Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.
Monterey, California
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Afternoon Only
AMENDED
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.gov/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. 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 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 11/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
2 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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognize November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month (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
2. October 15, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
3. October 23, 2024 Special Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
4. October 30, 2024 Special Meeting (Field Trip) (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Award of Construction Contracts
5. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $497,702.00 to NX Plumbing & Underground Division for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (CIP) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
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.
6. Authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Assistance Grant Funds in the Amount of $1.64 Million, and Authorize a Contract with the California Coastal Commission (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
7. Authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Funds in the Amount of $2,305,450 and REAP Local Suballocation Grant Funds in the Amount of $169,380; Authorize Contract with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
11/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
3 8. Authorize a New Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with the County of Monterey for the Monterey Fire Department to Provide Paramedic Services in the City of Pacific Grove, Amending the City’s Current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement to Acknowledge the Pacific Grove Agreement, and Amending the Fire Services Agreement with Pacific Grove to include Paramedic Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
9. Accept the 2024 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) Grant in the Amount of $250,000 to Hire Additional Police Officers (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
10. Authorize an Agreement with Infor Public Sector, Inc. and Appropriate $499,668.81 for the Purchase of Infor Public Sector Suite (Hansen) Multi-Year Support Agreement (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
11. Authorize the Purchase of 165 Lenovo Laptops and Extended Service Warranty in the Amount of $192,804.56 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
12. Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, LLC for a Not to Exceed Amount of $50,000 annually to Provide Loan Administration Services for Affordable Housing Programs (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
13. Authorize an Agreement with the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways to Accept Grant Funds for the Surrendered & Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24) and Authorize an Increase of FY25 Revenue and Appropriation of $42,000 in Grant Reimbursement Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
14. Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $210,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Ending Balance Account to the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ***NCIP***
15. Accept Army Project Awards, Authorize Budget Appropriations in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund in the Amount of $1,871,140.75, and Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate Project Budgets, Not Exceeding $350,000 per Project, for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects Through June 30, 2025 ***IGSA***(NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub.
Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1)))
16. Receive Mayor’s and Vice Mayor’s Recommendations and Appoint Recommended Applicants to the Appeals Hearing Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) *** End of Consent Agenda ***
11/5/2024 4:00:00 PM
4 PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.
17. Consider Employee Richard Castellon's Request for Military Leave Additional Supplemental Salary Beyond 330 Days (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
18. Receive Presentation by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) on the 2024-2025 Water Allocation Process and Authorize a Letter Supporting the Proposed MPWMD Water Allocation for the City of Monterey (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, 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.gov/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.gov 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 https://www.monterey.gov/agendas More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council recognize November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates Native American Heritage Month in honor of the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of the Native American community in Monterey and across the United States. The City proudly supports the continued advancement of equality for Native American individuals and their families.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no costs incurred in connection with supporting this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 1.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council could choose to not recognize November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month; however, that is not recommended.
DISCUSSION:
The month of November is designated as a time to learn about the original inhabitants of the land that is now the City of Monterey. From the rich traditions to the languages spoken to the history of persecution and forced removal, the entire story of the indigenous peoples of Monterey and the larger United States should be learned and reckoned with. November was designated as Native American Heritage Month beginning in 1990 by President George H.W.
Bush, 75 years after the first day of recognition was approved by the Congress of the American Indian Association in 1915.
The lands of Monterey were once known by the villages of Achasta, with nearby villages including Ixchenta, Tucutnut, and Soccoronda. The Esselen and Rumsen lived in these lands for thousands of years and continue to live with us and contribute to our communities. These nations were given the name Costeños - or coastal people- by the Spanish colonizers, which was later translated in English as Costanoan. The term Ohlone covers the tribes north to the San Francisco Bay Area, all with their own unique language and traditions. The members of these nations work to honor their past and continue to share their culture with the Monterey community through events in connection with the season, through language, artwork, and stories that keep time-honored traditions and practices alive, and through the constant reminder that they are active members of the Monterey community. The Rumsen and Esselen nations continue to seek federal recognition to this day. We honor their contributions to the land and pay respects to their elders, past, present, and future.
