20
0 0 13 0 4 0
146 718
8:30 AM 0 0 3 27 0 5 4
0 7 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 0 0 25 0 2 0 0 0 0 51 484
Count Total 0 0 60 265 0 159 63 0 0 0 950 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 49
0 0 222 0 181 0
1 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 0
0 718 0
HV 0 0 0 7 0 1
180 0 145 53 0 0 144 0 147 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - 0% 4% - 1% 2% - - 5% - 1% - - - - 2%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0
8:15 AM 6 1 1 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 7 0 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
8 0
Peak Hr 7 2 8 0 17 0 0
Count Total 8 2 8 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 0
0 0
N
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
TEV: 718
PHF: 0.78
53 145 198
196
0 144
147
325
291
0 180
49 229
197
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 37, Packet Page 120 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 9
8:15 AM 0 0 0 6
0 0 6 0 1 0
2 2
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 17
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 18
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
0 0 0 18 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 7
Count Total 0 0 0 8 0 1 1 0 0 7 0 1 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
17 0
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 1 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 38, Packet Page 121 www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Four-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 0
1 0
Peak Hour 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
2:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - 1% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North
HV 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
- 0% 0% - 1% 3% - - 0% - 1% - -
South
0 448 0
3 0
76 448
2:30 PM 0 0 7 26 0 57 21 0 0 26
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 29 102 0 106 40 0 0 93 0 78 0 0 0
HV% -
2:45 PM 0 0 2 29 0 8 4 0 0 27 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 25 0 0 0 0
0 100 0
2:15 PM 0 0 9 23 0 27 12 0 0 19 0 20 0 0 0 0 110 0
162 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
2:00 PM 0 0 11 24 0 14 3 0 0 21 0 27 0 0 0
WB 1.4% 0.47
NB 0.6% 0.84
Peak Hour: 2:00 PM 3:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.94
Date: 08-26-2021
Peak Hour Count Period: 2:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB - -
TOTAL 0.7% 0.69
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
N
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
Soledad Dr
TEV: 448
PHF: 0.69
40 106 146
107
0 93
78 208
171
0 102
29 131
133
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 39, Packet Page 122 www.idaxdata.com
Four-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Four-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
1 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 2
9 1

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT TH RT
2:00 PM 0 0 11 24 0 14 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
0 27 12 0 0 19
0 0 0 100 0
2:15 PM 0 0 9 23
0 0 21 0 27 0
0 0 0 162 0
2:45 PM 0 0 2 29
0 0 26 0 25 0
110 0
2:30 PM 0 0 7 26 0 57 21
0 20 0 0 0 0
76 448
3:00 PM 0 0 1 28 0 7 2
0 8 4 0 0 27 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 9 4 0 0 24
0 0 0 70 418
3:15 PM 0 0 1 37
0 0 26 0 6 0
0 0 0 69 296
3:45 PM 0 0 7 27
0 0 16 0 6 0
81 389
3:30 PM 0 0 4 29 0 9 5
0 6 0 0 0 0
79 299
4:00 PM 0 0 5 24 0 16 3
0 10 2 0 1 29 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 6 2 0 1 19
0 0 0 81 310
4:15 PM 1 0 3 29
0 0 18 0 15 0
0 0 0 58 286
4:45 PM 1 0 6 16
0 0 15 0 7 0
68 297
4:30 PM 0 0 2 21 0 10 3
0 7 0 0 0 0
74 281
5:00 PM 0 0 3 19 0 4 2
0 6 1 0 0 33 0 11 0 0 0 0
0 5 3 0 0 22
0 0 0 46 246
5:15 PM 0 0 2 15
0 0 12 0 6 0
0 0 0 46 222
5:45 PM 0 0 1 15
0 1 21 0 3 0
56 234
5:30 PM 0 0 0 13 0 6 2
0 9 0 0 0 0
0 3 1 0 0 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 42 190
Count Total 2 0 64 375 0 197 70 0 0 0 1,218 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 29
0 3 349 0 158 0
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0
0 448 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 1
102 0 106 40 0 0 93 0 78 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - 0% 0% - 1% 3% - - 0% - 1% - - - - 1%
0 0
2:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 2:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
3:15 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0
4:15 PM 1 0 2 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
9 0
Peak Hr 0 2 1 0 3 0 0
Count Total 3 3 5 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 40, Packet Page 123 www.idaxdata.com
Four-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Four-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
1 0
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 3
3:15 PM 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 5
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 4
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 3
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 4
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 11 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
3 0
Interval
Start
Soledad Dr Soledad Dr Soledad Dr 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 41, Packet Page 124 Week Ending
Miles
Traveled
Percent of
2019 Base
Miles
Traveled
Percent of
2019 Base
Miles
Traveled
Percent of
2019 Base
Miles
Traveled
Percent of
2019 Base
8/24/2019 10,141 2,296 7,140 620
8/29/2020 6,185 61% 1,441 63% 4,164 58% 483 78%
8/28/2021 8,938 88% 2,473 108% 5,830 82% 552 89%
Notes:

1. Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "The Week in Transportation - Selected transportation measures complied by BTS during the COVID-19 public health emergency," Tuesday, September 21, 2021 https://www.bts.dot.gov/covid-19/week-in-transportation

2. Miles Traveled are daily and nationwide in millions.

Total Trips Less than 1 Mile 1-25 Miles 25-100 Miles
Appendix B
Nationwide Covid Traffic Volume Trends
Exhibit A: Monterey Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Update Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 42, Packet Page 125 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Jayme Luna, Homeless Navigator
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with United Way Monterey County to Participate in the Smart Referral Network (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with United Way Monterey County to participate in the Smart Referral Network.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Council’s commitment to address homelessness through programs and partnerships such as the United Way Monterey County Smart Referral Network program.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs associated with this program.

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: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 126 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to participate in the United Way Smart Referral Network.

DISCUSSION:

The Smart Referral Network (SRN) is a direct electronic closed-loop referral service offered by United Way Monterey County. The SRN has built partnerships with agencies in the community in order to expand the referral network, and many of the service providers within Monterey County utilize the network for referrals. The SRN is a searchable database that connects clients to resources they would qualify for and agencies able to best assist them. SRN allows service providers to complete referrals to partnered agencies and the system can track the outcomes to indicate if the service needs of the client were obtained. SRN requires a signed Memorandum of Understanding in order to participate in the referral network. MPD participation in the SRN would provide the City’s Homeless Navigator with direct referrals to agencies that could assist with client needs and track the results of the referral to confirm the client is receiving services from agencies.

The MOU provides guidelines for data sharing, confidentiality, security, and system usage responsibilities. In order to participate in the network, staff must receive training and attend monthly meetings. The data shared within the network is related to information needed for client referrals and only agencies receiving the referral see the information. The client gives consent to share their information within the network.

Staff requests that City Council authorize participation in the United Way Smart Referral Network to provide services to those in need and ensure referrals that lead to impactful outcomes.

DJH/jl
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 127 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH UNITED WAY MONTEREY COUNTY

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SMART REFERRAL NETWORK
WHEREAS, the Smart Referral Network (SRN) is a direct electronic closed-loop referral service offered by United Way Monterey County that can connect clients to resources and agencies able to best assist them; and
WHEREAS, United Way Monterey County requires agencies to enter into a memorandum of understanding to participate in the Smart Referral Network program; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a memorandum of understanding with United Way Monterey County to participate in the Smart Referral Network program.

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, 4/2/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 128 2 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 129 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Send a Letter of Intent to Monterey One Water Affirming the City of Monterey’s Intent to Move the City’s Fees for Wastewater (Sewer) Collection to the County of Monterey Property Tax Bill (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to send a Letter of Intent to Monterey One Water Affirming the City of Monterey’s Intent to Move the City’s Fees for Wastewater (Sewer) Collection to the County of Monterey Property Tax Bill
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s authority to move the City’s fees for wastewaster (sewer) collection to the County of Monterey Property Tax Bill. This change to the billing process is being requested by Monterey One Water, the region’s sewer treatment provider. The City of Monterey would move its fees for wastewater collection to the County of Monterey’s Property Tax Bill to coincide with the fees collected by Monterey One Water.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs for the City Council to receive this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 130 №10/24
Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to support the staff recommendation, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Wastewater (Sewer) Services in Monterey
Wastewater services, also known as sewer services, are provided by two agencies: the City of Monterey and Monterey One Water (M1W). The City of Monterey maintains the sewer main infrastructure throughout the City of Monterey. Untreated wastewater is pumped from sewer pump stations maintained by M1W to the M1W Wastewater Treatment Facility in Marina. The City’s sewer rates are to maintain the City’s sewer infrastructure, while M1W’s rates are to maintain the pump stations, sewer lines to the treatment facility, maintenance of the treatment facility, and for the treatment of wastewater itself.

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

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

According to M1W, property owners are responsible for payments, and 9% of all property owners choose to forward their bill to a tenant or third-party payor (6% of residential accounts and 16% of commercial accounts).

At its City Council Meeting on June 20, 2023, Council received a presentation from M1W General Manager Paul Sciuto regarding its intent to change their billing to an annual fee to be included on a parcel’s property tax bill. On October 30, 2023, the Monterey One Water Board of Directors voted to change the billing process from bi-monthly direct billing to property tax billing within the M1W Service Area, which includes the City of Monterey.

M1W’s Advantages to Shift to Property Tax Billing
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 131 №10/24
 Shifting from the current billing process to the Monterey County property tax bill would eliminate the need to address limitations in M1W’s accounting software. The software used to maintain M1W’s billing will be replaced, and eliminating the need to handle billing will increase efficiency for the Agency.
 According to M1W, shifting from monthly billing to property tax billing would likely reduce the number of late payments.
 Some of M1W’s customers do not pay their bimonthly bill so they pay when the Agency collects delinquent accounts through the lien process.
 With savings from lower administration fees, M1W would likely designate a staff member to perform additional field inspections and possibly assist with inspections for Source Control.

Wastewater service protects human and environmental health and is therefore a required service attached to the property. Unlike other utilities, like water or power, wastewater service cannot be turned off, even if a property is vacant. This mandatory service is billed by parcel type, not usage, and therefore the bi-monthly rate can be multiplied by six to create an annual rate.

City of Monterey Shift to Property Tax Billing: No Impacts to Potential Sewer Rate Increases With M1W moving its wastewater service fee to the property tax bill on July 1, 2024, it would be efficient and effective for the City of Monterey to do the same. City staff have been working with M1W staff through the required approvals for City fees to be included on the property tax bill.

Staff from M1W, in multiple meetings with City staff over the past several months, have also suggested that the City include any potential sewer fee rate increases in parallel with the shift to property tax-based fee collection. This would allow the City to shift to the new collection process while achieving greater cost recovery from the sewer rate increase sooner rather than wait another year for a rate increase.

For these reasons, City staff recommends moving the City’s fees for wastewaster collection to the County of Monterey Property Tax Bill. At an upcoming public hearing, the City Council will be asked to adopt an ordinance amendment by 2/3 vote to effectuate this change. (Health & Safety Code section 5473.) In such event, the City will prepare a written annual report containing a description of each parcel of real property receiving such services and facilities and the amount of the charge for each parcel for the year, computed in conformity with the charges prescribed by the fee resolution.

NR/nr
Attachments: 1. Draft Letter of Intent

2. M1W Document: Wastewater Billing Change - Things to Consider Cambio de Facturación de Aguas Residuales

3. M1W Document: Change to Billing Process (English)

4. M1W Document: Cambio en el proceso de facturación (Español) Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 132 ATTACHMENT 1
March 26, 2024
Fred Marsh
Chief Financial Officer
Monterey One Water
5 Harris Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject: Transition of Wastewater (Sewer) Fee Collection to Monterey County Property Tax Bill Dear Mr. Marsh,
The City of Monterey intends to move the City’s wastewater (sewer) fee for the collection to the Monterey County Property Tax Bill. This change is in conjunction with Monterey One Water moving its wastewater service fee to the property tax bill, effective July 1, 2024.

The City manages and maintains the wastewater collection systems for the residents and businesses in Monterey. The City understands there is an annual process to place the fee for its wastewater collection service on the property tax bill and will work with Monterey One Water staff through the required approvals for its fee.

We look forward to working with your staff to formalize this process and implement the change.

Sincerely,
Hans Uslar
City Manager
Cc: Mike McCullough, Director of External Affairs, Monterey One Water Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager, City of Monterey Andrea Renny, Public Works Director, City of Monterey
Andrew Easterling, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 133 CAMBIO DE FACTURACIÓN

DE AGUAS RESIDUALES
A partir del 1 de Julio de 2024, usted ya no recibirá una factura directa de Monterey One Water por el servicio de aguas residuales. Su factura será reemplazada por una tarifa anual incluida en la factura del impuesto a la propiedad de la parcela.

Este cambio ocurrirá automáticamente; no se requiere ninguna acción de su parte. Los ahorros derivados por este cambio respaldarán el aumento de los costos operativos y el deterioro de la infraestructura.

Este cambio se aplica a todos los clientes de aguas residuales y no afectará su servicio.

ASPECTOS PARA TENER EN CUENTA
Pago de Facturas Bancarias
Si usted tiene servicios de pago
automático de facturas configurados
a través de su banco u otro proveedor,
recuerde desactivarlos después de
recibir su factura final por el servicio
hasta el 30 de Junio de 2024.

Propiedades Residenciales
Si tiene una cuenta de incautación, hay
una carta disponible en nuestro sitio web
con la tarifa residencial anual para 2024-
2025. Compartirla con su prestamista
puede ayudarle a planificar la nueva tarifa
del servicio de aguas residuales que se
incluirá en su factura de impuestos sobre la
propiedad.

Inquilinos y Propietarios
Este cambio en la facturación pone fin a la
responsabilidad de terceros de la factura de
Monterey One Water. Los inquilinos ya no
podrán pagar directamente el servicio de
aguas residuales de Monterey One Water.

Tenga esto en cuenta si es posible que se
necesiten nuevos arreglos.

Asociaciones Residenciales
Con este cambio, ya no se le facturará a su
propietario o asociación residencial por su
servicio de aguas residuales. Ahora usted
recibirá comunicación directa de Monterey
One Water por el servicio de aguas
residuales con la tarifa incluida en su factura
de impuestos a la propiedad.

Comunicaciones Futuras
Usted recibirá recordatorios por correo e
información adicional sobre este cambio
durante la primavera y el verano. También
puede visitar nuestro sitio web para obtener
más información:
montereyonewater.org/billing-change
FOR ENGLISH 
Propiedades Comerciales
Un informe detallado de la tarifa anual de
una parcela estará disponible, contacte
nuestro equipo de servicio al cliente.

También habrá un proceso de ajuste de
facturación para tener en cuenta los pagos
excesivos o insuficientes que puedan
surgir de un cambio en el estado de la
propiedad o las categorías de
facturación durante el año.
montereyonewater.org/billing-change
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 134

WASTEWATER

BILLING CHANGE
Effective July 1, 2024, you will no longer receive a direct bill for wastewater service from Monterey One Water. Your bill will be replaced by an annual fee included on the parcel’s property tax bill. This change will occur automatically; no action is required. Savings from the change will support rising operational costs and aging infrastructure.

This change applies to all wastewater customers
and will not impact your service.

THINGS TO CONSIDER
Bank Bill Pay
If you have automatic Bill Pay services
set up through your bank or other
provider, remember to turn it off after
receiving your final bill for service
through June 30, 2024.

Residential Properties
If you have an impound account, a letter is
available on our website with the annual
residential rate for 2024-2025. Sharing
the letter with your lender may help plan
for the new wastewater service fee to be
included on your property tax bill.

Renters and Owners
This billing change ends third-party
responsibility of the Monterey One
Water bill. Renters will no longer be
able to directly pay for Monterey One
Water’s sewer service. Please note if new
arrangements may be needed.

Residential Associations
With this change, your homeowner or
residential association will no longer be
billed for your wastewater service. You will
now receive direct communication for
wastewater service from Monterey One
Water with the fee being included on your
property tax bill.

Future Communications
You will receive mailed reminders and
additional information about this change
throughout the spring and summer. You
can also visit our website for more info:
montereyonewater.org/billing-change
PARA ESPAÑOL
Commercial Properties
An itemized report of a parcel’s annual
fee will be available on-demand from our
Customer Service Team. There will also be
a billing adjustment process to account
for over or under payments that may arise
from a change in property status or billing
categories during the year.
montereyonewater.org/billing-change
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 135 Updated: 11/10/2023

CHANGE TO BILLING PROCESS
Effective July 1, 2024
Billing Change: An annual fee for wastewater service will be included on a parcel’s Property Tax Bill.

Bi-monthly billing will stop as of July 1, 2024, and be replaced by an annual fee for wastewater service included on a parcel’s annual Property Tax Bill. This change is for properties within the Monterey One Water service area and was approved by the Monterey One Water Board of Directors on October 30, 2023 after a year-long evaluation process.

Customers will begin receiving routine communication on the billing transition starting in January 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions – Wastewater Customers

1. When will this change take effect?
Starting on July 1, 2024, customers will no longer receive a bill for wastewater service from Monterey One Water. Instead, a fee for the parcel’s mandatory wastewater service will be included on its Property Tax Bill issued by the County of Monterey.

2. Why can Monterey One Water implement this change and not all utilities? Monterey One Water is a public, not-for-profit entity that exists under the laws of the State of California. Governed by a group of elected officials with a resolution process that includes opportunity for public comment, placing a fee on the Property Tax Bill is possible. Placing a fee on the Property Tax Bill is not possible for private entities, like some utility providers.

In addition, wastewater service protects human and environmental health and is therefore a required service attached to the property. Unlike other utilities, like water or power, wastewater service cannot be turned off, even if a property is vacant. This mandatory service is billed by parcel type, not usage, and therefore the bi-monthly rate can be multiplied by six to create an annual rate.

3. How will this change impact me?
A Property Tax Bill can only be paid in one or two installments. This is a notable change from the six billings per year Monterey One Water currently utilizes. However, for those who prefer monthly payments, the County has authorized Easy Smart Pay, a third-party vendor, to provide a monthly payment option for the payment of property taxes. Enrollment details available now.

Monthly Payment Option for Property Taxes: Through Easy Smart Pay, customers can set up automatic scheduled payments from a credit card or bank account to help streamline the payment of property taxes, including itemized fees like wastewater service. Per the Easy Smart Pay website, there is no fee for automatic payments from a bank account (ACH) and 1.99% on credit card transactions – be sure to check the Easy Smart Pay website for the latest details.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 136 Updated: 11/10/2023

4. How will this change my payment options?
Payment options remain the same. Like Monterey One Water, the County offers multiple payment options including:
• Online Payment
• Payment by Telephone
• Pay In Person
• Mail Your Payment
• Aggregate Tax Payments of $50,000 or more via Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT)

5. Will I continue to receive a bi-monthly bill from Monterey One Water? No. Bi-monthly bills from Monterey One Water would stop after the June 2024 service bill.

6. Will this be a tax based on my property value?
No. This will not be a tax on your property. It will be a fee based on the rates set by the Monterey One Water Board of Directors.

7. Will I still be able to apply for payment assistance via Monterey One Water’s Residential LowIncome Sewer Assistance Program? Yes. Monterey One Water will still offer a low-income assistance program to help qualifying residential customers with their wastewater fees. The Agency is also evaluating this program and looking to identify modifications that will increase the program’s reach and overall customer impact. More details will be available on our website in early 2024.

8. How will I know the fee on my property tax bill is correct? Each year, Monterey One Water will mail a letter to all customers with the amount and breakdown of their sewer charges for the next fiscal year. This will occur after the Board approves the budget and rates for that fiscal year (July 1-June 30).

9. I have multiple commercial units on my property. How will I know what to charge each tenant?
The Monterey One Water Board of Directors typically approves rates each June. All customers will receive an annual rate notification and multi-tenant properties will also receive a report featuring a breakdown by user or unit. The report for commercial properties will show an annual and monthly rate. The Agency will also continue to post all rate sheets by property category on its website, and our Customer Service Team will be available to assist with additional reports throughout the year.

10. What if my property becomes vacant during the year or a new business with a different sewer rate moves into my property after I’ve paid my property tax bill? How will Monterey One Water reconcile the billing?
Similar to our current policy, it will be the responsibility of the property owner to notify Monterey One Water of any change in property status or billing category. If the change results in either overbilling or underbilling from the fee issued on the Property Tax Bill, Monterey One Water will have a Billing Adjustment Request Process. Approved requests will then be refunded via check or billed by Monterey One Water.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 137 Updated: 11/10/2023

11. I pay for wastewater service through my monthly Homeowners Association (HOA) fee. How will I be charged moving forward?
Sewer service will be billed through the Property Tax Bill for each parcel or unit. HOAs and other third-party payees will no longer need to collect fees for sewer service. Included in the Communication Plan regarding this change, staff will provide personalized communications with HOAs to help work through this change.