HU/hg
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation declaring
November 2024
Native American Heritage Month
WHEREAS, the initial efforts to have a day of recognition for Native Americans were first approved in 1915 by the annual Congress of the American Indian Association as directed by its president, Reverend Sherman Coolidge, an Arapaho minister; and,
WHEREAS, in 1976, member of the Cherokee Nation J.C. Elliot-High Eagle authored the first legislation to proclaim a “Native American Awareness Week” and the resolution was later signed by President Gerald Ford. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush designated November as “National American Indian Heritage Month” after approving a joint resolution; and, WHEREAS, the month of November is designated as a time to learn about the original inhabitants of the land that is now the United States of America. From the rich traditions to the languages spoken to the history of persecution and forced removal, the entire story of the indigenous peoples of America should be learned and reckoned with; and,
WHEREAS, the culture and history of the native people of all 50 states weave an undeniable thread in the tapestry that is the United States, and their stories continue to be an important part of the continued story of this country; and
WHEREAS, the Esselen and Rumsen-Ohlone-Costanoan nations live and have lived in Monterey for generations. The members of these nations work to honor their past and continue to share their culture with the Monterey community through events in connection with the seasons, through artwork that keeps time-honored traditions and practices alive, through storytelling to keep language and families intact, and through the constant reminder that they are active members of the Monterey community; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month.
Dated: November 2024 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, October 15, 2024
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber (arrived at 4:48 p.m.)*, Haffa, Smith, Williamson
Absent: Garcia
* 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, Finance Director, Community Development Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Assistant Police Chief, Planning Manager, Engineering Assistant, General Services Superintendent
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. and explained that Councilmember Barber would be joining the meeting remotely later in the meeting. City Clerk Klein called the roll with Councilmembers Barber and Garcia absent.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards for Fourth Quarter FY24 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized award recipients
Mayor Williamson presented proclamations to Lance Corporal Keegan Ogorman (U.S. Marine Corps) and Sergeant Trenton Platt (U.S. Marine Corps), who each made brief remarks.
Technical Sergeant Stephanie Battle (U.S. Air Force) was not present but was also honored.
Public comment was received from Steve Lightfoot, who said that foreign entities may be observing meetings like this to glean information about future intelligence agents, and Bryan Rosen, who said that people working for peace should be awarded instead of the military.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Steve Lightfoot and Bryan Rosen.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 2.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
2 On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT AGENDA:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Smith, Williamson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Approval of Minutes
2. October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (3-0-2, Councilmember Barber and Councilmember Garcia absent) Resolutions
3. Awarding Three Professional Services Agreements in the Amount of $500,000 Each for On-Call Material Testing Professional Services for Projects Within the City of Monterey to: (1) Moore Twining Associates, Inc.; (2) Twining, Inc.; and (3) Construction Testing Services, Inc. ***CIP/NCIP *** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 24-159, 24-160, and 24-161 C.S. (3-0-2, Councilmember Barber and Councilmember Garcia absent)
4. Approve the Purchase of Four Ford Maverick Hybrid Trucks in the Amount of $154,790.68 from Downtown Ford of Sacramento (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-162 C.S. (3-0-2, Councilmember Barber and Councilmember Garcia absent)
5. Approve the Purchase of Three Ford Police Interceptors in the Amount of $175,584.15 from Folsom Lake Ford, Inc. (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-163 C.S. (3-0-2, Councilmember Barber and Councilmember Garcia absent)
Other
6. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 601 Wave Street, Suite 400; Agency Negotiators:
Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Mark Hastings (Monterey General Store/American Country Classics); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed real property negotiators Cole and Aldrete (3-0-2, Councilmember Barber and Councilmember Garcia absent)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
3 PUBLIC APPEARANCE
7. Adopt a Resolution Approving Affordable Housing and Property Disposition Agreement and a Ground Lease between MP Madison Street Associates, L.P. and the City of Monterey for the Properties Located at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street, Adjacent Parking Lot and Area Behind the Parks and Recreation Administration Building Located at 546 Dutra Street and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute All Related Documents (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-164 C.S. (3-0-1-1, with Councilmember Barber abstaining, and Councilmember Garcia absent)
Planning Manager Hill, project architects Justin Pauly of Justin Pauly Architects and Paul Davis of Paul Davis Partnership, and Community Development Director Cole jointly gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Stephanie Downs of Redwood Public Law.
At 4:48 p.m., Councilmember Barber arrived in the teleconference portion of the meeting and Mayor Williamson noted she would abstain from voting on the matter due to missing the majority of the presentation.
Public comment was received from: Kevin Dayton, of Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who expressed enthusiasm for the project; Vanessa Diffenbaugh, of MidPen Housing, who introduced and complimented her teammates and provided an update on the project status including grants and tax credits; Esther Malkin, who described the project as thoughtful and top-notch and urged that people who live and work in Monterey already be given priority for the affordable housing; and Nina Beety, who expressed concern about the proposed density and presumed parking issues.
The Council discussed the matter. Councilmember Barber participated in the discussion although she would abstain from voting. Enthusiastic support was expressed for the project, citing success with the City’s prior housing project completed with MidPen Housing, and what was described as a wonderful location for the project, so near to downtown, schools, and transit. Satisfaction with the proposed design was expressed. It was suggested that the designers improve the view from Pacific Street and Colton Hall lawn to make the new structure blend in as much as possible. It was suggested that the City’s process include being proactive regarding maintenance of the facility. The potential use of the facility by the City, after the termination of the 99 year lease, was discussed. It was expressed that the project was greatly needed and congratulations were given to the City staff, developers, designers, and everyone who had been part of the project. It was stressed that the public had supported the matter broadly and with enthusiasm. It was noted with appreciation that the project team was working hard to get from the Housing Authority of Monterey County the housing vouchers that would be needed because they were a key financing mechanism for the project.
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-164 C.S.:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Smith, Williamson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
4 TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
Councilmember Barber confirmed that she could hear the meeting proceedings, gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to her need to appear remotely pursuant to the “Just Cause” clause (official city travel), and stated that no person over the age of 18 was present in the room with her during the meeting.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session ***
Public comment was not received on closed session Item 8. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:31 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
8. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 601 Wave Street, Suite 400
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Mark Hastings (Monterey General Store/American Country Classics) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a roll call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent, the Council gave confidential direction to its property negotiators
RECESS
The Council recessed at 5:46 p.m.
RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:03 p.m.
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Haffa led the Pledge.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Lorna Moffat and Nina Beety.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira announced that in the matter of Item 8 (listed above), on a roll call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent, the Council gave confidential direction to its property negotiators.
PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)
9. Appeal of Jerod Balthrop of Dismissal from the Position of Electrician with the Public Works Department (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Heard appeal
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
5 Thais Alves, of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. introduced herself as outside legal counsel advising the City Council in the matter of Jerod Balthrop’s termination appeal. She explained that she had been screened off from, and had not communicated with, the Public Works Department or any attorney representing the Public Works Department regarding the matter, and would be solely advising the City Council on the matter. She explained that there had been a stipulation between the parties that the City Council appeal would be based on the administrative record before the arbitrator Andrea Dooley, and that there would be 30 minutes allocated to each side for argument before the City Council, but no additional evidence would be introduced. She said that the attorneys for the Public Works Department and the appellant could choose to allocate a portion of their 30 minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor Williamson asked each of the attorneys to identify how much time they would like for the rebuttals. Garrett Porter, Esq., of Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., representing Jerod Balthrop, requested that five of his 30 minutes be reserved for rebuttal. Arcelia Hurtado, Esq., of Sloan, Sakai, Young and Wong, LLP, representing the Public Works Department Director, requested that 10 of her 30 minutes be reserved for rebuttal.
Mayor Williamson asked Ms. Hurtado to begin her oral argument.