12. My wastewater fees are currently paid through my HOA. Will my HOA fees go down? Monterey One Water does not have jurisdiction over how payment for sewer service is passed on, and the Agency recognizes this proposal may present an opportunity for landlords, associations, and others to capitalize on the billing change. In response, staff plan to provide additional notification to HOAs and property management companies clarifying the monthly amount no longer required from each customer/unit per month to support sewer service billing.

13. Will the Agency continue to use the lien process to collect past due balances? This will eliminate the process of Monterey One Water placing liens on delinquent property accounts moving forward. The lien process will remain in effect for delinquencies incurred for billings before July 1, 2024 and for any billing adjustments incurred after July 1, 2024.

14. Is this a way to hide rate increases?
No. This change will not impact Monterey One Water’s process for setting rates. As a public utility, the Agency must follow the state-required process when proposing to increase rates.

Each property owner will receive written notification of the proposed rate change along with justification for the proposal and a process for customers to vote on the proposal. The Board will also lead a budget workshop and a public hearing with opportunities for public comment before voting to set new rates. All rates will continue to be posted to the Agency’s website – www.montereyonewater.org.

15. Is it common practice to bill for utility services via the Property Tax Bill? Yes. Sewer service cannot be turned off, even if a house is vacant and even if the property is delinquent. Many wastewater agencies consider this service part of the property and find the Property Tax Bill an effective billing avenue. Examples of entities who bill for utility services on the Property Tax Bill include: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Pebble Beach Community Services District, Santa Cruz County Sanitation District, Napa Sanitation District.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 138 Updated: 12/12/2023
Cambio en el proceso de facturación
Cambio en la facturación: Una tarifa anual por el servicio de aguas residuales se incluirá en la factura de impuestos sobre la propiedad. La facturación bimestral se detendrá a partir del 1 de julio de 2024 y será reemplazada por una tarifa anual por el servicio de aguas residuales incluido en la factura anual del impuesto sobre la propiedad. Este cambio es para propiedades dentro del área de servicio Monterey One Water y fue aprobado por la Junta de Directores de Monterey One Water el 30 de octubre de 2023 después de un proceso de evaluación de un año de duración.

Los clientes comenzarán a recibir comunicaciones rutinarias sobre la transición de facturación a partir de enero de 2024.

Preguntas Frecuentes – Clientes de Agua Residual

1. ¿Cuándo tomará efecto este cambio?
A partir del 1 de julio de 2024, los clientes ya no recibirán una factura por el servicio de aguas residuales de Monterey One Water. En su lugar, se incluirá una tarifa por el servicio obligatorio de aguas residuales del paquete en su proyecto de ley de impuestos sobre la propiedad emitido por el Condado de Monterey.

2. ¿Por qué Monterey One Water puede implementar este cambio y no todas las empresas de servicios públicos?
Monterey One Water es una entidad pública sin fines de lucro que existe bajo las leyes del Estado de California. Gobernado por un grupo de funcionarios electos con un proceso de resolución que incluye la oportunidad de comentarios públicos, es posible colocar una tarifa en la Ley de Impuesto a la Propiedad. Colocar una tarifa en la Ley del Impuesto de Propiedad no es posible para entidades privadas, como algunos proveedores de servicios públicos.

Además, el servicio de aguas residuales protege la salud humana y ambiental y, por lo tanto, es un servicio obligatorio vinculado a la propiedad. A diferencia de otros servicios públicos, como el agua o la electricidad, el servicio de aguas residuales no se puede desactivar, incluso si una propiedad está vacía. Este servicio obligatorio se factura por tipo de paquete, no por uso, y por lo tanto la tarifa bimestral se puede multiplicar por seis para crear una tarifa anual.

3. ¿Cómo me afectará este cambio?
Una factura del impuesto a la propiedad solo se puede pagar en una o dos cuotas. Este es un cambio notable de las seis facturas por año que Monterey One Water utiliza actualmente. Sin embargo, para aquellos que prefieren pagos mensuales, el Condado ha autorizado a Easy Smart Pay, un proveedor externo, para proporcionar una opción de pago mensual para el pago de los impuestos a la propiedad. Detalles de inscripción disponibles ahora.

Opción de pago mensual de impuestos a la propiedad: A través de Easy Smart Pay, los clientes pueden configurar pagos programados automáticos desde una tarjeta de crédito o cuenta bancaria para ayudar a agilizar el pago de impuestos a la propiedad, incluyendo cargos detallados como el servicio de aguas residuales. Según el sitio web de Easy Smart Pay, no hay cargos por pagos ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 139 Updated: 12/12/2023
automáticos desde una cuenta bancaria (ACH) y el 1.99% en transacciones con tarjeta de crédito; asegúrese de consultar el sitio web de Easy Smart Pay para obtener los últimos detalles.

4. ¿Cómo cambiará mis opciones de pago?
Las opciones de pago siguen siendo las mismas. Al igual que Monterey One Water, el Condado ofrece múltiples opciones de pago, incluyendo:
• Pago en línea
• Pago por teléfono
• Pago en persona
• Envíe su pago por correo
• Pago de impuestos agregados de $50.000 o más a través de transferencia electrónica de fondos (EFT)

5. ¿Seguiré recibiendo una factura bimestral de Monterey One Water? No. Las facturas bimestrales de Monterey One Water se detendrían después de la factura de servicio de junio de 2024.

6. ¿Será un impuesto basado en el valor de mi propiedad? No. Esto no será un impuesto sobre su propiedad. Será una tarifa basada en las tarifas establecidas por la Junta Directiva de Monterey One Water.

7. ¿Podré seguir solicitando ayuda de pago a través del Programa Residencial de Asistencia para Alcantarillas de Bajo Ingreso de Monterey One Water?
Sí. Monterey One Water seguirá ofreciendo un programa de asistencia de bajos ingresos para ayudar a los clientes residenciales que califican con sus tarifas de aguas residuales. La Agencia también está evaluando este programa y buscando identificar modificaciones que aumenten el alcance del programa y el impacto general en el cliente. Más detalles estarán disponibles en nuestro sitio web a principios de 2024.

8. ¿Cómo sabré que la tarifa en mi factura de impuestos a la propiedad es correcta? Cada año, Monterey One Water enviará una carta a todos los clientes con la cantidad y el desglose de sus cargos de alcantarillado para el próximo año fiscal. Esto ocurrirá después de que la Junta apruebe el presupuesto y las tarifas para ese año fiscal (del 1 de julio al 30 de junio).

9. Tengo varias unidades comerciales en mi propiedad. ¿Cómo sabré qué cobrar a cada inquilino?
La Junta Directiva de Monterey One Water normalmente aprueba las tarifas cada junio. Todos los clientes recibirán una notificación de tarifa anual y las propiedades de múltiples inquilinos también recibirán un informe con un desglose por usuario o unidad. El informe de propiedades comerciales mostrará una tarifa anual y mensual. La Agencia también continuará publicando todas las hojas de tarifas por categoría de propiedad en su sitio web, y nuestro equipo de servicio al cliente estará disponible para ayudar con informes adicionales durante todo el año.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 140 Updated: 12/12/2023

10. ¿Qué pasa si mi propiedad queda vacante durante el año o un nuevo negocio con una tasa de alcantarillado diferente se muda a mi propiedad después de haber pagado mi factura de impuestos a la propiedad? ¿Cómo conciliará Monterey One Water la facturación? Similar a nuestra política actual, será responsabilidad del propietario notificar a Monterey One Water de cualquier cambio en el estado de la propiedad o la categoría de facturación. Si el cambio resulta en sobrefacturación o subfacturación de la tarifa emitida en la factura del impuesto a la propiedad, Monterey One Water tendrá un Proceso de Solicitud de Ajuste de Facturación. Las solicitudes aprobadas serán reembolsadas mediante cheque o facturadas por Monterey One Water.

11. Pago por el servicio de aguas residuales a través de mi cuota mensual de la Asociación de Propietarios de Vivienda (HOA). ¿Cómo se me cobrará en el futuro? El servicio de alcantarillado se facturará a través de la factura del impuesto sobre la propiedad para cada paquete o unidad. HOAs y otros terceros pagadores ya no tendrán que cobrar tarifas por el servicio de alcantarillado. Incluido en el Plan de Comunicación con respecto a este cambio, el personal proporcionará comunicaciones personalizadas con HOAs para ayudar a trabajar a través de este cambio.

12. Mis tarifas de aguas residuales se pagan actualmente a través de mi HOA. ¿Mis tarifas HOA bajarán?
Monterey One Water no tiene jurisdicción sobre cómo se transmite el pago por el servicio de alcantarillado, y la Agencia reconoce que esta propuesta puede presentar una oportunidad para que los propietarios, asociaciones y otros capitalicen el cambio de facturación. En respuesta, el personal planea proporcionar una notificación adicional a las agencias de gestión de propiedades y a las compañías de administración de propiedades, aclarando la cantidad mensual que ya no se requiere de cada cliente / unidad por mes para respaldar la facturación del servicio de alcantarillado.

13. ¿Continuará la Agencia utilizando el proceso de gravamen para recaudar los saldos vencidos? Esto eliminará el proceso de Monterey One Water colocando gravámenes sobre cuentas de propiedad morosa en el futuro. El proceso de gravamen permanecerá en vigor para los atrasos incurridos por las facturas antes del 1 de julio de 2024 y para cualquier ajuste de facturación incurrido después del 1 de julio de 2024.

14. ¿Es esta una forma de ocultar los aumentos de tarifas? No. Este cambio no afectará el proceso de Monterey One Water para establecer tarifas. Como servicio público, la Agencia debe seguir el proceso requerido por el estado al proponer aumentar las tarifas.

Cada propietario recibirá una notificación por escrito del cambio de tarifa propuesto junto con la justificación de la propuesta y un proceso para que los clientes voten sobre la propuesta. La Junta también dirigirá un taller de presupuesto y una audiencia pública con oportunidades para comentarios públicos antes de votar para establecer nuevas tarifas. Todas las tarifas seguirán publicándose en el sitio web de la Agencia: www.montereyonewater.org.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 141 Updated: 12/12/2023

15. ¿Es una práctica común facturar por servicios públicos a través de la factura del Impuesto a la Propiedad?
Sí. El servicio de alcantarillado no se puede apagar, incluso si una casa está vacante o si la propiedad está en mora. Muchas agencias de aguas residuales consideran este servicio parte de la propiedad y encuentran la factura del impuesto a la propiedad como una vía de facturación efectiva. Ejemplos de entidades similares que facturan por servicios públicos en el proyecto de ley del impuesto a la propiedad incluyen: Distrito Sanitario Central Contra Costa, Distrito Sanitario Delta Diablo, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Pebble Beach Community Services District, Santa Cruz County Sanitation Districts, Napa Sanitation District, and Union Sanitary District.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 142 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 22 and 38 of the Monterey City Code, Establishing Exemption Criteria and Minimum Performance Standards Relating to the Use of Emergency Generators During Emergency Power Outages; Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15269(c) RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapters 22 and 38 of the Monterey City Code establishing exemption criteria and noise performance standards related to emergency generators during power outages.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code Sections 22-18 and 38-111(A) include regulations related to noise nuisances. At times, noise from emergency generators and other equipment used during emergency situations exceed the maximum noise standards prescribed in these Sections.

When compliance with these noise performance standards cannot be clearly demonstrated, the City’s ability to permit the installation of this type of equipment is limited. Over the past two years, emergency generators have become a preferred backup power source for many residents who rely on medical devices and refrigerated medications. An amendment to Monterey City Code Sections 22-18 and 38-111(A) is necessary to allow for the permitting and usage of this equipment during emergencies and unanticipated power outages.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 143 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15269(c)) as this action would allow a specific, short-term action or activity that is to be undertaken or deemed necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose to recommend edits to the proposed ordinance or choose not to adopt the ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

Background
As a result of the January 2023, March 2023, and February 2024 storms, the Monterey Peninsula experienced numerous widespread power outages in commercial and residential districts within the City of Monterey. Residents and businesses depend on reliable power sources for economic prosperity, in addition to public health and safety. Although the City has established temporary community resiliency centers at locations such as the Monterey Public Library and El Estero Park Center during extensive power outages for the public to charge their electronic devices, seek shelter during the daytime, and gain access to the internet, some residents would prefer to utilize backup emergency generators to supply power to their home.

The City of Monterey’s Community Development Department has received recent inquiries from residents and business owners about the use of generators for homes and commercial businesses during emergency power outages. Backup emergency generators serve as an important safety resource during a prolonged power outage by maintaining power for refrigeration systems, medical equipment, and other electrical systems. Climate change is expected to increase the intensity of storms and potential for wildfires, which will potentially further exacerbate challenges experienced by utility providers to maintain transmission infrastructure within their service areas.

On February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission (PC) considered the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance as required by the Monterey City Code. Upon review, the PC adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning ordinance amendments.

Analysis
Monterey City Code section 38-111 includes performance standards for ambient noise level and establishes maximum noise standards for various zoning districts as shown in Table 1 below.

Maximum decibel noise levels range from 60 dB (decibels) in Residential and Open Space to 70 dB in Industrial districts. In some cases, maximum noise levels vary based on time of day, or the duration of noise (MCC 38-111(A)(1)). Noise level maximums are measured at the property line of the neighboring lots.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 144 Table 1: Maximum Noise Standards by Zoning District
Zone of Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (dB) Open Space (OS) 60
Residential (R) 60
Public and Semi-Public (PS) 60
Commercial (C) 65
Industrial (I) 70
Planned Development (PD) Study Required
Since the 2022/2023 storm season, the Community Development Department has received inquiries and applications for static generators ranging in wattages from 10 kW to 26 kW for single-family dwellings, and up to 80 kW for multi-unit residential buildings and commercial businesses. Specification sheets distributed by generator manufacturers include sound emissions data measured at a defined distance (typically 23 feet from the generator). Generator sound emissions at closer distances can be mathematically estimated. Table 2 below includes a basic analysis of expected noise at a distance of five (5) feet (a common distance from shared side-yard lot lines proposed by applicants) for various generators operating at different wattages, as selected by staff.

Table 2: Estimated Noise Levels by Generator Wattage
Wattage (kW) dB at 23 ft (estimated) dB at 5 ft
150 80 93.26
130 75 88.26
80 68 81.26
50 65 78.26
26 67 80.26
22 67 80.26
18 65 78.26
14 65 78.26
10 61 74.26

7.5 69 82.26
The above table shows a noise range of approximately 74 dB to 93 dB, depending on generator manufacturer, wattage, and other manufacturer standards (e.g. power, revolutions per minute, type of housing or cooling system). These estimates do not take into account environmental conditions such as topography, vegetation or improvements such as structures, enclosures or fences. A more detailed analysis with modelling can typically be prepared by noise consultants.

For reference, Table 3 below includes Caltrans Intensity and Decibel Scale, which provides a practical scale of how the human ear perceives certain sources of sound at specific intensity levels.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 145 Table 3: Caltrans Typical Noise Levels - Intensity and the Decibel Scale Source Intensity Level
Instant Perforation of Eardrum 160 dB
Military Jet Takeoff 140 dB
Threshold of Pain 130 dB
Front Rows of Rock Concert 110 dB
Walkman at Maximum Level 100 dB
Vacuum Cleaner 80 dB
Busy Street Traffic 70 dB
Normal Conversation 60 dB
Whisper 20 dB
Rustling Leaves 10 dB
Threshold of Hearing (TOH) 0 dB
Proposed Ordinance
As noted above, ambient noise is regulated by both Chapters 22, Offenses/Nuisances, and Chapter 38, Zoning Ordinance, of the Monterey City Code.

The proposed ordinance would amend the Chapter 38 to provide exemption criteria for stationary generators from the noise performance standards set forth in Section 38-111(A), allowing City staff to issue building permits for equipment that would otherwise be out of compliance. As a result, generators meeting the specific exemption criteria would be permitted and allowed to operate during an emergency where there is a sudden and unforeseen event, such as natural disasters, which result in unanticipated power outage beyond the control of a property owner or building occupant. The proposed exemption criteria includes location requirements as well as sound attenuation or dampening requirements. Specifically, emergency generators are prohibited from being located in required front-yard setbacks and when proposed within 10 feet of property lines, the generator must include a noise reduction enclosure which utilizes soundproofing materials (such as mass-loaded vinyl, acoustic foam, or fiberglass insulation) or products meant for generator soundproofing.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 22 to further define “Emergency” and “Emergency Generators” and create exemptions for such uses from the prescribed noise prohibitions contained within.

In conclusion, the Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council amend Monterey City Code Chapters 22 and 38 of the Monterey City Code to establish exemption criteria and noise performance standards related to emergency generators during power outages.
[LH/cs]
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 146 Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 147 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMENDING CHAPTERS 22 AND 38 OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY CODE ESTABLISHING

EXEMPTION CRITERIA AND NOISE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RELATED TO

EMERGENCY GENERATORS DURING POWER OUTAGES
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, as a result of the 2022/2023 storm season, the Monterey Peninsula area experienced numerous widespread power outages in commercial and residential districts within the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, residents and businesses depend on reliable power sources for economic prosperity, and public health and safety;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Community Development Department has received recent inquiries from residents and business owners about the use of generators for homes and commercial businesses;
WHEREAS, such generators serve as an important safety element during a prolonged power outage by maintaining power for refrigeration systems, medical equipment, and other electrical systems;
WHEREAS, climate change will continue to increase the intensity of storms and potential for wild fires, which will further exacerbate problems experienced by electricity utility providers to maintain electricity transmission infrastructure within their service areas; WHEREAS, noise from emergency generators and other equipment used during emergency situations could potentially exceed the noise standards set forth in Monterey City Code Sections 22-18 and 38-111(A);
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the amendments to the zoning code; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 18, Section 15269(c)) as this action would allow a specific, short-term action or activity that is to be undertaken or deemed necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The foregoing are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 148 2 SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 22, Section 18 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Definitions.

1. “Emergency” refers to a situation arising from a sudden and unforeseen event such as an earthquake, flood, fire, storm, or similar event that poses a serious threat to the public safety, or any unforeseen event that results in an unanticipated power outage beyond the control of a property owner or occupant of a building or facility within the City of Monterey.

2. “Emergency generator” means a stationary device permanently installed and connected to a building or facility’s electrical system that serves solely as a secondary source of electrical power during power outages that are beyond the control of the owner, occupant, or operator of the building or facility. An emergency generator operates only during emergency situations, for training of personnel under simulated emergency conditions, as part of emergency demand response procedures, or for standard performance testing procedures as required by law or by the generator’s manufacturer.
(b) No person, unless otherwise stated in this section, shall cause, suffer, permit, or allow the repeated or persistent emission of any noise or sound produced by any such person, by an animal or fowl or through any mechanical means within their ownership, possession, or control, which by reason of its raucous nature habitually disturbs the peace and quiet of any person.
(c) Exceptions: Noise in Emergency Situations – Emergency Generators and Other Equipment.

1. Noise generated by any emergency response necessary to address health or safety risks, including but not limited to noise generated by emergency generators utilized during power outages.

2. Noise generated by any standby machinery or equipment used to alleviate the threat to public health, safety and property in emergency situations, including but not limited to: portable emergency generators, chain saws or other tree trimming or tree removal equipment used to abate hazards caused by trees or other vegetation damaged during storms or other natural disasters.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 111(A)(5) is hereby renumbered as Section 111(A)(6) without any substantive change.

SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 111(A)(5) is amended to read as follows:

5. Exceptions. The following are not subject to the provisions of this section:
a. Noise created by emergency generators or any standby machinery or equipment necessarily operated during an emergency as defined in City Code section 22-18(a)(1) Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 149 herein when the following requirements are met:
i. Emergency generators exempt under this Section shall not be located within any required front yard setback.
ii. Emergency generators within 10 feet of property lines shall use noise reduction enclosures and soundproofing materials or products meant for generator soundproofing.

SECTION 6: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 150 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Brian Edwards, Library and Museums Director
SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the State of the Library from the Board of Library Trustees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive an update on the State of the Library from the Board of Library Trustees
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Board of Library Trustees is an administrative board. It sets policies, hires the Library Director, and recommends the Library’s budget to the City Council. It is appropriate for the Board of Library Trustees to share their perspectives on the State of the Library to the Monterey City Council on an as-needed basis.

The Ralph M. Brown Act permits a majority of the Library Board of Trustees to attend an open and publicized meeting of the City Council. (Government Code section 54952.2(c)(4)).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs for the City Council to receive this report.

Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 151 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to receive this report, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Established by the City Charter in 1911, the five-member Board of Library Trustees (Board) is an administrative board that sets policy, hires the Library Director, selects material for the Library, recommends the Library budget to the City Council, and enforces Library regulations.

The Board of Library Trustees is supported by the Library Director, and works collaboratively, and together with the Library Director, works with the City Manager’s Office to establish common ground on the Library’s budget, staffing needs, and service delivery priorities.

At its meeting on April 2, 2024, Trustees Marsha Moroh and Janie Silveria will deliver a report on the ‘State of the Library’ to the Monterey City Council. The verbal report will summarize the Board’s perspectives on the past, present, and future of the Monterey Public Library and its services to the community.

Trustees Moroh and Silveria and City staff will be available to answer questions from the City Council following the presentation.

NR/nr
e: Ms. Marsha Moroh, Board of Library Trustees
Ms. Janie Silvera, Board of Library Trustees
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 152 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Gabriel Kaster, Lieutenant
SUBJECT: Receive Community Feedback on Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Program and Direct the Monterey Police Department to Proceed with ALPR Program Implementation (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive community feedback on the Monterey Police Department’s (MPD) Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Program and direct MPD to proceed with ALPR program implementation.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This technology is consistent with the City’s past practice of implementing mature, efficient, and effective technical capabilities to assist staff in their support of our community. This technology directly supports the City Council’s Value Drivers to “provide sufficient resources and support to develop and retain a highly qualified city workforce” and the City Council’s mission to provide a “safe, healthy and economically vibrant community.”
State law requires an opportunity for the public to comment on the City’s proposed ALPR program. (Cal. Civ. Code section 1798.90.55(a).) Next steps would include initiating an appropriate procurement process for the technology.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The costs are estimated at approximately $135,000 for initial procurement and $105,000 a year ongoing. If approved, these costs would be proposed as part of the FY 2024-25 Budget.

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 Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 153 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:

Council could direct the Monterey Police Department (MPD) not to proceed with utilizing ALPR technologies, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

This report provides information to the City Council and the public about community feedback from:
 The initial informational item to City Council on November 21, 2023  Town Hall Meetings held in the City Council Chamber and virtually:
o Monday, January 22, 2024
o Thursday, February 8, 2024.
 Community feedback from the “Have Your Say Monterey” webpage.  State legislative mandates and policy.

At the November 21, 2023, City Council Meeting, MPD staff discussed the benefits of implementing an ALPR Technology Solution. Staff also discussed the statutory requirements, the MPD policy, the importance of ALPR as a law enforcement tool, and a proposed path toward the MPD implementing a fully functional ALPR program, fixed and mobile. The Council requested MPD engage in public outreach to obtain information and feedback from the community and to report back to the Council related to the outreach. MPD staff held two (2) well-publicized hybrid in-person/online Town Hall Meetings and created a “Have Your Say Monterey” webpage dedicated to ALPR.

Community Engagement
Town Hall Meetings
On Monday, January 22, 2024, at 6:00 pm, the MPD held a Town Hall Meeting in the City Council Chambers. (The following is a synopsis of the comments) Thirteen (13) members of the community attended the meeting in person, and six (6) community members spoke. There were six (6) online viewers, and three (3) of them spoke at the meeting. Most of the public who spoke at the meeting were supportive of the implementation of an ALPR program. The public spoke highly about their trust in the MPD, and the rights of the citizens who want to be safe in their community. One of the speakers stated that the ALPRs can protect the citizens, and discussed the difference between public and private, emphasizing that the ALPR cameras are in public. Another speaker discussed that Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 154 their neighborhood association voted to get ALPRs in their neighborhood, so they support the implementation of the program throughout the city. Another speaker stated that the long-term residents they spoke to gave positive feedback in reference to the implementation of ALPR.

Members of the public also discussed their concerns with an ALPR program in the City of Monterey. One of the speakers voiced the concern that people’s photographs will be recorded along with their destination (doctor’s office, religious venue, etc.). Another speaker discussed the infringement of privacy rights, indefinitely stored detailed travel history, sharing driver/vehicle data with Federal Government Agencies, transparency, and police department accountability. There was also discussion about audits of an ALPR system and a suggestion that the City Attorney review the audits. There was also concern about the security of the data.

On Thursday, February 8, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., the MPD held a Town Hall Meeting in the City Council Chambers. (The following is a synopsis of the comments) Three (3) members of the community attended the meeting in person and three (3) spoke.

There were two (2) online viewers and two (2) spoke. Two of the speakers stated they were in support of ALPR. One of the speakers online stated they are in support of catching criminals.

Members of the public also discussed their concerns with an ALPR program in the City of Monterey. One of the speakers voiced their concerns that people’s photographs will be recorded, their right to privacy will be infringed upon, that ALPR technology is an unreasonable search and seizure, and errors could be made by the ALPR and the police.

Have Your Say Monterey Webpage
To provide as much information as possible to the community, MPD staff created a Have Your Say Monterey (HYSM) webpage. The site has been available at - https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/alpr
The HYSM webpage describes ALPR technology, both fixed and mobile, and how it works. It also explains how MPD plans to use ALPR technology while adhering to the existing state legislative mandates and Draft MPD policy (MPD Policy 433).

On the HYSM webpage, community members have access to the ALPR presentation given to the City Council on November 21, 2023, MPD draft ALPR Policy 433, a map of potential ALPR camera locations, video of the two Town Hall Meetings, and other ALPR documentation.

The HYSM webpage provides a location for open comments from community members, and all of the public emails are uploaded to the page so all members of the public can access them. An overwhelming majority of the emails received were in favor of implementing an ALPR program in the City of Monterey. Some of the comments included that ALPR technology is an important crime-fighting tool and that it is time to increase the public’s safety by combating crime and protecting citizens.

There were concerns raised about ALPR technology, describing the technology as an intrusion into personal privacy and that it may be unconstitutional.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 155 State Legislative Mandates and MPD Policy
Since 2016, the State of California has established a multitude of statutory requirements setting the legal framework for the use of ALPRs.

California Civil Code – Title 1.81.23 – Collection of License Plate Information [1798.90.5 – 1798.90.55] provides legislative mandates related to public agencies that operate or intend to operate ALPR systems. Sections found in §1798.90.5 - §1798.90.55, provide definitions, requirements, and actions that can be taken by persons for violations of these statutes. These statutes became effective on January 1, 2016. Some of these requirements include (synopsized):
 Maintaining reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. (§1798.90.51)  Implementing a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. (§1798.90.51).
 If an ALPR operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information, the ALPR operator shall maintain a record of that access and require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy. (§1798.90.52)
 An ALPR end-user shall maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. And, implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing and dissemination of the ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. (§1798.90.53) The attached Draft Monterey Police Department (MPD) Policy Section 433 – Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) ensures that the MPD is in compliance with all of the statutory requirements. Lexipol, a risk management consulting firm and software platform, drafted the policy to ensure compliance with state mandates and best practices. The policy was then updated by incorporating requirements after reviewing policies and best practices from other Police Departments that have worked with civil liberties groups to address concerns, specifically the Vallejo Police Department’s Policy. It was further refined through review by the Monterey City Attorney’s Office. Updated policy changes are provided in “tracked changes” after Chief Hober discussed the current draft policy with a representative of the local American Civil Liberties Union in February 2024.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 156 How MPD has Addressed Public Concerns
MPD has been addressing concerns about the use of ALPRs in Monterey. The table below details these concerns and how they are being addressed by the Monterey Police Department.

Concerns How MPD is Addressing the Concerns
The ALPRs may identify
vehicle occupants through
use of facial recognition
technology.

Monterey’s ALPR system would identify vehicles, license plates, and/or makes and models of vehicles, not vehicle occupants.

Facial recognition technology is not utilized as part of the system, and it is not a proposed aspect of this ALPR project.

The ALPR system could
capture personal identifiable
information.

The ALPR system would not capture personal identifiable information; it would only capture the images of vehicles and license plates already visible in public.

The ALPR system may be
used by unauthorized users,
not by law enforcement, and
for unauthorized purposes.

All MPD users would be provided with training related to the legal requirements, privacy concerns, policy mandates, and system usage prior to being provided system access. Only approved staff with a right and need to know would be authorized to access the ALPR system and each access would contain the user’s unique identifier, password, and the investigative reason for access.

Similar to other criminal justice information, users will only be allowed to access ALPR information for authorized purposes.

There may not be enough
‘checks and balances’ to
ensure the collected data is
secure and the system is
secure.

The MPD command staff will perform regular audits of the system to ensure collected data is secure and being used in accordance with Department policies and the law. The system will be further secured with the City’s identity and access management system and the City’s cybersecurity monitoring solution.

It is uncertain how the public
would remain informed about
how the City is using the data.

To demonstrate and promote transparency, the MPD would
launch a public ALPR transparency portal. This portal would reside on the Department’s webpage to share information with the public around when and how we are using the data being
collected. ALPR systems improve public safety while protecting the critical right of privacy and are aligned with the Monterey Police Department’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and integrity.

The security of the data is a
potential concern, including
who has access.

The data will be encrypted and securely stored with an encryption government rated cloud provider. The MPD will own the data and will determine who has access. A requirement for the selected vendor would be that they not share or sell the data.

The ALPR cameras would
capture data on private
property and non-public
locations.

The ALPR cameras would only capture data in public locations – the public roadways. While there was discussion about Fourth Amendment protections for search and seizure, it needs to be pointed out that the ALPRs would be photographing vehicles traveling on public roadways and not engaging in a legally defined “search.” The vehicle data will only be stored for 30 days unless that information is associated with a case report, investigation, complaint, or citation.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 157 Staff Recommendation
Extensive community outreach suggests that the Monterey community favors the implementation of an ALPR system. Staff recommends that the City Council support MPD’s implementation of Automated License Plate Recognition technology, fixed and mobile.

A fully functional fixed and mobile ALPR program that provides cameras placed at strategic locations throughout the City and in police vehicles will add significant investigative leads to help solve and deter crime in Monterey. Placing ALPR cameras along Monterey’s ingress and egress points and throughout the City will provide the Monterey Police Department with a pointer system that can identify vehicles associated with criminal activity, and both deter and solve serial criminal activities occurring in different law enforcement jurisdictions. Investing in a fully functional ALPR solution will ensure the City is equipped with technology that will solve, deter, and proactively suppress crime and reduce the fear of crime in Monterey.

Attachments: 1. MPD Draft Policy 433 - Automated License Plate Reader Policy (updated adjustments after community outreach in “track mode”)

2. Letter from Cannery Row Business Association
c: Neighborhood and Business Associations
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 158 Policy
433
Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 1 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
433.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture, storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. 433.2 DEFINITIONS
• Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR): A device that uses cameras and computer technology to capture images of vehicle license plates and other vehicle data in order to identify and compare those captured digital images to lists of license plate numbers associated with Vehicles of Interest (as identified below). • ALPR Operator: A trained Department member authorized to utilize ALPR system/ equipment. ALPR operators may be assigned to any positions identified in section 433.4.1(a) of this policy, and the ALPR Administrator may order the deployment of the ALPR systems for use in legitimate law enforcement efforts. • ALPR Administrator: The Investigations/Administrative Division Commander serves as the ALPR Administrator for the Department.
• Hot List: A list of license plates associated with Vehicles of Interest compiled from one or more databases including, but not limited to, NCIC, CA DMV, Local BOLO's, etc. • Vehicles of Interest: Including, but not limited to vehicles reported as stolen; vehicles displaying stolen license plates or tags; vehicles linked to missing and/or wanted persons and vehicles flagged by the Department of Motor Vehicles or law enforcement agencies.
• Detection: Data obtained by an ALPR of an image (such as a license plate) within public view that was read by the device, including potential images (such as the plate and description of vehicle on which it was displayed), and information regarding the location of the ALPR system at the time of the ALPR's read. • Hit: Alert from the ALPR system that a scanned license plate number may be in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or other law enforcement database for a specific reason including, but not limited to, being related to a stolen car, wanted person, missing person, domestic violation protective order, involved in a crime, or terrorist-related activity.
433.3 POLICY
The policy of the Monterey Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this department. Because such data may contain confidential information, it is not subject open to public review disclosure unless required by law.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 159 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 2 433.4 ADMINISTRATION
The ALPR technology, also known as License Plate Recognition (LPR), allows for the automated detection of license plates along with the vehicle make, model, color, and unique identifiers through the Monterey Police Department's ALPR system and vehicle identification technology. It is used by the Monterey Police Department to convert data associated with vehicle license plates and vehicle descriptions for official law enforcement purposes, including but not limited to identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, plot movement of wanted suspects ectronic surveillance, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery.

All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the ALPR Administrator. The ALPR Administrator will assign members under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data. 433.4.1 ALPR ADMINISTRATOR
The Administration Division Commander shall be assigned the role of ALPR Administrator and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53:
(a) Only properly trained and specifically authorized Department members (sworn officers, analysts, police service technicians, police service assistants and community service officers) with an operational need to utilize the system are authorized to use or access the ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) Ensuring that specific training requirements are established and that authorized users complete such training.
(c) Ensuring the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws. (d) Ensuring that procedures are followed for system operators and maintaining records of access in compliance with Civil Code § 1798.90.52.
(e) Maintaining a list of the job title or other designation of the employees who are authorized to access and use ALPR information..
(f) Working with the Custodian of Records on the retention and destruction of ALPR data. (g) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the department's website.
433.5 OPERATIONS
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below. Department members shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
(a) An ALPR shall only be used for official law enforcement business. (b) An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 160 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 3 (c) While an ALPR may be used to canvass license plates around any crime scene, particular consideration should be given to using ALPR-equipped cars to canvass areas around homicides, shootings and other major incidents. Partial license plates reported during major crimes should be entered into the ALPR system in an attempt to identify suspect vehicles.
(d) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training.
(e) No ALPR operator may access department, state or federal data unless otherwise authorized to do so.
(f) The officer will verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) or dispatch before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR alert.
(g) Login/Log-Out Procedure. To ensure proper operation and facilitate oversight of the ALPR system, all users will be required to have individual credentials for access and use of the systems and/or data, which has the ability to be fully audited. (h) Permitted/Impermissible Uses. The ALPR system, and all data collected, is the property of the Monterey Police Department. Department personnel may only access and use the ALPR system for official and legitimate law enforcement purposes consistent with this Policy. The following uses of the ALPR system are specifically prohibited:

1. Invasion of Privacy: Except when done pursuant to a court order such as a search warrant, it is a violation of this policy to utilize the ALPR to record license plates except those of vehicles that are exposed to public view (e.g., vehicles on a public road or street, or that are on private property but whose license plate(s) are visible from a public road, street, or a place to which members of the public have access, such as the parking lot of a shop or other business establishment).

2. Harassment or Intimidation: It is a violation of this policy to use the ALPR system to harass and/or intimidate any individual or group.

3. Use Based on a Protected Characteristic. It is a violation of this policy to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or Hot Lists solely because of a person's, or group's race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by law.

4. Personal Use: It is a violation of this policy to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or Hot Lists for any personal purpose.

5. First Amendment Rights. It is a violation of this policy to use the ALPR system or associated scan files or Hot Lists for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights.

Anyone who engages in an impermissible use of the ALPR system or associated scan files or Hot Lists may be subject to; criminal prosecution, civil liability, and/or administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, pursuant to and consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreements and City and Department policies.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 161 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 4 433.5.1 ALPR ALERT PROTOCOLS
Once an alert is received, the operator will confirm that the observed license plate from the system matches the license plate for the observed vehicle. Before any law enforcement action is taken because of an ALPR alert, the alert will be verified through a CLETS inquiry via MDC or through Dispatch.

Officers will not take any police action that restricts the freedom of any individual based solely on an ALPR alert unless it has been validated. Because the ALPR alert may relate to a vehicle and may not relate to the person operating the vehicle, officers are reminded that they need to have reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to make an enforcement stop of any vehicle. (For example, if a vehicle is entered into the system because of its association with a wanted individual, officers should attempt to visually match the driver to the description of the wanted subject prior to making the stop or should have another legal basis for making the stop.) Hot Lists. Designation of Hot Lists to be utilized by the ALPR system shall be made by the ALPR Administrator or his/her designee. Hot lists shall be obtained or compiled from sources as may be consistent with the purposes of the ALPR system set forth in this policy. Hot Lists utilized by the Department's ALPR system may be updated by agency sources more frequently than the Department may be uploading them and thus the Department's ALPR system will not have access to real time data. Occasionally, there may be errors in the ALPR system's read of a license plate.

Therefore, an alert alone shall not be a basis for police action (other than following the Vehicle of Interest).

Prior to initiation of a stop of a vehicle or other intervention based on an alert, Department members shall undertake the following:
(a) Verification of status on a Hot List. An officer must receive confirmation, from Communications or other department computer device, that the license plate is still stolen, wanted, or otherwise of interest before proceeding (absent exigent circumstances).
(b) Visual verification of license plate number. Officers shall visually verify that the license plate of interest matches identically with the image of the license plate number captured (read) by the ALPR, including both the alphanumeric characters of the license plate, state of issue, and vehicle descriptors before proceeding. (c) Department members alerted to the fact that an observed motor vehicle's license plate is entered as a Hot Plate (hit) in a specific BOLO (Be On The Lookout) list are required to make a reasonable effort to confirm that a wanted person is actually in the vehicle and/or that a reasonable basis exists before a Department member would have a lawful basis to stop the vehicle.

Department members will clear all vehicle stops from Hot List alerts by indicating the positive ALPR Hit, i.e., with an arrest or other enforcement action. If it is not obvious in the text of the call as to the correlation of the ALPR Hit and the arrest, then the Department member shall update Communications and the original person and/or the system administrator inputting the vehicle in the Hot List (hit).

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 162 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 5 General Hot Lists (Stolen Vehicle System - SVS, Felony Wanted Vehicles - SFR, and Lost or Stolen License Plates - SLR) will be automatically downloaded into the ALPR system a minimum of once a day with the most current data overwriting the old data.

All entries and updates of specific Hot Lists within the ALPR system will be documented by the requesting Department member within the appropriate general offense report. As such, specific Hot Lists shall be approved by the ALPR Administrator (or designee) before initial entry within the ALPR system. The updating of such a list within the ALPR system shall thereafter be accomplished pursuant to the approval of the Department member's immediate supervisor. The hits from these data sources should be viewed as informational, created solely to bring the officers attention to specific vehicles that are suspected to have been associated with criminal activity.

All Hot List license plate numbers and suspect information entered into the ALPR system will contain the following information as a minimum:
• Entering Department member's name
• Related case number
• Short synopsis describing the nature of the originating call In the event the suspect vehicle or an occupant commits a violation of the law then the vehicle can be stopped or the occupants detained as in any other lawful stop or arrest.

When an ALPR alerts on a stolen vehicle for a non-sworn professional staff member, the employee shall pull over in a safe location and use the radio to alert an officer to the vehicle's location. At no time shall a professional staff member take any action with the vehicle or any occupants. 433.6 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION
The Administration Division Commander is responsible for ensuring systems and processes are in place for the proper collection and retention of ALPR data.

All non-evidentiary ALPR data and license plate information records, not associated with any case report, investigation, complaint or citation, shall be downloaded to the server or cloud and stored for a maximum of 30 days. Thereafter, it shall be entirely purged from all active and backup systems. Evidentiary ALPR data shall be tagged with a case report or citation number and be retained for the same length of time as other evidence relevant to the case in accordance with the Records Retention Schedule. .

The ALPR 3rd party vendor will store the data (data hosting) and ensure proper maintenance and security of data stored in their data towers. The ALPR vendor will purge their data at the end of the 30 days of storage. However, this will not preclude the Monterey Police Department from maintaining any relevant vehicle data obtained from the system after that period pursuant to the retention period set forth above for evidentiary and non-evidentiary data. Relevant vehicle data are scans corresponding to the Vehicle of Interest on a Hot List.

Restrictions on use of ALPR Data: Information gathered or collected, and records retained by ALPR cameras or any other MPD ALPR system will not be sold, accessed, or used for any purpose

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 163 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 6 other than legitimate law enforcement or public safety purposes. The release of necessary data to the City's authorized 3rd party vendor or to towing services shall not be considered the sale, sharing, or transferring of ALPR information.
433.7 ACCOUNTABILITY
All data will be closely safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means.

The Monterey Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) All ALPR data downloaded to the mobile workstation and in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time (Civil Code § 1798.90.52). (b) All access to ALPR will be maintained in an audit trail, including the date and time the information was accessed, the license plate number or other data used to query the system, the username of the person who accessed the information and the purpose for accessing the information.
(c) Members approved to access ALPR data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or department-related civil or administrative action.
(d) All non-law enforcement requests for access to stored ALPR data shall be referred to Administration Division Commander and processed in accordance with applicable law. (e) Such ALPR data may only be released to other authorized and verified law enforcement officials and agencies for legitimate law enforcement purposes consistent with the law and these policies.
(f) No entry of "Hot Lists" or other data may be entered in to the ALPR database without supervisor approval.
(g) Every ALPR Detection Browsing Inquiry must be documented by either the associated Monterey Police Department case number or incident number, and/or a reason for the inquiry.

For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy. 433.8 ALPR DATA AUDITS
It is the responsibility of the Administration Division Commander or designee to ensure that an audit is conducted of ALPR detection browsing inquiries at least once during each calendar year.

The Department will audit a sampling of the ALPR system utilization from the prior 12-month period to verify proper use in accordance with the above-authorized uses. The audit shall randomly select at least 10 detection browsing inquiries conducted by department employees during the preceding twelve-month period and determine if each inquiry meets the requirements established in the "Accountability" policy section.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 164 Monterey Police Department
Monterey PD Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/03/06, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Monterey Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 7 The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected.