Ms. Hurtado began to began to address the Council, with 20 minutes on the clock for her oral argument on behalf of her client, the Public Works Department. She introduced herself and stated that because the Council had been provided the entire administrative record and had reviewed it, she would not explain every fact in detail. She said that she wished to use her time to highlight some of the procedural history and facts at issue, and to reserve time at the end for any questions. She said that she had represented the City at the arbitration hearing on April 24, 2024, as well as the appeal before the City Manager on August 6, 2024, and that the union had opted for the non-binding advisory arbitration procedure outlined in the labor group's memorandum of understanding ("MOU"). She said that after the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator had found that the City had had just cause to discipline Mr. Balthrop for discourteous treatment of the public or other employees during the course of employment, in violation of City policy, but that she had also found that his conduct, while undeniably rude and inappropriate, did not rise to the level of "severe and egregious," so as to violate City policy, therefore finding that the City had not had just cause to terminate him for this single incident. She said that the arbitrator had also found that Mr. Balthrop had not been dishonest during the investigation, but rather that he had failed to recall details of the incident and that therefore, the City had not had just cause to terminate him for dishonesty. She said that the arbitrator had not issued a ruling on the other bases for termination, which were “willful disobedience and insubordination,” “failure to perform work in a satisfactory manner,” or “inefficiency or inexcusable neglect of duty, i.e. failure to perform duties required by the employee's position.” She said that finally, the arbitrator had found that the appropriate level of discipline would have been a three-day suspension.
Ms. Hurtado went on, stating that per the dispute resolution procedures outlined in the MOU, the City Manager had heard the appeal and upheld the termination. She went through the findings of the City Manager during that appeal. She said that City Manager Uslar had found that Mr. Balthrop had made a lewd comment and gesture that two witnesses who were present had viewed as offensive, sexually harassing, and unprofessional. She said that City Manager Uslar had also found that Mr. Balthrop had indeed been dishonest during the investigative interview, and that Mr. Balthrop had not just had a failure of recollection, and that this violated multiple City policies including Monterey City Code section 25-14.02, subsection (b) (willful disobedience and insubordination), subsection (d) (failure to perform work in a satisfactory manner, subsection (e) (inefficiency or inexcusable neglect of duty and failure to the public or Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
6 other employees within the scope of employment), subsection (w) (willful violation of rules, regulations, or policies which may be prescribed by the department or City, including violation of City Code section 25-3.03, and subsection (h) (dishonesty involving employment). She stated that, finally, City Manager Uslar had found that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority in suggesting the appropriate level of discipline, given that the MOU did not authorize the arbitrator to replace the City’s judgment for her own in regard to the level of discipline, but rather her role had been limited to making findings of fact. She said that City Manager Uslar had further found that a three-day suspension was not appropriate in light of the serious and egregious nature of the conduct at issue, therefore termination was the appropriate level of discipline and was reasonably related to the nature of the conduct. She said that City Manager Uslar had found that Mr. Balthrop’s long-standing tenure as a City employee did not mitigate his conduct, especially in light of the severity and egregiousness of his actions, the numerous sexual harassment courses that he had taken as part of his employment which ultimately failed to prevent his highly problematic behavior, and then his failure to take responsibility for his actions and his continued dishonesty during and after the investigation.
Ms. Hurtado continued, stating that Mr. Balthrop had appealed the City Manager's determination to the City Council, which was the reason for the hearing at this meeting. She urged the Mayor and Councilmembers to exercise their common sense and the discretion granted to the Council under the MOU, and to uphold the Public Works Director's determination and the City Manager's determination that there had been just cause to terminate Mr. Balthrop for his abusive conduct toward the public while on duty and in uniform at the Presidio of Monterey in December of 2022, because that conduct was severe and egregious and because his conduct violated multiple City of Monterey policies. She reminded the Council that the preponderance of the evidence was the standard of proof that the Council must find, which she said meant “more likely than not.” She offered to use the remainder of her 20 minutes (14 minutes and 10 seconds remaining) to answer any questions for the Council.
Mayor Williamson asked Mr. Porter to begin his oral argument.