After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be filed and retained by the Administration Division Commander. 433.9 RELEASING ALPR DATA
The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as otherwise permitted by law, using the following procedures:
(a) The agency makes a written request for the ALPR data that includes:

1. The name of the agency.

2. The name of the person requesting.

3. The intended purpose of obtaining the information.
(b) The request is reviewed by the Administration Division Commander or the authorized designee and approved before the request is fulfilled.
(c) The Administration Division Commander or the authorized designee will consider the California Values Act (Government Code § 7282.5; Government Code § 7284.2 et seq), before approving the release of ALPR data. The Monterey Police Department does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement, these federal immigration agencies include Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB). The MPD will not share ALPR information with out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. Nor will ALPR data be shared with any law enforcement agency for the purposes of enforcing prohibitions on reproductive or gender-affirming care. (d) The approved request is retained on file.

Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55). 433.10 TRAINING
The Personnel/IA Sergeant (Training) shall ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access the ALPR system (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53). That training shall at a minimum review this Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 165 Cannery Row Business Association ATTACHMENT 2
Founded 1960
P.O. Box 1203, Monterey, CA 93940
831-809-7400 / [email protected]
March 28, 2024
Honorable Mayor Tyller Williamson and City Council Members City of Monterey
City Hall
Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Mayor Williamson and City Council Members:

On behalf of the Cannery Row Business Association, we are writing this letter in support of the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) System being considered for use in Monterey.

We believe this system will significantly increase the ability of the MPD to locate vehicles that have been used in violent crimes, high speed and risky driving practices and stolen vehicles. It will also enhance the ability of the MPD to apprehend criminals that target business districts and other criminal activity.

Monterey will be joining other local jurisdictions that have already installed this program which will strengthen the ability of each community to share and assist in the apprehension of criminals.

We understand that ALPR Technologies have addressed privacy concerns by creating systems that identify vehicle details and information, but not vehicle occupants.

Overall, the success rate of this system far outweighs the privacy concerns, especially considering the age we live in when the average person is on a camera system multiple times during the day.

An investment in a fully functional ALPR solution will ensure the city is equipped with technology that can help to identify vehicles associated with criminal activity, creating a safer environment for our residents and visitors.

Please feel free to contact one of us if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Sincerely,
Lance Koehler, Co-Chair DeAnn Brady, Co-Chair

CRBA CRBA
Cc: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Chief Hober, Monterey Police Department
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 166 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Tom Harty, PE, Senior Engineer,
Tricia Wotan, Environmental Regulations Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Report on the Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a report on the Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP).

VALUE DRIVERS:

Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions, including protecting the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and our environmental assets from pollution.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This report is consistent with the City Council’s strategic initiatives, one of which is to “update the storm drain utility, sanitary sewer and pavement maintenance needs and financing mechanism.”
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal impacts as a result of receiving this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 167 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:

Council could choose not to receive this report, but this is not recommended as the SUMP identifies the framework to project future infrastructure capital improvement needs and costs.

DISCUSSION:

In 2019, the City began developing a detailed Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP). The purpose of the SUMP is to plan for utility needs and support community growth into the future.

The SUMP assessed the impact of future sewage flow scenarios and identified existing system constraints to be remedied and undertaken within the next ten (10) years. The last time the City undertook and completed such an effort was in 2011. The City owns the sanitary sewer collection infrastructure system, and it must comply with State Water Resource Control Board regulations to ensure the system’s operation is in compliance with applicable water quality regulations for the capture, conveyance, and treatment of wastewater in the protection of public health and the environment.

Table 1 below summarizes the SUMP outcomes, which include four (4) capital improvement subject areas and their associated estimated costs to implement the efforts moving forward. The total projected cost if all SUMP Capital Improvement Project (CIP) components are implemented is projected as $34,138,000.

Table 1. SUMP-Projected CIP needs for the next ten (10) years.

SUMP CIP
Components
Component Description Estimated Cost
A General Plan $ 5,991,000
B Opportunity Housing $ 6,178,000
C 10-year Renewal & Replacement $14,900,000
D Sea Level Rise $ 7,069,000
Total $34,138,000
The four (4) CIP components outlined in the SUMP are generally described as follows.  The General Plan component represents sewer utility infrastructure improvement needs consistent with General Plan build-out on the southern (Barnet Segal Lane) and eastern boundaries (Highway 68 & South Boundary Road).
 The Opportunity Housing component accounts for the 3,654 new homes by 2031 to meet housing needs, and uses the maximum potential units in each opportunity area in the event future housing allocations shift to one area or another.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 168  The 10-year Renewal and Replacement component includes estimated costs for replacing pipelines at a rate that will allow the City to reach the industry standard rate of 1% renewal and replacement of the utility system each year.  The Sea Level Rise (SLR) component utilized the 2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report to provide costs estimates to adapt sewer utility infrastructure impacted by SLR along the City’s coastal waterfront. The estimated costs represent only those improvements necessary to remedy vulnerabilities identified through 2030, and do not project beyond that timeframe.

Overall, the SUMP outlines a projected capital improvement program to prioritize sanitary sewer collection infrastructure needs into the future based on renewal and rehabilitation, General Plan build-out, housing allocations, and sea level rise. These needs are borne out of requirements to properly operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, improve, and invest in the proper working order and future growth of the utility system. The SUMP does not commit the City to any one particular capital improvement project at this time; rather, it prioritizes future categories of needs and provides cost estimates that may become the basis of revenue studies in light of future projected expenditures.

Summary
Staff recommends Council receive the report as it illuminates future anticipated needs of the City-owned sanitary sewer collection system, and it highlights projected costs. This information is important when considering any future revenue needs of the utility to properly operate, maintain, and improve the system into the future for the community and the environment.

AE/th tw
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 169 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Tom Harty, PE, Senior Engineer,
Tricia Wotan, Environmental Regulations Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the Wastewater (Sewer) Rate and Capacity Fee Study and Direct Staff to Initiate the Property Owner Notice, Hearing, and Protest Process as Required by Proposition 218 for the Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate and Capacity Fee Increases (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council: receive a presentation on the wastewater (sewer) rate and capacity fee study and Direct Staff to Initiate the property owner notice, hearing, and protest process as required by Proposition 218 for the proposed wastewater (sewer) rate increases. ) VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with prior action by the City Council and is consistent with the City Council’s strategic initiatives, one of which is to “update the storm drain utility, sanitary sewer and pavement maintenance needs and financing mechanism.” It is also consistent with the strategic initiative “Ensure long term revenue / expenditure balance in the City’s operating budget and develop an infrastructure re-capitalization strategy.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The current sewer rates are inadequate to pay for the cost of the sewer system by approximately $400,000 per year. The cost of preparing and mailing the Proposition 218 notices is included in the Consultant’s scope of services for the Sewer Utility and Master Plan and Rate Study capital improvements project. The recommended rate adjustment will help to Date: 4/2/2024
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 170 recover the cost of service, maintenance, and future improvements of the enterprise fund for wastewater. These actions are in line with the City’s strategic priorities of managing revenues and expenditures, and to consider appropriate revenue enhancements to support City services and operations, and to prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement.

The City’s consultant determined that the City’s sewer system requires significant capital improvements and rehabilitation to prevent sewer backups, spills, and regulatory fines. Also, certain parts of the sewer system will need to be expanded/extended to accommodate future growth. The cash flow projections indicate loans are needed to finance upfront capital costs. To obtain loan funding, the City must increase rates to meet its additional debt service requirements. (Rate Study, Executive Summary, page 2.)
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to direct staff to proceed with the rate adjustment process, but this is not recommended. Delaying implementation of the fee and rate adjustments will further limit the revenue available for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater collection system. A rate adjustment is necessary to bring rates in line with funding needs, to help eliminate budget deficits, and to comply with state-mandated permit requirements.

DISCUSSION:

Background
In 2022, the City Council approved retaining a consultant to develop a wastewater financing plan and rate study. Key objectives of the rate study were to:
• Develop long-term financial projections for the wastewater enterprise, including operations, maintenance, debt, and capital improvement costs; • Determine rate revenue requirement sufficient to provide service and generate adequate funding for capital needs;
• Conduct a cost-of-service study to determine the ratepayer share of expenses attributable to each customer class; and
• Recommend wastewater rates designed to equitably recover the costs of providing service in compliance with Proposition 218.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 171 Based on input from City staff, vital guiding principles included developing rates that:
• Are fair and equitable to all customer classes;
• Recover the costs of providing service and generate adequate funding for capital needs; • Are easy to understand and implement; and
• Comply with the legal requirements of Proposition 218 and other California laws Sewer Line Maintenance Fund: Significant Shortfall Projected In Fiscal Year 2021-22, the Sewer Line Maintenance Fund had $2,431,727 in expenditures and $2,048,989 in revenue, which was a $382,738 shortfall. Final numbers for Fiscal Year 2022-23 are not yet available, but, as of February 2024, the projected shortfall is estimated over $400,000. In recent years, the Sewer Line Maintenance Fund has had increasing costs over time without proportional revenue increases, resulting in a structural shortfall. The shortfall is a result of multiple factors, including a 2016 lawsuit settlement that necessitated additional operations and maintenance tasks to be implemented annually, and increasing equipment, materials, and labor costs that are needed to meet the operations, maintenance, repair, and regulatory demands of utility ownership in California.

Net Revenue and Expenses (Shortfall)
FY 2017 $ 988,112
FY 2018 $ 892,970
FY 2019 ($1,079,027)
FY 2020 ($ 654,844)
FY 2021 $1,247,357
FY 2022 ($ 399,809)
FY 2023 ($ 67,018)
FY 2024 ($ 544,000) projected shortfall
Sewer Rates and Fees Not Adjusted in Over 13 Years
The City of Monterey last adjusted its sewer rates and fees in 2011, including annual stepped rate increases for five years through 2015 that generated the revenue needed to maintain and operate its sewer collection system and fund citywide utility repair and rehabilitation needs. City monthly sewer rates have remained flat at 2015 rates for eight years, even as the costs of utility ownership and operation have increased over this time. The 2011 rate adjustments were necessary to augment the cost of the anticipated citywide sewer collection system rehabilitation project, which was financed by two (2) low-interest Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program loans in coordination with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These loans are currently in repayment.

The citywide Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project was completed in 2019. Overall, the project made significant improvements to the wastewater collection system by rehabilitating those structures in greatest need for repair. The result has been a demonstrable reduction in sewage overflows from the system and better protection of the environment citywide. Even so, Monterey’s wastewater collection system requires a sustained revenue to support the everincreasing maintenance and repair demands of an aging collection system to ensure its longterm operational viability and remain in compliance with State sewer system regulations. To this end, a utility must generate sufficient revenue over time to fund all necessary needs and actions to remain in good working order and remain in compliance with applicable water quality regulations.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 172 In 2019, the City began developing a detailed Sewer Utility Master Plan that analyzes the City’s wastewater collection system to identify inadequacies and plan for projects to resolve them for future conditions. The Sewer Utility Master Plan assesses the impact of future scenarios and identifies projects that can be undertaken within the next 10 years to address system inadequacies. Concurrently with the development of the Sewer Utility Master Plan, the City began developing the Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study which looks at the expected level of effort needed over the next 10 years to meet the financial obligation expected. The Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study identifies the monthly rates and fees necessary to generate the revenue needed to meet the City’s capital and operating expenses for the next five (5) years, as allowed under the California Proposition 218 process.

Potential Sewer Rate Increase Does Not Impact M1W Shift to Property Tax Billing In parallel, Monterey One Water (M1W) has also undertaken a process to adopt a new ordinance which includes, among other items, changes to its collection of revenue for operating their regional collection system and the Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. M1W will begin a new property tax roll billing process on July 1, 2024 to bill its ratepayers annually for their services through the County of Monterey’s Property Tax collection process. Invoices for 12 months of service will be included on the property tax bill for all parcels that M1W serves.

M1W’s current bi-monthly billing cycle will cease on June 30, 2024. The City of Monterey intends to move to property tax collection (this item is being heard separately on April 2, 2024).

Subsequently, as a member agency of M1W, the City of Monterey must provide any rate adjustments to M1W by mid-June 2024 to allow time for processing the invoices by M1W and the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector. M1W staff in 2023 and again in March 2024 stated that member agencies such as the City of Monterey can adjust their rates in 2024 with no adverse or negative effects on M1W’s efforts to shift to property tax billing. M1W staff is fully aware and engaged with City staff to prepare for a potential sewer rate increase, should the City Council support it.

Proposed Rates
The proposed funding is intended to bridge the gap between expected operating expenses and predicted revenue that begins in fiscal year 2024/25 (FY25). In FY25, adjusted monthly rates will meet the 10-year Renewal and Replacement costs (R&R). In FYs 26 – 29, in addition to R&R costs, rates will include the costs of implementing system modifications to address sea level rise predictions through 2030.

PROPOSED MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL SEWER RATES
Current
Rate
(FY2024)
Proposed
Rate
(FY2025)
Proposed
Rate
(FY2026)
Proposed
Rate
(FY2027)
Proposed
Rate
(FY2028)
Proposed
Rate
(FY2029)
SFR: $ 10.77 $ 14.11 $ 16.93 $ 19.47 $ 21.42 $ 22.92
Change: 3.34 2.82 2.54 1.95 1.50
MFR: $ 7.88 $ 10.33 $ 12.40 $ 14.26 $ 15.68 $ 16.78
Change: 2.45 2.07 1.86 1.42 1.10
Note: SFR: Single-Family Residential; MFR: Multi-Family Residential Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 173 Survey of Local Sewer Monthly User Charges - Single-Family Residential Salinas Monterey
(current)
Monterey
proposed
Seaside,
DRO,
Sand City
Marina
Coast
WDMarina
Pacific
Grove
Carmel
Area WW
District
Marina
Coast
WDFort Ord
City: $ 5.45 $ 10.77 $ 14.11 $ 16.52 $ 17.98 $ 33.07 - $ 43.15 M1W: $ 44.00 $ 44.00 $ 44.00 $ 44.00 $ 44.00 $ 44.00 - $ 44.00 Total: $ 49.45 $ 54.77 $ 58.11 $ 60.52 $ 61.98 $ 77.07 $ 88.83 $ 87.15

PROPOSED SEWER CAPACITY/CONNECTION FEES
Current
Fee
(FY2024)
Proposed
Fee
(FY2025)
Proposed
Fee
(FY2026)
Proposed
Fee
(FY2027)
Proposed
Fee
(FY2028)
Proposed
Fee
(FY2029)
SFR: $ 3,515 $ 4,016 $ 4,217 $ 4,428 $ 4,649 $ 4,881
Change: 501 201 211 221 232
MFR: $ 2,574 $ 2,941 $ 3,088 $ 3,242 $ 3,404 $ 3,574
Change: 367 147 154 162 170
Survey of Local Sewer Capacity Fees - Single-Family Residential Carmel
Area WW
District
Marina
Coast
WDMarina
Monterey
(current)
Monterey
proposed Pacific
Grove
Seaside,
DRO,
Sand
City
Marina
Coast
WDFort Ord
Agency: $ - $ 2,791 $ 3,515 $ 4,016 $ 4,806 $ 5,338 $ 5,930 M1W: $ - $ 6,056 $ 6,056 $ 6,056 $ 6,056 $ 6,056 $ 6,056 Total: $ 8,243 $ 8,847 $ 9,395 $ 10,072 $ 10,863 $ 11,394 $ 11,986 Staff considered several scenarios to address future system funding needs:
 One approach would be to utilize General Fund resources to bridge the funding gap.

This is not recommended by staff because a utility is legally able to recover the full cost of delivering the services it provides. To this end, it is recommended that General Funds are retained for City services that have no ability to recover costs or are not able to achieve 100% cost-recovery. Utilizing General Fund resources for sewer operations is not a best practice, as sewer operations are intended to be 100% cost recovery, and General Fund dollars are intended to support services that have little or no cost recovery such as police, fire, library services, parks, trails, beaches, and other services.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 174  Another approach is to perform only imminent failure or emergency repairs and rehabilitation projects to reduce Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs to the absolute minimum to sustain the system in good working order until a more substantial rate adjustment can be implemented. This is an incomplete approach that is not recommended. The full scope of activities required to operate the system effectively over the long-term are not considered. Some activities would be deferred to a later date, which often results in additional work and higher costs overall when the work is finally completed. Staff recommends addressing the full scope of needs at the current time, rather than “kicking the can down the road” to a future date.  A third approach is for the Community and Council to defer the funding decision to a later date, which is also not recommended. In order to meet the anticipated funding gap in FY25, adjusted rates need to be established by mid-June 2024. Delaying implementation beyond mid-June 2024 will result in the loss of additional revenue when needed in FY25.

Therefore, staff recommends pursuing an adjustment to the Sewer Rate and Fee Ordinance under an aggressive schedule to meet the mid-June 2024 deadline.

Proposed Sewer Rate Adjustment - Adoption Schedule
March 19 Introduction to City Council on the Draft Sewer Utility Master Plan and Draft 2024 Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study
April 2 At the City Council meeting: receive a report on the Sewer Utility Master Plan; receive a report on the Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study to solicit input from City Council and the public; review the Proposition 218 notice; and direct staff to send Proposition 218 Notices to owners of parcels served by the City wastewater collection system April 19 Last day to mail Prop 218 Rate Adjustment Notices for June 4 public hearing
June 4 At the City Council meeting: hold a public hearing to consider protests against the new rates; and, if a majority protest is not established, establish new wastewater rates and capacity fees
July 1 New rate schedule becomes effective
Public Noticing Requirements
The California Constitution requires: (1) notice; (2) a public hearing; and (3) a protest process before increasing the rate of a property-related fee. In accordance with Proposition 218, notices of the proposed rates will be mailed no later than April 19, 2024 to the owner of each parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll or in the case of any public entity, the State of California, or the United States, to the address of that entity known to the City (Government Code section 53750(j).).

A majority protest exists if at least 50% plus one vote of representatives from affected parcels file written protests. Each property will be counted as one vote, regardless of the number of owners. Only one protest per property will be accepted. Written protests must be received at or before the time set for the public hearing.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 175 Summary
Adoption of the adjusted sewer rates and capacity fees is anticipated to provide stability for operating, maintaining, repairing, and rehabilitating the City’s wastewater collection system into the future, as the City continues to discuss and plan for future needs and development.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council (1) receive a presentation on the wastewater rate study process and findings; (2) receive an informational update on the implementation process for the proposed wastewater user rates adjustments; (3) review the Proposition 218 notice for maximum rate adjustments for wastewater user rates; and (4) direct staff to send the Proposition 218 notices.

AR/th, tw
Attachments:

1. Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study

2. Draft Proposition 218 Notice

3. Proposed Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 176 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE, HEARING, AND PROTEST PROCESS AS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION 218 FOR THE PROPOSED

WASTEWATER (SEWER) RATE AND CAPACITY FEE INCREASES
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code (MCC) Section 19-103 lists services provided by the City and the percentage of the cost of the services that are to be recovered and adopted as a fee;
WHEREAS, for Fiscal year 2021-22, the Sewer Line Maintenance Fund (279) had $2,431,727.00 in expenditures and $2,048,989.00 in revenue, which was a $382,738.00 shortfall;
WHEREAS, final numbers for fiscal years 2022-23 and 2023-24 are not yet available, but, as of February 2024, the projected shortfall is estimated over $400,000.00 per year; WHEREAS, Proposition 218 requires that fees cannot exceed the cost of service, must be fair and equitable, and are based on the actual cost of providing the entire service. Each customer must be charged their proportional cost of service attributable to the customer; WHEREAS, the California Constitution requires (1) notice; (2) a public hearing; and (3) a protest process before increasing the rate of a property-related fee; WHEREAS, the City desires to adjust the wastewater rates and capacity fees it charges to recover the cost of service, maintenance and future improvements of the City wastewater collection system;
WHEREAS, Bartle Wells Associates conducted a 2024 Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study to develop proposed rates to recover costs and the proposed rates are based on that fee study; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 8, Packet Page 177 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby directs staff to prepare and send the Proposition 218 notice to record owners as determined by the owner of a parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll, or in the case of any public entity, the State of California, or the United States, means the representative of that public entity at the address of that entity known to the City.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 9, Packet Page 178

0. CITY OF MONTEREY
2024 WASTEWATER RATE AND CAPACITY FEE STUDY
Draft
March 14, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 10, Packet Page 179 City of Monterey
2024 Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction & Background .......................................................................................................1

1.2 Proposition 218 ........................................................................................................................2

1.3 Proposed Rates.........................................................................................................................2

1.4 Wastewater Rate Survey...........................................................................................................4

1.5 Wastewater Capacity Fee Survey...............................................................................................5

2. Wastewater Rate Study ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Wastewater Customers and Projected Growth ..........................................................................6

2.2 Current Wastewater Rates........................................................................................................7

2.3 Financial Plan ...........................................................................................................................7

3. Wastewater Connection Fee ............................................................................................ 13

3.1 Current Wastewater Capacity Fee ...........................................................................................13

3.2 Capacity Fee Methodology......................................................................................................13

3.3 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation......................................................................................14

4. Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................... 18

4.1 Conclusion – Wastewater Rates ..............................................................................................18

4.2 Conclusion – Wastewater Capacity Fees..................................................................................18

4.3 Future Capacity Fee Adjustments............................................................................................18 Appendix A – Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study Tables ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 11, Packet Page 180 City of Monterey
2024 Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study
Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Rates and Capacity Fees ................................................................................. 3 Table 2 – Summary of Current Accounts............................................................................................................. 6 Table 3– Growth Rate Estimate........................................................................................................................... 6 Table 4 – Current Monthly SFR Wastewater Rate .............................................................................................. 7 Table 5 – Current Reserve Balances & Reserve Policy ........................................................................................ 7 Table 6 – Capital Improvement Plan Summary................................................................................................... 8 Table 7 – Debt Service.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 8 – Projected O&M Expenditures............................................................................................................10 Table 9 – Cash Flow Projection: R&R, SLR with $7.0MM Debt.........................................................................12 Table 10 – Current SFR Sewer Capacity Fee ......................................................................................................13 Table 11 – Estimated Remaining Useful Life & Depreciation of Sewer Mains and Manholes........................15 Table 12 – Estimated Replacement Cost of Existing Sewer Fixed Assets.........................................................16 Table 13 – Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation .............................................................................................17 Table 14 – Summary of Proposed Rates and Capacity Fees .............................................................................18 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 12, Packet Page 181 1 | Page

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction & Background
The City of Monterey owns and operates a wastewater collection pipeline and pumping system which collects wastewater generated within the City and transports it to an independent agency, Monterey One Water (M1W), for treatment and disposal. The City and M1W impose separate wastewater rates for their services and this study looks only at the City’s own wastewater collection charges. M1W, the regional treatment system, is a separate governmental entity that sets its own rates which apply to Monterey and other regional participants including the Cities of Pacific Grove, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Sand City, Fort Ord, Marina, Castroville, Moss Landing, Boronda, Salinas and some unincorporated areas in northern Monterey County. The regional treatment rates levied by M1W are not a part of this study.