Mr. Porter began to address the Council, with 25 minutes on the clock for his oral argument on behalf of his client Jerod Balthrop. He introduced himself and stated that he would explain their position, the union's position, and Mr. Balthrop’s position, and would call Mr. Balthrop to explain a bit on his own behalf to the Council his position, his understanding, his commitment to the City, and his reflection on the incident in question from December 2022. He said that the purpose of the appeal was for the City Council to have a fair and full scope in considering the entire procedural history and all the different factors of this specific matter. He said that unfortunately, it was the union's position that the City Manager's decision had been solely based on, or primarily based on, the Skelly decision rather than the evidentiary hearing held by the arbitrator who was selected by both parties. He said that the City and the union had both been able to review all of the credentials, evaluations, and decisions made by arbitrator Dooley so that a fair and equitable evidentiary hearing could be held. He said that during an evidentiary hearing is when the witness' credibility is evaluated, not after the fact when the City Manager reviews a transcript to determine whether the accused is credible or honest when saying he couldn't remember something. He said that the City Manager's decision and recommendation were unfortunately consistent with "his anti-employee" [sic] and an alleged continued pattern of pushing out long-term employees who were nearing retirement, which he said related to Mr.
Balthrop in this case. He said that it was the union's position and understanding that since Mr.
Uslar’s starting with the City, more than 150 positions or employees from the General Employees of Monterey ("GEM") union had been eliminated. He said that with these different considerations in mind, he wanted to give Mr. Balthrop the opportunity to express himself and for the Mayor and Councilmembers to each evaluate Mr. Balthrop’s credibility, not relying on a transcript or on the opinion of someone else who made judgments on Mr. Balthrop’s credibility Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
7 and sincerity without even speaking to Mr. Balthrop. He asked the Council to evaluate whether or not Mr. Balthrop was an actual risk of making a rude comment or offending somebody again.
He invited Mr. Balthrop to the podium to articulate and talk about his employment history and his reflections on the specific incident.
Mr. Balthrop addressed the Council, introducing himself as an electrician for the City of Monterey for 23 and a half years. He said that during that time he had received about eight awards for work excellence from colonels of the Army base. He said he had received an award for employee of the year in 2005 and awards for quality work control for two years in 2005 and 2011. He said that he had received an award from the Colonel of the Army base for saving a 65-year-old lady from a burning car and that he had pulled her out and another employee had put the fire out. He said he had tried to be an exceptional employee for the City of Monterey through his time and planned on working his whole career for the City. He said that all of his evaluations had been A+, and that he had never received a bad evaluation in all of his years at the City. He said that on the date of the incident in question, he had made the remark which he said he felt bad about and said he should not have done. He said that he had been truthful when asked, that he had told Mr. Rose that he did say it after he had remembered what he had said. He said that he had been called in seven months after the event so it had taken him a minute to recall exactly what had happened. He said that he had been angry at the time. He said that he had not done the gesture, and that he had said he did not do it and nobody in the City believed him. He said that he had gone so far as to talk to his doctor and get a letter stating that he was not able to do that gesture, and asserted that due to his arm length and stomach, having been 20 pounds heavier at the time, he physically could not have done the gesture standing up. He said that his letter regarding this had been disregarded. He said that he had been as honest as he could throughout the whole process and that he felt that what he had done was wrong and he was very sorry, and stated that if he could apologize to the lady and gentleman who were there he would. He asserted that it was just an isolated small incident, and reiterated that he felt bad about it and hoped the City Council would overlook it. He said that the incident had been out of character for him as a good employee, that he was not like that, and that a lot of people he had worked with through the City knew how he was and that he had a good work ethic. He reiterated that he had been out of character in the incident and was sorry.