The City’s wastewater system is a self-sustaining enterprise, meaning revenues (primarily sourced from wastewater rates) aim to recover the cost of operating and maintaining the wastewater collection system.

Primary cost factors impacting wastewater rates include operations expenses, repairs and replacements, debt service requirements and the cost of capital improvements.

The City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 536,516 linear feet (102 miles) of sewer pipe, 7 lift stations, and over 2,000 sewer structures including manholes, and clean outs, etc. Portions of the City’s sewer system are over a century old and are at or near the end of their useful lives. The City recently retained Akel Engineering to prepare an updated sewer masterplan. The masterplan found that the City’s sewer system requires significant capital improvements and rehabilitations to prevent sewer backups, spills and regulatory fines. It also found that certain parts of the sewer system will need to be expanded/extended to accommodate future growth. The study assumes the expansion projects will be funded by developers and not existing ratepayers. The masterplan recommended a capital improvement program (CIP) of $34.1 million which includes about $11.9 million of system expansion projects for future growth (to be funded by developers) and $22.2 million in renewal, replacement and sea level rise projects (to be funded by ratepayers). Cash flow projections indicate loans are needed to finance upfront capital costs. To obtain loan funding, the City must increase rates to meet its additional debt service requirements.

The City’s sewer rates have not increased since 2015. Despite the City’s efforts to control costs, operating expenses and capital improvement needs have continued to increase each year. In 2022, the City retained Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) to develop a wastewater financing plan and rate study. Key objectives of this rate study include:
• Develop long-term financial projections for the wastewater enterprise, including operations, maintenance, debt, and capital improvement costs;
• Determine rate revenue requirement sufficient to provide service and generate adequate funding for capital needs;
• Conduct a cost-of-service study to determine the ratepayer share of expenses attributable to each customer class; and
• Recommend wastewater rates designed to equitably recover the costs of providing service in compliance with Proposition 218.

Based on input from City staff, vital guiding principles included developing rates that:

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 13, Packet Page 182 2 | Page
• Are fair and equitable to all customer classes;
• Recover the costs of providing service and generate adequate funding for capital needs; • Are easy to understand and implement; and
• Comply with the legal requirements of Proposition 218 and other California laws.

1.2 Proposition 218
Utility rates are subject to the procedural and substantive requirements outlined in Proposition 218.

Proposition 218 was adopted by California voters in 1996 and added Articles 13C and 13D to the California Constitution. Article 13D, Section 6 governs property‐related charges, which the California Supreme Court subsequently ruled includes ongoing utility service charges such as water and wastewater. Article 13D, Section 6 establishes a) procedural requirements for imposing or increasing property‐related charges and b) substantive requirements for those charges. Article 13D also requires voter approval for new or increased property‐related charges but exempts from this voting requirement rates for water and wastewater service. The substantive requirements of Article 13D, Section 6 require the City’s utility rates to meet the following conditions:
• Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service.
• Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
• The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. • No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.
• No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services, such as police or fire services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.

The procedural requirements of Proposition 218 for all utility rate increases are as follows:
• Noticing Requirement: The City must mail notice of proposed rate increases to all affected property owners. The notice must specify the basis of the fee, the reason for the fee, and the date/time/location of a public rate hearing at which the proposed rates will be considered/adopted.
• Public Hearing: The City must hold a public hearing prior to adopting the proposed rate increases. The public hearing must be held not less than 45 days after the required notices are mailed.
• Rate Increases Subject to Majority Protest: At the public hearing, the proposed rate increases are subject to majority protest. If 50% plus one of the affected property owners submit written protests against the proposed rate increases, the increases cannot be adopted.

1.3 Proposed Rates
Table 1 summarizes the proposed 5-year phased rate increase plan. The project team determined that City ratepayers should fund rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) and sea level rise (SLR) capital projects while the expansion projects in the General Plan Scenario and the Opportunity Housing Scenario should ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 14, Packet Page 183 3 | Page
be funded by developers. Cash flow projections indicate up to $7.0 million in new debt may be needed to fund the R&R and SLR projects over the next ten years as proposed in the master plan.

Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Rates and Capacity Fees
RECOMMENDED SCENARIO:

R&R & SLR CIP (New Debt, $7.0MM) PROPOSED RATES(1)
Current FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
Sewer Rate per Month
Single-Family Dwelling $10.77 $14.11 $16.93 $19.47 $21.42 $22.92 $/Month Increase $3.34 $2.82 $2.54 $1.95 $1.50
One-Time Capacity Fee(2)
Single-Family Dwelling $3,339 $4,016 $4,217 $4,428 $4,649 $4,881 (1) Assumes developers finance expansion projects for General Plan and Opportunity Housing CIP scenarios. (2) Assumes 5% annual cost escalation beginning FY 2026.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 15, Packet Page 184 4 | Page

1.4 Wastewater Rate Survey
The following figure, Figure 1, shows a monthly wastewater rate survey of the surrounding area for single family residential customers. Overall, the City’s current sewer rates are amongst the lowest in the region. With the projected future rate adjustments, the City’s sewer rates are anticipated to remain near the low to the middle of the pack compared to surrounding agencies.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 16, Packet Page 185 5 | Page

1.5 Wastewater Capacity Fee Survey
The following figure, Figure 2, shows a capacity fee survey of the surrounding area for new single family residential homes. The City’s current sewer capacity fee ($3,339 per new home) is amongst the lowest in the region and with the recommended scenario (where developers fund the $11.9 million expansion projects), is anticipated to remain at the middle end compared to surrounding agencies.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 17, Packet Page 186 6 | Page

2. Wastewater Rate Study

2.1 Wastewater Customers and Projected Growth
The City currently provides wastewater collection services to a total of 9,179 residential and commercial accounts. Residential customers, including single family, multi-family and condo, comprise approximately 73 percent of all customers. A summary of the City’s current accounts is provided in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, the wastewater rate and fee study assumes an annual growth rate of 0.23%, with total growth from 2020 to 2045 amounting to 5.9%, based on regional growth projections.

Table 2 – Summary of Current Accounts
Table 3– Growth Rate Estimate
Accounts(1)
Residential Data 6,560
Commercial Total 2,435
Commercial Billed by M1W 2,357
Commercial on City Land 78
Industrial 1
OPA 183
OPA Residential
OPA Non-Residential
9,179
Revenue EDUs
Revenue (Fees & Charges) input into model for 22/23(2) $2,401,313 18,580 (1) Compilation of account data from M1Water (residential and commerical) and from In-City (commercial). (2) Includes sewer maintenance fees collected by M1Water ($2,161,914) and fees collected directly by the City ($239,399).

Population Projection(1)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Total Growth
Monterey 28,170 28,044 28,650 29,032 29,342 29,639 5.2% Monterey balance 24,749 24,623 25,229 25,611 25,921 26,218 5.9% DLI & Naval Postgrad 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 0.0% Account Growth Rate Estimated by:

Population
Total Growth from 2020-2045

5.9%
Average Annual Growth Rate[2]

0.23%
[1] Population data provided by AMBAG Appendix A: 2022 Regional Growth Forecast. [2] The Monterey Balance Population Growth rate is the most applicable rate in the Forecast to the City of Monterey. This growth rate is applied to the City's current EDU estimate for the duration of the projection in this study.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 18, Packet Page 187 7 | Page

2.2 Current Wastewater Rates
The existing wastewater rates became effective July 1, 2015, and include a base collection rate for all users from the City, as well as a treatment rate from M1W. Table 4 summarizes the current charges for single family residential (SFR) customers.

Table 4 – Current Monthly SFR Wastewater Rate

2.3 Financial Plan
BWA developed a long-term financial plan to review the financial condition of the wastewater enterprise and estimate annual revenue requirements to fund operating, debt and capital expenditures.

Bartle Wells Associates conducted an independent evaluation of the City's wastewater enterprise finances.

Reserve Fund Balance
As of June 30, 2023, the City has available reserve balances of approximately $1.0 million in its operating fund and $755,139 in its capital fund. Table 5 shows the reserve balances by fund, as well as fund reserve targets based on BWA’s recommendations and City policy.

Table 5 – Current Reserve Balances & Reserve Policy
M1W Charge (Regional Treatment & Disposal): $44.00
City's Charge (Wastewater Collection System): $10.77
Total Monthly Sewer Charges: $54.77
Reserve Balances As of 6/30/23
Fund 205(1)
Cash on Hand $755,139
Dedicated to Twin Oaks Improvements (Unavailable) $16,578 Unassigned $0
Fund 279(2)
Cash on Hand $1,017,516
Reserve for Debt Service $1,106,768
Existing Dedicated to Improvements (Unavailable) $2,705,726 Unassigned $0
Total $5,601,727
Reserve Balances Available for Cash Flow Projections
Operating & Capital $1,772,655
Reserve Policies
Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund(3) $1,500,000
Fund 205 - Capital Renewal Fund(4) $200,000
Combined Fund Balace: $1,700,000
(1) Provided by city staff, unaudited 6/30/2023
(2) Provided by city staff, unaudited 6/30/2023
(3) BWA recommendation; $1.5MM for operating, $200,000 for capital (4) City staff policy.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 19, Packet Page 188 8 | Page
Capital Improvement Program
Table 6 summarizes the City’s Masterplan capital improvement program for its wastewater enterprise.

The CIP includes the General Plan and Opportunity Housing Scenarios that benefit new development and the Renewal & Replacement Plan and the Sea Level Rise Strategic Plan, which benefit existing customers.

The total of all CIP Projects in 2024 dollars is approximately $34.1 million through FY 2033. Of this amount, $22.2 are funded by ratepayers and developers would be responsible for the $11.9 million of expansion projects needed for their new developments.

Table 6 – Capital Improvement Plan Summary
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CIP (2024 Dollars) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 10-Year Total A. GENERAL PLAN SCENARIO $1,302,667 $1,467,000 $1,467,000 $694,333 $530,000 $530,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,991,000 B. OPPORTUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO (MONTEREY 2031) $1,143,000 $1,541,000 $1,541,000 $916,333 $518,333 $518,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,178,000 C. 10-YEAR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $14,900,000 D. SEA LEVEL RISE STRATEGIC PLAN (2030) $0 $0 $0 $2,356,333 $2,356,333 $2,356,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,069,000 Total (2024 Dollars) $3,345,667 $3,908,000 $3,908,000 $4,867,000 $4,304,667 $5,484,667 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $34,138,000 Existing Users' Share $943,004 $970,923 $970,923 $3,319,040 $3,291,121 $4,471,121 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 $22,286,132 Future Users' Share $2,402,662 $2,937,077 $2,937,077 $1,547,960 $1,013,546 $1,013,546 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,851,868 CIP (Escalated Dollars) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 10-Year Total A. GENERAL PLAN SCENARIO $1,436,190 $1,698,236 $1,783,148 $886,165 $710,251 $745,763 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,259,752 B. OPPORTUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO (MONTEREY 2031) $1,260,158 $1,783,900 $1,873,095 $1,169,499 $694,616 $729,347 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,510,615 C. 10-YEAR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN $992,250 $1,041,863 $1,093,956 $1,148,653 $1,206,086 $2,926,769 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $21,655,053 D. SEA LEVEL RISE STRATEGIC PLAN (2030) $0 $0 $0 $3,007,345 $3,157,712 $3,315,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,480,654 Total (Escalated Dollars) $3,688,598 $4,523,999 $4,750,198 $6,211,662 $5,768,665 $7,717,477 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $45,906,075 Existing Users' Share $1,039,662 $1,123,965 $1,180,163 $4,236,029 $4,410,417 $6,291,316 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $31,527,028 Future Users' Share $2,648,935 $3,400,034 $3,570,035 $1,975,633 $1,358,248 $1,426,161 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,379,047 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 20, Packet Page 189 9 | Page
Debt Service
The City’s existing debt, used to fund pipeline rehabilitation and replacements, is from two Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans.

The debt payments on the existing debt are $886,379 per year. The rate study projects $7.0 million in new debt, with debt repayments beginning in FY 2030. Table 7 summarizes the City’s existing and projected debt service.

Table 7 – Debt Service
Fiscal Year:
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Existing Debt:

Sewer CWSRF Loan #1
Principal $161,318 $164,706 $168,164 $171,696 $175,302 $178,983 $182,741 $186,579 $190,497 $194,498 $198,582 $202,752 Interest $54,478 $51,090 $47,631 $44,100 $40,494 $36,813 $33,054 $29,217 $25,299 $21,298 $17,214 $13,044 Total Payment $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 $215,796 Sewer CWSRF Loan #2
Principal $480,885 $490,983 $501,294 $511,821 $522,569 $533,543 $544,748 $556,187 $567,867 $579,793 $591,968 $604,399 Interest $189,699 $179,600 $169,290 $158,762 $148,014 $137,040 $125,836 $114,396 $102,716 $90,791 $78,615 $66,184 Total Payment $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 $670,583 Subtotal $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 Proposed Debt:

Proceeds Issuance Cost Issuance FY Duration Interest Rate Proposed Debt Issuance: $3,500,000 $250,000 2029 30 5%
Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,443 $59,265 $62,228 $65,340 $68,607 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,500 $184,678 $181,715 $178,603 $175,336 Total Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $243,943 $243,943 $243,943 $243,943 $243,943 Proceeds Issuance Cost Issuance FY Duration Interest Rate Proposed Debt Issuance: $3,500,000 $250,000 2031 30 5%
Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,443 $59,265 $62,228 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,500 $184,678 $181,715 Total Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $243,943 $243,943 $243,943 Total Debt Service: $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $1,130,322 $1,130,322 $1,374,265 $1,374,265 $1,374,265 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 21, Packet Page 190 10 | Page
Operating Expenses
Table 8 shows the City’s wastewater operating expenses. As shown in the table, the City’s operating costs are projected to escalate due to inflation by 4 to 5% per year depending on the type of expense.

Table 8 – Projected O&M Expenditures
Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund - Budget FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Projection ->
Escalator
Salaries/Benefits 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Services/Supplies 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Equipment Outlay 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Internal Service Charges 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Other Programmatic Items 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Division 3121 - Engineering Design Section
Salaries / Benefits
4101 Salaries - Full Time $206,797 $217,136 $227,993 $239,393 $251,363 $263,931 4140 Unemployment Insurance $276 $290 $304 $320 $335 $352 4141 Workers Compensation Ins $4,107 $4,312 $4,528 $4,754 $4,992 $5,242 4142 Activity 0000 $3,949 $4,146 $4,353 $4,571 $4,800 $5,040 4150 Fringe Benefits $48,893 $51,338 $53,905 $56,600 $59,430 $62,401 4155 Retirement Benefits $21,992 $23,092 $24,247 $25,459 $26,732 $28,068 4156 UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $45,513 $47,788 $50,178 $52,687 $55,321 $58,087 Subtotal $331,526 $348,103 $365,508 $383,783 $402,972 $423,121 Services / Supplies
4203 Printings & Postage $1,475 $1,549 $1,626 $1,691 $1,759 $1,829 4204 Safety Equipment $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,147 $1,192 $1,240 4205 Operating Supplies $4,500 $4,725 $4,961 $5,160 $5,366 $5,581 4208 Dues & Publications $7,000 $7,350 $7,718 $8,026 $8,347 $8,681 4209 Travel & Meetings $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,147 $1,192 $1,240 4212 Small Equipment $1,500 $1,575 $1,654 $1,720 $1,789 $1,860 4220 Contractual Services $75,000 $78,750 $82,688 $85,995 $89,435 $93,012 4222 Training Services $800 $840 $882 $917 $954 $992
4240 Professional Services $15,000 $15,750 $16,538 $17,199 $17,887 $18,602 Subtotal $107,275 $112,639 $118,271 $123,002 $127,922 $133,038 Internal Service Charges
4602 Information Services $34,750 $36,488 $38,312 $39,844 $41,438 $43,096 4603 Risk Management Charges $1,611 $1,692 $1,776 $1,847 $1,921 $1,998 Subtotal $36,361 $38,179 $40,088 $41,692 $43,359 $45,094 Division 3121 Total $475,162 $498,921 $523,867 $548,476 $574,253 $601,253 Division 3153 - Sewer Line Maintenance
Salaries / Benefits
4101 Salaries - Full Time $462,275 $485,389 $509,658 $535,141 $561,898 $589,993 4102 Salaries - Overtime $29,250 $30,713 $32,248 $33,861 $35,554 $37,331 4103 Salaries - Part Time Temporary $700 $735 $772 $810 $851 $893 4107 Salaries - Holiday Pay $250 $263 $276 $289 $304 $319 4140 Unemployment Insurance $1,310 $1,376 $1,444 $1,516 $1,592 $1,672 4141 Workers Compensation Ins $21,183 $22,242 $23,354 $24,522 $25,748 $27,035 4142 Activity 0000 $18,766 $19,705 $20,690 $21,725 $22,811 $23,951 4150 Fringe Benefits $167,601 $175,981 $184,780 $194,019 $203,720 $213,906 4155 Retirement Benefits $39,157 $41,115 $43,171 $45,330 $47,596 $49,976 4156 UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $146,257 $153,570 $161,248 $169,311 $177,776 $186,665 Subtotal $886,750 $931,087 $977,642 $1,026,524 $1,077,850 $1,131,742 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 22, Packet Page 191 11 | Page
Cash Flow Projection
Cash flow projections for various scenarios were developed by Bartle Wells to estimate the rate increases and amount of borrowing needed to adequately fund the wastewater system’s operating and capital costs over the next ten years. The cash flow projections were presented to and reviewed by the project team which refined the scenarios into the final recommendation. The cash flow for the recommended scenario assumes City ratepayer funding of the R&R and SLR capital projects and $7.0 million in borrowing.

Expansion-related capital projects are to be funded by developers. Table 9 shows the final cash flow projection. BWA projects wastewater rate increases of 31% beginning July 1, 2024, 20% in FY2025/26, 15% in FY 2026/27, 10% in 2027/28, and 7% in FY 2028/29 will be necessary to meet the City’s wastewater operating and capital expenditures and maintain adequate reserves.