Mr. Porter returned to the podium and continued his oral argument, and said he would touch on what Mr. Balthrop had discussed and also would briefly go through the procedural history. He said that he knew the Council had the expansive administrative record. He explained that the incident in question had occurred in December of 2022. He explained that Mr. Balthrop had gone into the Subway restaurant through the employee entrance door, and when addressed or confronted about entering through the door, had made a comment stating that “[the supervisor who was prohibiting him from doing that] can suck it." Mr. Porter stated that this had been an offhand, rude, and embarrassing comment, as he said Mr. Balthrop had articulated. He stated that Mr. Balthrop understood that the people who heard it were embarrassed and offended. He said that Mr. Balthrop took accountability for that. Mr. Porter asserted, however, that when reviewing Mr. Balthrop’s entire 23-and-a-half-year history with the City, there had been no other comments, incidents, discipline, or investigations. He said that, as Mr. Balthrop stated, this had been an isolated incident. He said that there was no evidence or rationale showing that Mr.
Balthrop was beyond hope, or that he was a problem or would have an issue with reoccurrence.
He said that they were not minimizing the impact that the comment might have had on the people who witnessed it, and were not saying that the witnesses should not have been offended, or that it was not a big deal, but that he did think it was important to take into consideration that the behavior “surmounted” [sic] to discourteous treatment, not abuse, bullying, a pattern of behavior, or some kind of inequivocal horrific action or horrific comment.
He said that it had been an offhanded comment that one might hear at a middle school playground.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
8 Mr. Porter continued, stating that after the incident in December of 2022, the investigation had occurred months later and Mr. Balthrop had been interviewed. He said that during the interview, there had been some question about whether there was some kind of gesture or movement in conjunction with the comment that Mr. Balthrop had made. He said that Mr. Balthrop had not been able to recall making that gesture. He said that Mr. Rose, the investigator, unfortunately had misquoted witnesses Ms. Fraide and Mr. Sanchez. He said that Mr. Sanchez, who he said had been standing by the door behind Mr. Balthrop and had not been able to see Mr. Balthrop’s front, only his back, was the one who had articulated that Mr. Balthrop had made this gesture, which was motioning toward his lower pelvic area. He asserted that Ms. Fraide had said that Mr. Balthrop had made some kind of movement with his hand toward his knee. He said that Mr.
Rose and City Manager Uslar had said that these were consistent statements, that Mr.
Balthrop’s saying he did not remember making a gesture must be a lie and that he was somehow falsifying or trying to minimize his actions. He said that this was not a reasonable conclusion to make. He said that Mr. Balthrop was an individual who admitted he could have done a gesture, that he commonly brushed against his knee or slapped his leg, “for whatever reason." But he said that this was a discrepancy that had been established and clarified at the evidentiary hearing with the arbitrator, which he said had been ignored by City Manager Uslar at the City Manager appeal step.
Mr. Porter went on, stating that after the investigation, which he believed was in March of 2023, there had been a Skelly hearing with the Public Works Director in November of 2023. He said that this was in the administrative record. He said that after this, another appeal step was the non-binding arbitration, and that while the opposing counsel for Public Works was correct and the union agreed that the arbitration was non-binding, it had been a full evidentiary hearing where credibility was assessed and the City and union had had an opportunity to cross examine and vigorously present evidence, rebut evidence, refute and admonish in all sorts of different ways. He said that this had been the City’s opportunity to determine whether Mr. Balthrop was credible or dishonest. He said that after opposing counsel had cross-examined Mr. Balthrop, a neutral third-party arbitrator, whom he reiterated had been mutually selected by both sides based on her credentials, had determined that Mr. Balthrop had not been dishonest. He said that as Mr. Balthrop had stated to the Council at this meeting, this was an investigation about an incident about which Mr. Balthrop had not thought much at the time. He said that Mr. Balthrop had not thought it was offensive at the time. He said that after Mr. Balthrop had remembered it, reflected on it, and gone through the whole process, he had realized it had been wrong and offensive and had taken accountability. He said that it would not happen again. He said that next, the appeal to the City Manager had taken place on August 6th, at which he stated that it was the union's position that City Manager Uslar had ignored the evidentiary record and instead relied on the investigation report of Mr. Rose. He said that Mr. Rose had been cross-examined at the arbitration and had admitted that there were inconsistencies between the two witnesses, upon whom he had relied and whom he had described as consistent in his report, and that it was contrary to Mr. Balthrop’s recollection of the gesture.