Services / Supplies
4201 Office Supplies $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4203 Printings & Postage $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4204 Safety Equipment $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4205 Operating Supplies $18,000 $18,900 $19,845 $20,639 $21,464 $22,323 4208 Dues & Publications $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4209 Travel & Meetings $250 $263 $276 $287 $298 $310
4211 Utilities $89,050 $93,503 $98,178 $102,105 $106,189 $110,436 4212 Small Equipment $575 $604 $634 $659 $686 $713
4220 Contractual Services $88,000 $92,400 $97,020 $100,901 $104,937 $109,134 4222 Training Services $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4230 Uniform/Clothing $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4240 Professional Services $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $22,932 $23,849 $24,803 4249 Damage to City Property $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620 4285 Special Prj - Reorg Savings $15,000 $15,750 $16,538 $17,199 $17,887 $18,602 Subtotal $240,375 $252,394 $265,013 $275,614 $286,639 $298,104 Internal Service Charges
4601 Equipment / Vehicle Replacement $67,129 $70,485 $74,010 $76,970 $80,049 $83,251 4602 Information Services $8,287 $8,701 $9,136 $9,502 $9,882 $10,277 4603 Risk Management Charges $210,154 $220,662 $231,695 $240,963 $250,601 $260,625 4620 Administrative Support $156,070 $163,874 $172,067 $178,950 $186,108 $193,552 4621 Vehicle Rental (O&M) $122,353 $128,471 $134,894 $140,290 $145,902 $151,738 Subtotal $563,993 $592,193 $621,802 $646,674 $672,541 $699,443 Division 3153 Total $1,691,118 $1,775,674 $1,864,457 $1,948,812 $2,037,030 $2,129,290 Other Programmatic Items(2)
1 Video - Line Evaluation (10 miles every year) $300,000 $315,000 $330,750 $343,980 $357,739 $372,049 2 SSM Biennial Audit (6yr SSMP & 3yr Audit) $40,000 $42,000 $44,100 $45,864 $47,699 $49,607 3 Root Foaming $70,000 $73,500 $77,175 $80,262 $83,472 $86,811 4 Rate Study Contracts $12,600 $13,230 $13,892 $14,447 $15,025 $15,626 5 Fog Inspection Program $50,000 $52,500 $55,125 $57,330 $59,623 $62,008 Annual Set-Asides for Other Programmatic Items $472,600 $496,230 $521,042 $541,883 $563,558 $586,101 Total O&M $2,638,880 $2,770,824 $2,909,365 $3,039,172 $3,174,841 $3,316,643 Category FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Salaries/Benefits $1,218,276 $1,279,190 $1,343,150 $1,410,307 $1,480,822 $1,554,863 Services/Supplies $342,075 $359,179 $377,138 $392,223 $407,912 $424,229 Equipment Outlay $5,575 $5,854 $6,146 $6,392 $6,648 $6,914 Internal Service Charges $600,354 $630,372 $661,890 $688,366 $715,901 $744,537 Other Programmatic Items $472,600 $496,230 $521,042 $541,883 $563,558 $586,101 (1) FY24 budget provided by the City as of 8/10/23 for Fund 279. (2) Identified and provided by City staff.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 23, Packet Page 192 12 | Page
Table 9 – Cash Flow Projection: R&R, SLR with $7.0MM Debt Budget
2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 Beginning Fund Balance
Operating Fund(1) $1,772,655 $1,232,249 $1,500,822 $1,273,407 $1,439,984 $1,901,204 $3,059,652 $1,261,050 $1,890,827 $2,777,245 $3,997,841 Rate Increase Effective Date 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 7/1/2030 7/1/2031 7/1/2032 7/1/2033 Effective Months 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Sewer Fee Revenue Adjustment - % 31.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 7.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.0% 7.0% 5.0% Annual Population Growth % 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% EDUs 18,580 18,580 18,623 18,666 18,709 18,752 18,796 18,839 18,883 18,926 18,970 New EDUs - 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44
Monthly Single Family Residential City Charge $10.77 $14.11 $16.93 $19.47 $21.42 $22.92 $27.50 $31.63 $35.43 $37.91 $39.81 $ Change in Monthly SFR City Charge $0.00 $3.34 $2.82 $2.54 $1.95 $1.50 $4.58 $4.13 $3.80 $2.48 $1.90

REVENUES
Operating Revenues
Sewer Line Maintenance Fees $2,401,000 $3,153,000 $3,792,000 $4,371,000 $4,819,000 $5,168,000 $6,216,000 $7,165,000 $8,043,000 $8,626,000 $9,078,000 Sewer Grease Trap Fees(2) 75,800 79,600 83,600 86,900 90,400 94,000 97,800 100,700 103,700 106,800 110,000 Interest Income(3) 35,453 24,645 30,016 25,468 28,800 38,024 61,193 25,221 37,817 55,545 79,957 Subtotal Operating Revenues 2,512,253 3,257,245 3,905,616 4,483,368 4,938,200 5,300,024 6,374,993 7,290,921 8,184,517 8,788,345 9,267,957 Other Revenues
Capacity Fee Revenue - 172,302 181,334 190,841 200,846 211,375 222,456 234,118 246,392 259,309 272,903 Loan Proceeds 3,500,000 3,500,000
Subtotal Other Revenues - 172,302 181,334 190,841 200,846 3,711,375 222,456 3,734,118 246,392 259,309 272,903 TOTAL REVENUES 2,512,253 3,429,547 4,086,950 4,674,209 5,139,046 9,011,399 6,597,449 11,025,039 8,430,909 9,047,654 9,540,860

EXPENSES
Operating Expenses(4)
Salaries/Benefits $1,218,276 $1,279,190 $1,343,150 $1,410,307 $1,480,822 $1,554,863 $1,632,607 $1,714,237 $1,799,949 $1,889,946 $1,984,444 Services/Supplies 342,075 359,179 377,138 392,223 407,912 424,229 441,198 454,434 468,067 482,109 496,572 Equipment Outlay 5,575 5,854 6,146 6,392 6,648 6,914 7,190 7,406 7,628 7,857 8,093 Internal Service Charges 600,354 630,372 661,890 688,366 715,901 744,537 774,318 797,548 821,474 846,118 871,502 Subtotal Operating Expenses 2,166,280 2,274,594 2,388,324 2,497,288 2,611,283 2,730,543 2,855,313 2,973,624 3,097,118 3,226,030 3,360,610 Non-Operating Expenses
Debt Service 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 1,130,322 1,130,322 1,374,265 1,374,265 1,374,265 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Existing Users - - 1,039,662 1,123,965 1,180,163 4,236,029 4,410,417 6,291,316 3,073,107 3,226,763 3,388,101 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Future Users(6) - - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal Non-Operating Expenses $886,379 $886,379 $1,926,041 $2,010,344 $2,066,542 $5,122,408 $5,540,739 $7,421,638 $4,447,372 $4,601,028 $4,762,366 TOTAL OPERATING & NON-OP EXPENSES $3,052,659 $3,160,973 $4,314,365 $4,507,633 $4,677,825 $7,852,951 $8,396,052 $10,395,262 $7,544,490 $7,827,058 $8,122,976

NET & ENDING FUND BALANCES
Net Revenues -$540,406 $268,574 -$227,415 $166,577 $461,220 $1,158,448 -$1,798,603 $629,777 $886,418 $1,220,596 $1,417,884 Ending Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance $1,232,249 $1,500,822 $1,273,407 $1,439,984 $1,901,204 $3,059,652 $1,261,050 $1,890,827 $2,777,245 $3,997,841 $5,415,725 Debt Service Coverage (Min. 1.10x) 1.11 1.71 2.24 2.63 2.90 3.11 3.82 3.70 4.05 4.30 Target Met yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Sewer Fund Reserve Target - $1.7 million(5) $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Target Met no no no yes yes no yes yes yes yes
(1) Includes "Cash on Hand" and "Unassigned" funds. (4) Salaries/Benefits escalated 5% annually. See 'O&M' sheet for other inflation factors applied. (2) Grease trap fees are increased annually based on assumed inflation. (5) Prior BWA recommendation of $1.7M reserve balance ($1.5MM operating, $200,000 capital). (3) Interest based on 2% of beginning fund balance. (6) Assumes developers fund all expansion projects directly.

Projected Extended Projection
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 24, Packet Page 193 13 | Page

3. Wastewater Connection Fee
Connection fees are one-time charges levied to recover the costs of utility infrastructure needed to serve new development. These fees go by a variety of names including connection fees, capacity fees, facility charges, and development impact fees.

California Government Code Section 66000 et, seq, governs impact fees charged to new development.

Section 66013 pertains specifically to water and wastewater connection fees and states that these fees “shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed” unless approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of participating voters. The code also notes that a capacity charge can recover costs for “facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed” or “charges for new facilities to be constructed in the future that will provide benefit to the person or property being charged”. The code does not specify a method for calculating an appropriate fee.

3.1 Current Wastewater Capacity Fee
The existing wastewater capacity fee became effective July 1, 2022. The fee includes the local collection component of the fee from the City, as well as a fee for treatment capacity from Monterey One Water (M1W). Table 10 summarizes the current wastewater capacity fee charges for a new single family residential home.

Table 10 – Current SFR Sewer Capacity Fee

3.2 Capacity Fee Methodology
Buy-In Approach
BWA recommends use of a buy-in cost approach to calculate updated wastewater capacity fees. Under this approach, new connections buy in for a proportionate share of capacity needs in existing wastewater system facilities and assets. The fees are calculated based on the total cost of facilities divided by the total capacity of the facilities at buildout. This cost approach is a widely used and accepted approach for calculating capacity fees.

Facility Cost Valuation
There are numerous widely used methods for valuing infrastructure and assets for cost recovery via capacity fees. BWA developed the capacity fees in this report using an asset valuation approach known as Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation – This approach escalates the depreciated accounting book value of each asset escalated into current dollars based on the change in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index from each asset’s acquisition date. The ENR index is a widely used index for determining construction cost inflation.

M1W Charge (Regional Treatment & Disposal): $6,056
City's Charge (Wastewater Collection System): $3,339
Total Sewer Capacity Fee: $9,395
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 25, Packet Page 194 14 | Page
Capacity Charge Methodology

3.3 Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation
System Buy-In Component – Existing Assets
Under the methodology described in Section 3.2, updated wastewater capacity fees are designed to recover the cost of existing wastewater system facilities and assets (in current dollars). Table 11 shows an estimate of the remaining useful life and depreciation of the City’s sewer mains and manholes.

Step 1 - Determine Cost of Facilities & Assets for Fee Recovery Determine the recoverable cost of facilities and assets benefiting new development to be recovered by the fee or charge.

Step 2 - Identify Service Capacity of Facilities
Identify the corresponding service capacity of facilities and assets identified in Step 1; capacity may be limited by the amount of development reasonably anticipated to be served by facilities for the foreseeable future.

Step 3 - Calculate Cost per Unit of Capacity
Calculate the cost per unit of capacity by dividing the costs identified for fee recovery in Step 1 by the capacity of those facilities identified in Step 2.

Step 4 - Apply Cost per Unit to the Capacity Needs of New Development Apply the unit cost for capacity to the infrastructure capacity needs of each new development to determine an equitable fee or charge per new connection.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 26, Packet Page 195 15 | Page
Table 11 – Estimated Remaining Useful Life & Depreciation of Sewer Mains and Manholes Table 12 uses the change in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (San Francisco Index) from the acquisition date of each asset to January 2024 to estimate the replacement cost of the City’s sewer fixed assets.

SEWER MAINS
Installed Dates of System:
% of System Composed of
Assets in this DecadeGroup(1)
Percent
Depreciated(2)
Remaining Value by
Decade-Group
1910 30% 80% 6%
1930 25% 70% 7%
1940 8.56% 60% 3%
1950 9.00% 50% 5%
1960 7.30% 40% 4%
1970 2.40% 30% 2%
1980-2000 9.50% 20% 8%
2000-2020 7.60% 10% 7%
100% 42%

SEWER MANHOLES (A SUBSET UNDER SEWER STRUCTURES)
Installed Dates of System:
% of System Composed of
Assets in this DecadeGroup(3)
Percent
Depreciated(2)
Remaining Value by
Decade-Group
1910 28% 80% 6%
1930 33% 70% 10%
1940 8.47% 60% 3%
1950 8.52% 50% 4%
1960 8.73% 40% 5%
1970 1.83% 30% 1%
1980-2000 8.93% 20% 7%
2000-2020 2.74% 10% 2%
100% 39%
(1) Portion of all Sewer Mains by decade - provided by City. (2) Percent depreciated by each decade of Assets is estimated. (3) Portion of all Sewer Manholes by decade - provided by City.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 27, Packet Page 196 16 | Page
Table 12 – Estimated Replacement Cost of Existing Sewer Fixed Assets Capacity Fee Calculation
BWA calculated the proposed wastewater capacity fee based on a system buy-in approach. The fee is designed to recover costs for:
- System Buy-In Component - Existing Facilities & Assets: To be reasonable and conservative, fee recovery accounts for the book value of the City’s wastewater facilities escalated to current dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index (Replacement Value Less Depreciation Method).

The Buy-In Component is calculated by dividing all current fixed assets by the estimated current and future EDUs in a 20-year build out. Table 13 summarizes the calculation for the City’s wastewater capacity fee.

QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT

REPLACEMENT
COST - Sep.
2010
Replacement
Cost - Sep.
2010(1)
Replacement
Cost - Jan.
2024(1)
Install year:
assuming
50-yr useful
life
Remaining
Service Life
Remaining
Useful Life,
%age
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation, RCNLD
ENR CCI= 9,888.54 15,525.00

SEWER MAINS
Sewer Mains 523,248 Feet $ 205.00 $107,265,840 $168,407,284 42% $70,606,438 SUB TOTAL $107,265,840 $168,407,284 $70,606,438

SEWER STRUCTURES
MANHOLES 1,971 $ 4,500.00 $8,869,500 $13,925,108 39% $5,465,481 CLEAN OUTS(CO)(2) 280 EA $ 1,650.00 $462,000 $725,340 0% $0 LAMP HOLES(2) 30 EA $ 1,650.00 $49,500 $77,715 0% $0
SUB TOTAL $9,381,000 $14,728,163 $5,465,481

SEWER LIFT STATIONS
Replacement
Cost - 2016(1)
7 ENR CCI= 11,576.33
Rehabilitation of 7 Lift Stations $1,641,072 $2,200,839 2016 2066 86% $1,892,722 SUB TOTAL $1,641,072 $2,200,839 $1,892,722

SEWER EQUIPMENT
Not included in Sewer Asset Evaluation $0 $0
FIXED ASSET TOTAL $185,336,286 $77,964,641
(1) ENR CCI-SF: Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco. (2) Based on City Input, Clean Outs and Lamp Holes were assumed to have no remaining value.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 28, Packet Page 197 17 | Page
Table 13 – Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation
Buy-In Component Analysis
Fixed Assets RCNLD
Sewer Mains $70,606,438
Sewer Structures $5,465,481
Lift Station Assets $1,892,722
Total Fixed Assets $77,964,641
Current & Future EDUs (20-yr Build Out Total)(1) 19,413 Buy-In Component Calculation
Total Remaining Value of Fixed Assets / All EDUs $4,016 Proposed Capacity Fee
Recommended Total Proposed Capacity Fee: $4,016
Current Capacity Fee $3,339
(1) Current account data for Residential and Commercial Customers + projected EDUs for Industrial and OPA accounts gathered from water consumption data.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 29, Packet Page 198 18 | Page

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusion – Wastewater Rates
The recommended City wastewater rates and capacity fees are summarized in Table 14. BWA finds that the proposed wastewater rates follow generally accepted rate design criteria and adhere to the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. BWA recommends that the City adopt the wastewater rates presented in this report by following the procedure to increase rates as follows:

1. Set the date of the public hearing as required by Prop 218.

2. Mail notices of the proposed rate increase and hearing date and location to property owners as required by Prop 218.

3. Hold public hearing and if a majority protest does not occur, adopt new rates.

4. Rates become effective July 1, 2024.

Table 14 – Summary of Proposed Rates and Capacity Fees

4.2 Conclusion – Wastewater Capacity Fees
BWA finds that the proposed capacity fees follow generally accepted fee design criteria and adhere to the substantive requirements of government code 66000 et seq. BWA recommends that the City adopt the FY2024 capacity fee presented in this report by following the procedure to increase capacity fees as follows:

5. Set notice the date of a public hearing as required in Government Code.

6. Send notice of hearing to developers if specifically requested in writing.

7. Hold public hearing and adopt new capacity fees via Resolution.

8. Fees may become effective not less than 30 days after adoption.

4.3 Future Capacity Fee Adjustments
In future years, BWA recommends that the City update its capacity fees annually by adjusting the fees by the change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (San Francisco) to account for future RECOMMENDED SCENARIO:

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 30, Packet Page 199 19 | Page
construction cost inflation. Additionally, the City should review and consider updating its capacity fees when substantial revisions are made to anticipated capital improvement costs or to substantial changes in projected demand. In general, BWA recommends that capacity fees be independently reviewed and/or updated approximately once every five years.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 31, Packet Page 200

APPENDIX A
Wastewater Rate and Capacity
Fee Study Tables
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 32, Packet Page 201 Table A
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Current Rates; Effective since July 1, 2015
Monthly
DESCRIPTION(1) UNITS Rate
Residential
Residential Sewer Charge Monthly $10.77
Multi-Residential/Condo Sewer Charge Monthly $7.88
Non-Residential Sewer Charges(per one unit of sewer charge) Business/Government (1-10 employees) Location/Each Business $8.29 Business/Government (11-20 employees) Location/Each Business $16.59 Business/Government (21-30 employees) Location/Each Business $24.99 Business/Government (31-40 employees) Location/Each Business $33.28 Business/Government (41-50 employees) Location/Each Business $41.57 Business/Government (51-60 employees) Location/Each Business $49.87 Business/Government (61-70 employees) Location/Each Business $58.27 Business/Government (71-80 employees) Location/Each Business $66.56 Business/Government (81-90 employees) Location/Each Business $74.85 Business/Government (91-100 employees) Location/Each Business $83.14 Business/Government (101-110 employees) Location/Each Business $91.55 Business/Government (111-120 employees) Location/Each Business $99.84 Business/Government (141-150 employees) Location/Each Business $124.82 Business/Government (171-180 employees) Location/Each Business $149.70 Business/Government (181-190 employees) Location/Each Business $158.10 Business/Government (210-220 employees) Location/Each Business $182.98 Business/Government (271-280 employees) Location/Each Business $232.52 Business/Government (721-730 employees) Location/Each Business $607.32 Hotel/Motel Each Room $4.63
Supermarket Each Location $45.45
Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $11.09
Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $15.29
Rest Home/Convalescent Each Bed of Licensed Capacity $3.12 Animal Hospital Location/Each Licensed Business $20.79
Restaurant - 1 Meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.43
Restaurant - 2 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.65
Restaurant - 3 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $1.18
Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $1.18
Bar Location/Each Business $18.09
Night Club Location/Each Business $54.17
Take-Out Small Location/Each Business $20.14
Take-Out Medium Location/Each Business $49.65
Take-Out Large Location/Each Business $90.47
Bakery Location/Each Business $16.37
Theatre Per screen @ each Location $26.82
Gym - 500 Members Location/Each Business $8.29
Mortuary Location/Each Business $22.08
School - Minimum Location/Each Business $8.29
School - Pre-Grade 6 School Population $0.11
School - Grade 7 - College School Population $0.22
School - Boarding School Population $2.26
Instructional Facility School Population $8.29
Church - 1-100 Members Location/Each Business $8.29
Church - Over 100 Members Location/Each Business $16.59 Photo Developer Location/Each Business $8.29
Laboratory - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Laboratory - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 Printer - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Printer - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59
Garage/Repair Location/Each Business $7.97
Paint Shop - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29
Paint Shop - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $27.57
Laundromat Each Washing Machine $7.22
Capacity Fee Current
Sewer Capacity Fee Dwelling Unit $3,339
(1) Current Rates source: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montereyonewater.org/DocumentCenter/View/157/Montere y-Bi-Monthly-Fee-PDF
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 33, Packet Page 202 Table B
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Current Accounts and Equivalent Dwelling Units Summary
Accounts(1)
Residential Data 6,560
Commercial Total 2,435
Commercial Billed by M1W 2,357
Commercial on City Land 78
Industrial 1
OPA 183
OPA Residential
OPA Non-Residential
9,179
Revenue EDUs
Revenue (Fees & Charges) input into model for 22/23 (2) $2,401,313 18,580 (1) Compilation of account data from M1Water (residential and commerical) and from In-City (commercial). (2) Includes sewer maintenance fees collected by M1Water ($2,161,914) and fees collected directly by the City ($239,399).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 34, Packet Page 203 Table C
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Growth Rate Estimate
Population Projection(1)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Total Growth
Monterey 28,170 28,044 28,650 29,032 29,342 29,639 5.2% Monterey balance 24,749 24,623 25,229 25,611 25,921 26,218 5.9% DLI & Naval Postgrad 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 0.0% Account Growth Rate Estimated by:

Population
Total Growth from 2020-2045

5.9%
Average Annual Growth Rate[2]

This growth rate is applied to the City's current EDU estimate for the duration of the projection in this study.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 35, Packet Page 204 Table D
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Projected O&M Expenditures
Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund - Budget FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Projection ->
Escalator
Salaries/Benefits 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Services/Supplies 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Equipment Outlay 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Internal Service Charges 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Other Programmatic Items 5% 5% 4% 4% 4%
Division 3121 - Engineering Design Section
Salaries / Benefits
4101 Salaries - Full Time $206,797 $217,136 $227,993 $239,393 $251,363 $263,931 4140 Unemployment Insurance $276 $290 $304 $320 $335 $352 4141 Workers Compensation Ins $4,107 $4,312 $4,528 $4,754 $4,992 $5,242 4142 Activity 0000 $3,949 $4,146 $4,353 $4,571 $4,800 $5,040 4150 Fringe Benefits $48,893 $51,338 $53,905 $56,600 $59,430 $62,401 4155 Retirement Benefits $21,992 $23,092 $24,247 $25,459 $26,732 $28,068 4156 UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $45,513 $47,788 $50,178 $52,687 $55,321 $58,087 Subtotal $331,526 $348,103 $365,508 $383,783 $402,972 $423,121 Services / Supplies
4203 Printings & Postage $1,475 $1,549 $1,626 $1,691 $1,759 $1,829 4204 Safety Equipment $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,147 $1,192 $1,240 4205 Operating Supplies $4,500 $4,725 $4,961 $5,160 $5,366 $5,581 4208 Dues & Publications $7,000 $7,350 $7,718 $8,026 $8,347 $8,681 4209 Travel & Meetings $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,147 $1,192 $1,240 4212 Small Equipment $1,500 $1,575 $1,654 $1,720 $1,789 $1,860 4220 Contractual Services $75,000 $78,750 $82,688 $85,995 $89,435 $93,012 4222 Training Services $800 $840 $882 $917 $954 $992
4240 Professional Services $15,000 $15,750 $16,538 $17,199 $17,887 $18,602 Subtotal $107,275 $112,639 $118,271 $123,002 $127,922 $133,038 Internal Service Charges
4602 Information Services $34,750 $36,488 $38,312 $39,844 $41,438 $43,096 4603 Risk Management Charges $1,611 $1,692 $1,776 $1,847 $1,921 $1,998 Subtotal $36,361 $38,179 $40,088 $41,692 $43,359 $45,094 Division 3121 Total $475,162 $498,921 $523,867 $548,476 $574,253 $601,253 Division 3153 - Sewer Line Maintenance
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 36, Packet Page 205 Salaries / Benefits
4101 Salaries - Full Time $462,275 $485,389 $509,658 $535,141 $561,898 $589,993 4102 Salaries - Overtime $29,250 $30,713 $32,248 $33,861 $35,554 $37,331 4103 Salaries - Part Time Temporary $700 $735 $772 $810 $851 $893 4107 Salaries - Holiday Pay $250 $263 $276 $289 $304 $319 4140 Unemployment Insurance $1,310 $1,376 $1,444 $1,516 $1,592 $1,672 4141 Workers Compensation Ins $21,183 $22,242 $23,354 $24,522 $25,748 $27,035 4142 Activity 0000 $18,766 $19,705 $20,690 $21,725 $22,811 $23,951 4150 Fringe Benefits $167,601 $175,981 $184,780 $194,019 $203,720 $213,906 4155 Retirement Benefits $39,157 $41,115 $43,171 $45,330 $47,596 $49,976 4156 UAAL Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability $146,257 $153,570 $161,248 $169,311 $177,776 $186,665 Subtotal $886,750 $931,087 $977,642 $1,026,524 $1,077,850 $1,131,742 Services / Supplies
4201 Office Supplies $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4203 Printings & Postage $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4204 Safety Equipment $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4205 Operating Supplies $18,000 $18,900 $19,845 $20,639 $21,464 $22,323 4208 Dues & Publications $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620
4209 Travel & Meetings $250 $263 $276 $287 $298 $310
4211 Utilities $89,050 $93,503 $98,178 $102,105 $106,189 $110,436 4212 Small Equipment $575 $604 $634 $659 $686 $713
4220 Contractual Services $88,000 $92,400 $97,020 $100,901 $104,937 $109,134 4222 Training Services $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4230 Uniform/Clothing $2,500 $2,625 $2,756 $2,867 $2,981 $3,100 4240 Professional Services $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $22,932 $23,849 $24,803 4249 Damage to City Property $500 $525 $551 $573 $596 $620 4285 Special Prj - Reorg Savings $15,000 $15,750 $16,538 $17,199 $17,887 $18,602 Subtotal $240,375 $252,394 $265,013 $275,614 $286,639 $298,104 Internal Service Charges
4601 Equipment / Vehicle Replacement $67,129 $70,485 $74,010 $76,970 $80,049 $83,251 4602 Information Services $8,287 $8,701 $9,136 $9,502 $9,882 $10,277 4603 Risk Management Charges $210,154 $220,662 $231,695 $240,963 $250,601 $260,625 4620 Administrative Support $156,070 $163,874 $172,067 $178,950 $186,108 $193,552 4621 Vehicle Rental (O&M) $122,353 $128,471 $134,894 $140,290 $145,902 $151,738 Subtotal $563,993 $592,193 $621,802 $646,674 $672,541 $699,443 Division 3153 Total $1,691,118 $1,775,674 $1,864,457 $1,948,812 $2,037,030 $2,129,290 Other Programmatic Items(2)
1 Video - Line Evaluation (10 miles every year) $300,000 $315,000 $330,750 $343,980 $357,739 $372,049 2 SSM Biennial Audit (6yr SSMP & 3yr Audit) $40,000 $42,000 $44,100 $45,864 $47,699 $49,607 3 Root Foaming $70,000 $73,500 $77,175 $80,262 $83,472 $86,811 4 Rate Study Contracts $12,600 $13,230 $13,892 $14,447 $15,025 $15,626 5 Fog Inspection Program $50,000 $52,500 $55,125 $57,330 $59,623 $62,008 Annual Set-Asides for Other Programmatic Items $472,600 $496,230 $521,042 $541,883 $563,558 $586,101 Total O&M $2,638,880 $2,770,824 $2,909,365 $3,039,172 $3,174,841 $3,316,643 Category FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Salaries/Benefits $1,218,276 $1,279,190 $1,343,150 $1,410,307 $1,480,822 $1,554,863 Services/Supplies $342,075 $359,179 $377,138 $392,223 $407,912 $424,229 Equipment Outlay $5,575 $5,854 $6,146 $6,392 $6,648 $6,914 Internal Service Charges $600,354 $630,372 $661,890 $688,366 $715,901 $744,537 Other Programmatic Items $472,600 $496,230 $521,042 $541,883 $563,558 $586,101 (1) FY24 budget provided by the City as of 8/10/23 for Fund 279. (2) Identified and provided by City staff.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 37, Packet Page 206 Table E
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Revenues
Budget Projection ->
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
Rate Increase from Recommended Scenario Cash Flow 31% 20% 15% 10% 7% Projected SFR City Rate, Recommended Scenario $10.77 $14.11 $16.93 $19.47 $21.42 $22.92 Rate Increase from Alternate Scenario Cash Flow 31% 25% 17% 15% 10% Projected SFR City Rate, Alternate Scenario $10.77 $14.11 $17.64 $20.63 $23.73 $26.10 Annual Population Growth % 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% Rate Increase Effective Date 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 Effective Months 12 12 12 12 12
EDUs 18,580 18,623 18,666 18,709 18,752 18,796
New EDUs - 43 43 43 43 43
Escalator 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Capacity Fee (Future Capacity) $14,239 $14,951 $15,698 $16,483 $17,308 $18,173 Capacity Fee (Buy-In - Recommended Scenario) $3,339 $4,016 $4,217 $4,428 $4,649 $4,881 Capacity Fee (Combined - Alternate Scenario) $17,578 $18,967 $19,915 $20,911 $21,957 $23,054 (Recommended Scenario) Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund(1) Interest $35,453 $24,645 $30,016 $25,468 $28,800 $38,024 Sewer Line Maintenance Fees $2,401,000 $3,153,000 $3,792,000 $4,371,000 $4,819,000 $5,168,000 Sewer Grease Trap Fee $75,800 $79,600 $83,600 $86,900 $90,400 $94,000 Total $2,512,253 $3,257,245 $3,905,616 $4,483,368 $4,938,200 $5,300,024 (Alternate Scenario) Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund(1) Interest $35,453 $24,645 $42,845 $142,237 $89,900 $44,867 Sewer Line Maintenance Fees $2,401,000 $3,153,000 $3,950,000 $4,632,000 $5,339,000 $5,886,000 Sewer Grease Trap Fee $75,800 $79,600 $83,600 $86,900 $90,400 $94,000 Total $2,512,253 $3,257,245 $4,076,445 $4,861,137 $5,519,300 $6,024,867 Fund 205 - Capital Renewal Fund(2)
Recommended Scenario:

Capacity Fee Revenue (R&R + SLR, New Debt) $172,302 $181,334 $190,841 $200,846 $211,375 Alternate Scenario:

Capacity Fee Revenue (All CIP, New Debt) $813,754 $856,415 $901,312 $948,563 $998,291 (1) Estimated by Bartle Wells based on City adopted budget and M1Water billing record. (2) Capacity Fee Revenue estimated based on projected population growth rate multiplied by the escalated proposed capacity ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 38, Packet Page 207 Table F
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Existing & Proposed Debt Service
Fiscal Year:
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Existing Debt:

Proceeds Issuance Cost Issuance FY Duration Interest Rate Proposed Debt Issuance: $7,000,000 $250,000 2026 30 5%
Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,123 $114,579 $120,308 $126,323 $132,640 $139,272 $146,235 $153,547 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,500 $357,044 $351,315 $345,300 $338,983 $332,351 $325,388 $318,076 Total Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 $471,623 Proposed Debt Issuance: $8,600,000 $250,000 2029 30 5%
Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $133,205 $139,865 $146,859 $154,202 $161,912 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $442,500 $435,840 $428,846 $421,504 $413,793 Total Payment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $575,705 $575,705 $575,705 $575,705 $575,705 Total Debt Service: $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $886,379 $1,358,002 $1,358,002 $1,358,002 $1,933,707 $1,933,707 $1,933,707 $1,933,707 $1,933,707 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 39, Packet Page 208 Table G
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Capital Improvement Plan(1)
Current Projected-->
Project Costs(1) FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Escalation 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Capacity Improvement CIP Projects Cumulative Escalation 5% 10% 16% 22% 28% A. GENERAL PLAN SCENARIO Projects funded by developers.

Gravity Main Improvements Start FY Project Duration % Serving Existing Users % Serving Future Users P-1. From Rancho Saucito to S Boundary Rd 2026 3 0% 100% $2,201,000 - - $733,667 $733,667 $733,667 $0 P-2. From Barnet Segal Ln to Glenwood Cir 2027 3 0% 100% $493,000 - - - $164,333 $164,333 $164,333 Force Main Improvements
FM-1. S Boundary Lift Station to Ryan Ranch Rd 2026 3 0% 100% $868,000 - - $289,333 $289,333 $289,333 $0 FM-2. Iris Canyon Lift Station to Barnet Segal Ln 2029 3 0% 100% $774,000 - - - - $0 $258,000 Lift Station Improvements
LS-SBR. Approx 2,150' se/o General Moore Blvd 2026 3 0% 100% $839,000 - - $279,667 $279,667 $279,667 $0 LS-IC. Approx 300' w/o Leidig Rd 2029 3 0% 100% $816,000 - - - - $0 $272,000 Allocation to Existing / Future Users(2)
- $5,991,000 $5,991,000
Allocation to Existing Users $0 - - - - - -
Allocation to Future Users $5,991,000 - - $1,302,667 $1,467,000 $1,467,000 $694,333 Allocation to Existing Users - Escalated - - - - - -
Allocation to Future Users - Escalated - - $1,436,190 $1,698,236 $1,783,148 $886,165 B. OPPORTUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO (MONTEREY 2031) Projects funded by developers (excluding $317,132 existing user share).

Gravity Main Improvements Start FY Project Duration % Serving Existing Users % Serving Future Users P-3. ROW. Salinas Hwy. 2029 3 7% 93% $1,042,000 - - - - $0 $347,333 P-4. ROW. Olmstead Rd. 2026 3 6% 94% $426,000 - - $142,000 $142,000 $142,000 $0 P-5. Canyon Del Rey Blvd. 2029 3 6% 94% $513,000 - - - - $0 $171,000 Force Main Improvements
FM-3. Monterey Salinas Hwy. 2026 3 7% 93% $1,469,000 - - $489,667 $489,667 $489,667 $0 Lift Station Improvements
LS-SBR. S Boundary Rd. 2026 3 0% 100% $1,534,000 - - $511,333 $511,333 $511,333 $0 LS-HWY 218/68 2027 3 7% 93% $1,194,000 - - - $398,000 $398,000 $398,000 Allocation to Existing / Future Users(2) $317,132 $5,860,868 $6,178,000 Allocation to Existing Users $317,132 - - $43,004 $70,923 $70,923 $62,706 Allocation to Future Users $5,860,868 - - $1,099,996 $1,470,077 $1,470,077 $853,627 Allocation to Existing Users - Escalated - - $47,412 $82,102 $86,208 $80,031 Allocation to Future Users - Escalated - - $1,212,745 $1,701,798 $1,786,888 $1,089,468 Option 1 Option 2
C. 10-YEAR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN Option 1 Projects funded through sewer rates.

C.1 Monterey-Target R&R Budget Start FY Project Duration % Serving Existing Users % Serving Future Users Pipeline Replacement Program (2026-2030) 2026 5 100% 0% $4,500,000 - - $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Pipeline Replacement Program (2031-2035) 2031 5 100% 0% $10,400,000 - - - - - - Allocation to Existing / Future Users(3) $14,900,000 - $14,900,000 Allocation to Existing Users $14,900,000 - - $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Allocation to Future Users $0 - - - - - -
Allocation to Existing Users - Escalated - - $992,250 $1,041,863 $1,093,956 $1,148,653 Allocation to Future Users - Escalated - - - - - -
D. SEA LEVEL RISE STRATEGIC PLAN (2030) Projects funded through sewer rates.

City's Sewer System Relocation % Serving Existing Users % Serving Future Users City's Sewer System Relocation 2029 3 100% 0% $7,069,000 - - - - - 2,356,333.33 Allocation to Existing / Future Users(3) $7,069,000 - $7,069,000 Allocation to Existing Users $7,069,000 - - - - - 2,356,333.33 Allocation to Future Users $0 - - - - - -
Allocation to Existing Users - Escalated - - - - - 3,007,344.79 Allocation to Future Users - Escalated - - - - - -
Total Capacity Improvement CIP Projects $22,286,132 $11,851,868 $34,138,000 - - $3,345,667 $3,908,000 $3,908,000 $4,867,000 Allocation to Existing Users $22,286,132 - - $943,004 $970,923 $970,923 $3,319,040 Allocation to Future Users $11,851,868 - - $2,402,662 $2,937,077 $2,937,077 $1,547,960 Total Escalated CIP Costs $45,906,075 - - $3,688,598 $4,523,999 $4,750,198 $6,211,662 Allocation to Existing Users - Escalated $31,527,028 - - $1,039,662 $1,123,965 $1,180,163 $4,236,029 Allocation to Future Users - Escalated $14,379,047 - - $2,648,935 $3,400,034 $3,570,035 $1,975,633 (1) Provided by Akel Engineering.
(2) Source: Akel Engineering.
(3) Pipeline R&R and Sea Level Rise projects assumed to entirely benefit existing users.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 40, Packet Page 209 Table H
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Escalated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Recommended Scenario - R&R + Sea Level Rise CIP FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 10-Year Total B. OPPORTUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO (MONTEREY 2031) $47,412 $82,102 $86,208 $80,031 $46,618 $48,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $391,321 C. 10-YEAR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN $992,250 $1,041,863 $1,093,956 $1,148,653 $1,206,086 $2,926,769 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $21,655,053 D. SEA LEVEL RISE STRATEGIC PLAN (2030) $0 $0 $0 $3,007,345 $3,157,712 $3,315,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,480,654 Total $1,039,662 $1,123,965 $1,180,163 $4,236,029 $4,410,417 $6,291,316 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $31,527,028 Existing Users' Share $1,039,662 $1,123,965 $1,180,163 $4,236,029 $4,410,417 $6,291,316 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $31,527,028 Future Users' Share $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Alternate Scenario - All CIP FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 2033 FY 2034 FY 2035 10-Year Total A. GENERAL PLAN SCENARIO $1,436,190 $1,698,236 $1,783,148 $886,165 $710,251 $745,763 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,259,752 B. OPPORTUNITY HOUSING SCENARIO (MONTEREY 2031) $1,260,158 $1,783,900 $1,873,095 $1,169,499 $694,616 $729,347 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,510,615 C. 10-YEAR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN $992,250 $1,041,863 $1,093,956 $1,148,653 $1,206,086 $2,926,769 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $21,655,053 D. SEA LEVEL RISE STRATEGIC PLAN (2030) $0 $0 $0 $3,007,345 $3,157,712 $3,315,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,480,654 Total $3,688,598 $4,523,999 $4,750,198 $6,211,662 $5,768,665 $7,717,477 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $45,906,075 Existing Users' Share $1,039,662 $1,123,965 $1,180,163 $4,236,029 $4,410,417 $6,291,316 $3,073,107 $3,226,763 $3,388,101 $3,557,506 $31,527,028 Future Users' Share $2,648,935 $3,400,034 $3,570,035 $1,975,633 $1,358,248 $1,426,161 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,379,047 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 41, Packet Page 210 Table I
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Current Reserve Balances & Reserve Policy
Reserve Balances As of 6/30/23
Fund 205(1)
Cash on Hand $755,139
Dedicated to Twin Oaks Improvements (Unavailable) $16,578 Unassigned $0
Fund 279(2)
Cash on Hand $1,017,516
Reserve for Debt Service $1,106,768
Existing Dedicated to Improvements (Unavailable) $2,705,726 Unassigned $0
Total $5,601,727
Reserve Balances Available for Cash Flow Projections
Operating & Capital $1,772,655
Reserve Policies
Fund 279 - Sewer Line Maintenance Fund(3) $1,500,000
Fund 205 - Capital Renewal Fund(4) $200,000
Combined Fund Balace: $1,700,000
(1) Provided by city staff, unaudited 6/30/2023
(2) Provided by city staff, unaudited 6/30/2023
(3) BWA recommendation; $1.5MM for operating, $200,000 for capital (4) City staff policy.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 42, Packet Page 211 Table J
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Recommended Cash Flow Projection - R&R & SLR CIP with Debt ($7.0MM) Budget
2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 Beginning Fund Balance
Operating Fund(1) $1,772,655 $1,232,249 $1,500,822 $1,273,407 $1,439,984 $1,901,204 $3,059,652 $1,261,050 $1,890,827 $2,777,245 $3,997,841 Rate Increase Effective Date 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 7/1/2030 7/1/2031 7/1/2032 7/1/2033 Effective Months 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Sewer Fee Revenue Adjustment - % 31.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 7.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.0% 7.0% 5.0% Annual Population Growth % 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% EDUs 18,580 18,580 18,623 18,666 18,709 18,752 18,796 18,839 18,883 18,926 18,970 New EDUs - 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44
Monthly Single Family Residential City Charge $10.77 $14.11 $16.93 $19.47 $21.42 $22.92 $27.50 $31.63 $35.43 $37.91 $39.81 $ Change in Monthly SFR City Charge $0.00 $3.34 $2.82 $2.54 $1.95 $1.50 $4.58 $4.13 $3.80 $2.48 $1.90

EXPENSES
Operating Expenses(4)
Salaries/Benefits $1,218,276 $1,279,190 $1,343,150 $1,410,307 $1,480,822 $1,554,863 $1,632,607 $1,714,237 $1,799,949 $1,889,946 $1,984,444 Services/Supplies 342,075 359,179 377,138 392,223 407,912 424,229 441,198 454,434 468,067 482,109 496,572 Equipment Outlay 5,575 5,854 6,146 6,392 6,648 6,914 7,190 7,406 7,628 7,857 8,093 Internal Service Charges 600,354 630,372 661,890 688,366 715,901 744,537 774,318 797,548 821,474 846,118 871,502 Subtotal Operating Expenses 2,166,280 2,274,594 2,388,324 2,497,288 2,611,283 2,730,543 2,855,313 2,973,624 3,097,118 3,226,030 3,360,610 Non-Operating Expenses
Debt Service 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 886,379 1,130,322 1,130,322 1,374,265 1,374,265 1,374,265 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Existing Users - - 1,039,662 1,123,965 1,180,163 4,236,029 4,410,417 6,291,316 3,073,107 3,226,763 3,388,101 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Future Users(6)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal Non-Operating Expenses $886,379 $886,379 $1,926,041 $2,010,344 $2,066,542 $5,122,408 $5,540,739 $7,421,638 $4,447,372 $4,601,028 $4,762,366 TOTAL OPERATING & NON-OP EXPENSES $3,052,659 $3,160,973 $4,314,365 $4,507,633 $4,677,825 $7,852,951 $8,396,052 $10,395,262 $7,544,490 $7,827,058 $8,122,976

Projected Extended Projection
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 43, Packet Page 212 Table K
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Alternate Cash Flow Projection - ALL CIP with Debt ($15.6MM) Budget
2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 2033/34 Beginning Fund Balance
Operating Fund(1) $1,772,655 $1,232,249 $2,142,274 $7,111,834 $4,494,994 $2,243,373 $7,566,324 $5,093,392 $1,597,855 $3,181,249 $5,017,849 Rate Increase Effective Date 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 7/1/2030 7/1/2031 7/1/2032 7/1/2033 Effective Months 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Sewer Fee Revenue Adjustment - % 31.0% 25.0% 17.0% 15.0% 10.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% Annual Population Growth % 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% EDUs 18,580 18,580 18,623 18,666 18,709 18,752 18,796 18,839 18,883 18,926 18,970 New EDUs - 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44
Monthly Single Family Residential City Charge $10.77 $14.11 $17.64 $20.64 $23.74 $26.11 $30.03 $34.53 $36.95 $38.80 $40.74 $ Change in Monthly SFR City Charge $0.00 $3.34 $3.53 $3.00 $3.10 $2.37 $3.92 $4.50 $2.42 $1.85 $1.94

REVENUES
Operating Revenues
Sewer Line Maintenance Fees $2,401,000 $3,153,000 $3,950,000 $4,632,000 $5,339,000 $5,886,000 $6,785,000 $7,821,000 $8,388,000 $8,828,000 $9,291,000 Sewer Grease Trap Fees(2) 75,800 79,600 83,600 86,900 90,400 94,000 97,800 100,700 103,700 106,800 110,000 Interest Income(3) 35,453 24,645 42,845 142,237 89,900 44,867 151,326 101,868 31,957 63,625 100,357 Subtotal Operating Revenues 2,512,253 3,257,245 4,076,445 4,861,137 5,519,300 6,024,867 7,034,126 8,023,568 8,523,657 8,998,425 9,501,357 Other Revenues
Capacity Fee Revenue - 813,754 856,415 901,312 948,563 998,291 1,050,626 1,105,704 1,163,670 1,224,675 1,288,878 Loan Proceeds 7,000,000 8,600,000
Subtotal Other Revenues - 813,754 7,856,415 901,312 948,563 9,598,291 1,050,626 1,105,704 1,163,670 1,224,675 1,288,878 TOTAL REVENUES $2,512,253 $4,070,999 $11,932,860 $5,762,449 $6,467,863 $15,623,158 $8,084,752 $9,129,272 $9,687,327 $10,223,100 $10,790,235

EXPENSES
Operating Expenses(4)
Salaries/Benefits $1,218,276 $1,279,190 $1,343,150 $1,410,307 $1,480,822 $1,554,863 $1,632,607 $1,714,237 $1,799,949 $1,889,946 $1,984,444 Services/Supplies 342,075 359,179 377,138 392,223 407,912 424,229 441,198 454,434 468,067 482,109 496,572 Equipment Outlay 5,575 5,854 6,146 6,392 6,648 6,914 7,190 7,406 7,628 7,857 8,093 Internal Service Charges 600,354 630,372 661,890 688,366 715,901 744,537 774,318 797,548 821,474 846,118 871,502 Subtotal Operating Expenses 2,166,280 2,274,594 2,388,324 2,497,288 2,611,283 2,730,543 2,855,313 2,973,624 3,097,118 3,226,030 3,360,610 Non-Operating Expenses
Debt Service 886,379 886,379 886,379 1,358,002 1,358,002 1,358,002 1,933,707 1,933,707 1,933,707 1,933,707 1,933,707 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Existing Users - - 1,039,662 1,123,965 1,180,163 4,236,029 4,410,417 6,291,316 3,073,107 3,226,763 3,388,101 Allocation of CIP Expenses to Future Users(6)
- - 2,648,935 3,400,034 3,570,035 1,975,633 1,358,248 1,426,161 - - - Subtotal Non-Operating Expenses $886,379 $886,379 $4,574,977 $5,882,001 $6,108,201 $7,569,665 $7,702,372 $9,651,184 $5,006,815 $5,160,470 $5,321,808 TOTAL OPERATING & NON-OP EXPENSES $3,052,659 $3,160,973 $6,963,301 $8,379,289 $8,719,484 $10,300,207 $10,557,685 $12,624,809 $8,103,933 $8,386,500 $8,682,418

NET & ENDING FUND BALANCES
Net Operating Revenues -$540,406 $910,026 $4,969,560 -$2,616,840 -$2,251,621 $5,322,951 -$2,472,933 -$3,495,537 $1,583,395 $1,836,600 $2,107,817 Ending Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance $1,232,249 $2,142,274 $7,111,834 $4,494,994 $2,243,373 $7,566,324 $5,093,392 $1,597,855 $3,181,249 $5,017,849 $7,125,666 Debt Service Coverage (Min. 1.10x) 1.11 1.90 1.74 2.14 2.43 2.16 2.61 2.81 2.99 3.18 Target Met yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Sewer Fund Reserve Target - $1.7 million(5) $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Target Met yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes
(1) Includes "Cash on Hand" and "Unassigned" funds. (4) Salaries/Benefits escalated 5% annually. See 'O&M' sheet for other inflation factors applied. (2) Grease trap fees are increased annually based on assumed inflation. (5) Prior BWA recommendation of $1.7M reserve balance ($1.5MM operating, $200,000 capital). (3) Interest based on 2% of beginning fund balance. (6) Assumes expansion projects funded by City via capacity fees.

Projected Extended Projection
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 44, Packet Page 213 Table L
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Proposed Rates and Capacity Fees - Recommended Scenario RECOMMENDED SCENARIO:

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 45, Packet Page 214 Table M
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study

SEWER MAINS
Installed Dates of System:
% of System Composed of
Assets in this DecadeGroup(1)Percent
Depreciated(2)
Remaining Value by
Decade-Group
1910 30% 80% 6%
1930 25% 70% 7%
1940 8.56% 60% 3%
1950 9.00% 50% 5%
1960 7.30% 40% 4%
1970 2.40% 30% 2%
1980-2000 9.50% 20% 8%
2000-2020 7.60% 10% 7%
100% 42%

SEWER MANHOLES (A SUBSET UNDER SEWER STRUCTURES)
Installed Dates of System:
% of System Composed of
Assets in this DecadeGroup(3)Percent
Depreciated(2)
Remaining Value by
Decade-Group
1910 28% 80% 6%
1930 33% 70% 10%
1940 8.47% 60% 3%
1950 8.52% 50% 4%
1960 8.73% 40% 5%
1970 1.83% 30% 1%
1980-2000 8.93% 20% 7%
2000-2020 2.74% 10% 2%
100% 39%
(1) Portion of all Sewer Mains by decade - provided by City. (2) Percent depreciated by each decade of Assets is estimated. (3) Portion of all Sewer Manholes by decade - provided by City.

Estimated Remaining Useful Life and Depreciation of Sewer Mains and Manholes ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 46, Packet Page 215 Table N
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Estimated Replacement Cost of Sewer Fixed Assets

QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT

REPLACEMENT
COST - Sep.
2010
Replacement
Cost - Sep.
2010(1)
Replacement
Cost - Jan.
2024(1)
Install year:
assuming 50-
yr useful life
Remaining
Service Life
Remaining
Useful Life,
%age
Replacement Cost
New Less
Depreciation, RCNLD
ENR CCI= 9,888.54 15,525.00

SEWER MAINS
Sewer Mains 523,248 Feet $ 205.00 $107,265,840 $168,407,284 42% $70,606,438 SUB TOTAL $107,265,840 $168,407,284 $70,606,438

SEWER STRUCTURES
MANHOLES 1,971 $ 4,500.00 $8,869,500 $13,925,108 39% $5,465,481 CLEAN OUTS(CO)(2)
280 EA $ 1,650.00 $462,000 $725,340 0% $0
LAMP HOLES(2)
30 EA 1,650.00 $ $49,500 $77,715 0% $0
SUB TOTAL $9,381,000 $14,728,163 $5,465,481

SEWER LIFT STATIONS
Replacement
Cost - 2016(1)
7 ENR CCI= 11,576.33
Rehabilitation of 7 Lift Stations $1,641,072 $2,200,839 2016 2066 86% $1,892,722 SUB TOTAL $1,641,072 $2,200,839 $1,892,722

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 47, Packet Page 216 Table O
City of Monterey - Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study
Sewer Capacity Fee 2024
Buy-In Component Analysis
Fixed Assets RCNLD
Sewer Mains $70,606,438
Sewer Structures $5,465,481
Lift Station Assets $1,892,722
Total Fixed Assets $77,964,641
Current & Future EDUs (20-yr Build Out Total)(1)
19,413
Buy-In Component Calculation
Total Remaining Value of Fixed Assets / All EDUs $4,016 New Capacity Component Analysis (Alternate Option Only) New Capacity Component Calculation
Total Capital Expenditures for Growth(2) $11,851,868
New EDUs (20-yr Build Out Total Less Current Total) 832 New Capacity Component / EDU
Total Value of CIP Projects for Growth / New EDUs $14,239 Proposed Capacity Fee; Components Combined
Recommended Total Proposed Capacity Fee: $4,016
Alternate Total Proposed Capacity Fee: $18,255
Current Capacity Fee $3,339
(1) Current account data for Residential and Commercial Customers + projected EDUs for Industrial and OPA accounts gathered from water consumption data.
(2) Current dollar value of each year's capital expenses allocated to future users.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 48, Packet Page 217 $44.00 $44.00 $44.00 $44.00 $44.00 $46.06 $5.45 $10.77 $57.80 $14.11 $16.52 $17.98 $67.35 $67.35 $33.07 $83.83 $43.15 $46.06
$49.45
$54.77
$57.80 $58.11 $60.52 $61.98
$67.35 $67.35
$77.07
$83.83
$87.15
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
$65
$70
$75
$80
$85
$90
$95 Watsonville Salinas Monterey (Current) City of Santa Cruz Monterey (Proposed) Seaside / Del Rey Oaks / Sand CityMCWD - Marina Moss Landing CSD Boronda CSD Pacific Grove Carmel Area Wastewater District MCWD - Ord Monthly Bill Agency Charge
M1W Charge
Average
Figure 1 - Survey of Local Sewer Monthly User Charges
Single Family Residential
Average = $64.29
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 49, Packet Page 218 22-Mar-23 22-Mar-23 Options 1 & 2 $6,056 $6,056 $6,056 $6,056 $6,056 $6,056$8,243 $2,791 $3,339 $4,016 $4,806 $5,338 $5,930 $8,243 $8,847
$9,395
$10,072
$10,863
$11,394
$11,986
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000 Carmel Area Wastewater District MCWD - Central Marina Monterey (Current) Monterey (Proposed) Pacific Grove Seaside County Sanitation District MCWD - Ord Local Collection Component of Fee
M1W Treatment
Component of Fee
Average
Figure 2 - Survey of Local Sewer Capacity Fees
Single Family Residential
Average = $10,114
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 50, Packet Page 219 City of Monterey Proposed Sewer Rate Increase Proposition 218 Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Date of Mailing: On or Before April 19, 2024
1 APN#

PROPERTY OWNER

IN CARE OF DBA
STREET

CITY, STATE ZIP

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Wastewater Collection
System (Sewer) Rate Increase
Notice is hereby given that on June 4, 2024, at 04:00 PM (or as soon thereafter as practicable) at the City Council Chambers of the City of Monterey, City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider sewer rate increases for the next five years. The City charges these rates to fund its costs to provide sewer service, including operating costs and ongoing capital improvements. This notice describes the proposed rate increase and notifies you of the public hearing. You are receiving this notice because you are the owner of real property that received sewer service from the City and that is subject to the City’s sewer charge. If approved, rates would change effective July 1, 2024, and remain in effect until otherwise modified by the City Council. The City Council will hear and consider oral and written testimony regarding the proposed sewer rates at the public hearing.

WHY ARE RATE INCREASES NEEDED?
The City of Monterey’s sewer rates have not increased since 2015. The City is proposing to phase in a series of annual sewer rate increases over the next five years to allow the City to adequately fund increased operating costs and critical infrastructure improvements. The City operates and maintains a sewer collection system that includes seven pump stations and approximately 102 miles of sewer pipelines. Repairs for many pipelines have been deferred for years. Many of the sewer lines are at or near the end of their useful lives, leading to possible sewer backups, spills, and regulatory fines. The proposed rate increases will enable the City to implement a capital improvement program to rehabilitate the aging collection system and bring rates in line with the costs of providing service.

Additionally, the City’s operating and maintenance costs have risen significantly over the past 9 years since the last rate increase.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 51, Packet Page 220 City of Monterey Proposed Sewer Rate Increase Proposition 218 Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Date of Mailing: On or Before April 19, 2024
2 NOTIFICATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RATE INCREASES Written protests from property owners may be submitted in writing any time before the closing of the City Council public hearing on June 4, 2024. Protests may be mailed to: City Clerk ATTN: Wastewater Rate Protest, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940; hand-delivered to the drop box outside the Council Chamber at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940; or brought in-person to the meeting prior to the conclusion of the public hearing on June 4, 2024. Any owner of a parcel upon which the sewer rate increases are proposed may submit a written protest to the proposed rate increases; however, only one protest will be counted per identified parcel. Any written protest must:

1. State that the property owner is opposed to the proposed sewer rate increase;

2. Provide the location of the identified parcel (by street address, assessor’s parcel number, or customer account number);

3. Include the full name and signature of the property owner submitting the protest; and

4. Be received by the City before the end of the public hearing on June 4, 2024.

Oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as formal protests unless accompanied by a written protest. If written protests are received from property owners with respect to a majority of the affected parcels (50% +1), then the City Council cannot approve the proposed rate increase.

For additional information regarding the increase, please contact:

City of Monterey Public Works Department, Engineering Division 580 Pacific Street, Room 7, Monterey, CA 93940,
[email protected]
(831) 646-3921

PROPOSED RATES
Utility fee calculations are based on the actual cost of providing service including operation and maintenance expenses (including labor, utilities, supplies and materials), capital expenditures for infrastructure (including pump stations, structures, and pipelines), debt service payments, and adequate reserves for meeting capital and operational needs. The cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) was calculated by taking the total annual revenue needs and dividing that amount by the total number of EDUs, which includes not only residential users, but also all the other ratepayer categories whose usage has been converted to the EDU basis. For a detailed rate calculation, please refer to the Wastewater Rate Study, which is on file in the Engineering Division office in Room 7, City Hall.

Single-Family Residential Sewer Charge
The proposed single-family dwelling (SFD) sewer charges will be based on the estimated sewage generated by an EDU which is 189 gallons per day (gpd). The following table outlines the proposed monthly single-family residential sewer charge:

PROPOSED MONTHLY SFD SEWER CHARGE
Current 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29
Residential $10.77 $14.11 $16.93 $19.47 $21.42 $22.92
Monthly Increase $3.34 $2.82 $2.54 $1.95 $1.50
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 52, Packet Page 221 City of Monterey Proposed Sewer Rate Increase Proposition 218 Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Date of Mailing: On or Before April 19, 2024
3 Multi-Residential and Condominium Sewer Charge
The proposed multi-family dwelling (MFD) sewer charges, including condominium units, are based on sewerage generated, which has been calculated to be 73.22% of 189 gpd. The following table outlines the proposed monthly multi-residential and condominium sewer charge, per unit:

PROPOSED MONTHLY MFD SEWER CHARGE
Current 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29
Residential $7.88 $10.32 $12.38 $14.24 $15.66 $16.76
Monthly Increase $2.44 $2.06 $1.86 $1.42 $1.10
Non-Residential Sewer Charge
The proposed non-residential sewer charges will vary based on sewage generated by customer type.

Non-residential sewer charges will be converted to an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) cost using sewage flow estimates. One residential EDU is equivalent to 189 gallons per day (gpd) of flow. The monthly non-residential sewer charges will be calculated based on the following formula:
- Daily flow / 189 gpd = Total Number of EDUs (to 2 decimal places) - Total Number of EDUs x Monthly EDU Rate = Monthly Non-Residential Sewer charge The proposed non-residential sewer charges listed below are per one unit of sewer charge. For special user or categories not listed, call the City for an individual determination. (See next page for Non-Residential Proposed Monthly Sewer Charge.) Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 53, Packet Page 222 City of Monterey Proposed Sewer Rate Increase Proposition 218 Notice ATTACHMENT 2 Date of Mailing: On or Before April 19, 2024
4 DESCRIPTION UNITS Current 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 Business/Government (1-10 employees) Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Business/Government (11-20 employees) Location/Each Business $16.59 $21.73 $26.08 $29.99 $32.99 $35.30 Business/Government (21-30 employees) Location/Each Business $24.99 $32.74 $39.29 $45.18 $49.70 $53.18 Business/Government (31-40 employees) Location/Each Business $33.28 $43.60 $52.32 $60.17 $66.19 $70.82 Business/Government (41-50 employees) Location/Each Business $41.57 $54.46 $65.35 $75.15 $82.67 $88.46 Business/Government (51-60 employees) Location/Each Business $49.87 $65.33 $78.40 $90.16 $99.18 $106.12 Business/Government (61-70 employees) Location/Each Business $58.27 $76.33 $91.60 $105.34 $115.87 $123.98 Business/Government (71-80 employees) Location/Each Business $66.56 $87.19 $104.63 $120.32 $132.35 $141.61 Business/Government (81-90 employees) Location/Each Business $74.85 $98.05 $117.66 $135.31 $148.84 $159.26 Business/Government (91-100 employees) Location/Each Business $83.14 $108.91 $130.69 $150.29 $165.32 $176.89 Business/Government (101-110 employees) Location/Each Business $91.55 $119.93 $143.92 $165.51 $182.06 $194.80 Business/Government (111-120 employees) Location/Each Business $99.84 $130.79 $156.95 $180.49 $198.54 $212.44 Business/Government (141-150 employees) Location/Each Business $124.82 $163.51 $196.21 $225.64 $248.20 $265.57 Business/Government (171-180 employees) Location/Each Business $149.70 $196.11 $235.33 $270.63 $297.69 $318.53 Business/Government (181-190 employees) Location/Each Business $158.10 $207.11 $248.53 $285.81 $314.39 $336.40 Business/Government (210-220 employees) Location/Each Business $182.98 $239.70 $287.64 $330.79 $363.87 $389.34 Business/Government (271-280 employees) Location/Each Business $232.52 $304.60 $365.52 $420.35 $462.39 $494.76 Business/Government (721-730 employees) Location/Each Business $607.32 $795.59 $954.71 $1,097.92 $1,207.71 $1,292.25 Hotel/Motel Each Room $4.63 $6.07 $7.28 $8.37 $9.21 $9.85 Supermarket Each Location $45.45 $59.54 $71.45 $82.17 $90.39 $96.72 Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $11.09 $14.53 $17.44 $20.06 $22.07 $23.61 Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $15.29 $20.03 $24.04 $27.65 $30.42 $32.55 Rest Home/Convalescent Each Bed of Licensed Capacity $3.12 $4.09 $4.91 $5.65 $6.22 $6.66 Animal Hospital Location/Each Licensed Business $20.79 $27.23 $32.68 $37.58 $41.34 $44.23 Restaurant - 1 Meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.43 $0.56 $0.67 $0.77 $0.85 $0.91 Restaurant - 2 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.65 $0.85 $1.02 $1.17 $1.29 $1.38 Restaurant - 3 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $1.18 $1.55 $1.86 $2.14 $2.35 $2.51 Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $1.18 $1.55 $1.86 $2.14 $2.35 $2.51 Bar Location/Each Business $18.09 $23.70 $28.44 $32.71 $35.98 $38.50 Night Club Location/Each Business $54.17 $70.96 $85.15 $97.92 $107.71 $115.25 Take-Out Small Location/Each Business $20.14 $26.38 $31.66 $36.41 $40.05 $42.85 Take-Out Medium Location/Each Business $49.65 $65.04 $78.05 $89.76 $98.74 $105.65 Take-Out Large Location/Each Business $90.47 $118.52 $142.22 $163.55 $179.91 $192.50 Bakery Location/Each Business $16.37 $21.44 $25.73 $29.59 $32.55 $34.83 Theatre Per screen @ each Location $26.82 $35.13 $42.16 $48.48 $53.33 $57.06 Gym - 500 Members Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Mortuary Location/Each Business $22.08 $28.92 $34.70 $39.91 $43.90 $46.97 School - Minimum Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 School - Pre-Grade 6 School Population $0.11 $0.14 $0.17 $0.20 $0.22 $0.24 School - Grade 7 - College School Population $0.22 $0.29 $0.35 $0.40 $0.44 $0.47 School - Boarding School Population $2.26 $2.96 $3.55 $4.08 $4.49 $4.80 Instructional Facility School Population $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Church - 1-100 Members Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Church - Over 100 Members Location/Each Business $16.59 $21.73 $26.08 $29.99 $32.99 $35.30 Photo Developer Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Laboratory - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Laboratory - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 $21.73 $26.08 $29.99 $32.99 $35.30 Printer - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Printer - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 $21.73 $26.08 $29.99 $32.99 $35.30 Garage/Repair Location/Each Business $7.97 $10.44 $12.53 $14.41 $15.85 $16.96 Paint Shop - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $8.29 $10.86 $13.03 $14.98 $16.48 $17.63 Paint Shop - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $16.59 $21.73 $26.08 $29.99 $32.99 $35.30 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $27.57 $36.12 $43.34 $49.84 $54.82 $58.66 Laundromat Each Washing Machine $7.22 $9.46 $11.35 $13.05 $14.36 $15.37

PROPOSED MONTHLY SEWER CHARGES
Council Regular Meeting, 4/2/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 54, Packet Page 223

Monterey City CouncilApril 2, 2024

Monterey City Council
April 2, 2024