Mr. Porter continued, stating that among the main considerations that he wished to present to the City Council, he wanted to bring to their attention the concept of progressive discipline. He said he understood that the Mayor and Councilmembers had experience and understood the whole appeal process and discipline. He said that the opposing counsel and the City had been arguing that training replaced or supplanted progressive discipline, and that because Mr.
Balthrop had participated in the anti-harassment anti-bullying training that was mandatory for every employee, he was somehow not entitled to progressive discipline. He said that he was not trying to disvalue the efforts of training, which he acknowledged was important and equipped employees appropriately, but he asserted that training did not replace progressive discipline. He said that as Mr. Balthrop had stated and as was reflected in the administrative Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
9 record, Mr. Balthrop had never received prior discipline, a write-up, or a negative evaluation.
And he reiterated his assertion that the City was leaning on trainings Mr. Balthrop had received, saying that they were equivalent to discipline. He said that because Mr. Balthrop had participated in the training, it had been "strike one, strike two, strike three" when Mr. Balthrop had made some comment that was offensive—that it had been the City’s perspective that Mr.
Balthrop should have known better, and that the incident had been made to be his last chance.
He said that these were not two of the same things. He said that Mr. Balthrop could take accountability for what he did, and could improve, which he said was demonstrated by his nearly quarter-century with the City in which he stated Mr. Balthrop had never had any issues like this. He said that Mr. Balthrop, the union, and he as Mr. Balthrop’s attorney, all were confident that moving forward Mr. Balthrop would not have any issues.
Mr. Porter went on, stating that the arbitrator had recommended a three-day suspension, which he said the union did not dispute. He said that they felt it was a fair and appropriate level of discipline to address the issue. He said that a three-day suspension was more than appropriate for an employee with no discipline in his entire past who had made a comment, no matter how Mr. Balthrop might have felt about the comment as he made it, which he said could be seen as offensive or could be embarrassing or offensive to individuals who heard it. He said that in addition to Mr. Balthrop’s remorse and recognition of the incident in question, he wanted to highlight what he said was Mr. Balthrop’s exemplary employee record. He asserted that Mr.
Balthrop’s commitment to the City was nearly unparalleled. He said that Mr. Balthrop had worked through storms, changing stoplights that were blowing around in the wind. He said that Mr. Balthrop had worked on numerous projects and had put his whole heart and career into the City, and now based on one incident, all of this history was being discredited and disregarded.
He described this as an opportunity for the Mayor and Councilmembers to recognize an employee's commitment to the City and to see it as an opportunity for change, and as an opportunity for Mr. Balthrop to reaffirm his commitment and to continue pouring his life into the City the way he said Mr. Balthrop had done for most of his life. He said that with all of these things taken into consideration, he asked that the City Council reduce the discipline from termination to the three-day suspension that he said the arbitrator had recommended. He said that the arbitrator, while her decision had been non-binding, was a neutral party who was more experienced than anyone present in evaluating the evidence and what was appropriate as far as discipline. He said that he did not ask the City to disregard its own discretion, and stated that it was important for each member of the Council to evaluate the evidence presented in the evidentiary record and the administrative packet. He said that Mr. Balthrop admitted and took accountability for his discourteous behavior, but that there was just not evidence that he had been dishonest or had violated the abuse and bullying policy. He asked that Mr. Balthrop be reinstated with back pay, and that the Council make things right and to consider all of the evidence as he said should have been done at each step of the process. He offered to use the remainder of his 25 minutes (8 minutes remaining) to answer any questions for the Council.
Ms. Alves asked Mr. Porter, non-timed, whether his comments regarding City Manager Uslar’s relationship with the union were in the evidentiary record. Mr. Porter admitted that his assertions were not in the evidentiary record, and on request from Ms. Alves, he agreed to strike the comments from the Council’s consideration.
Mayor Williamson asked Ms. Hurtado to make her rebuttal.
Ms. Hurtado began her rebuttal by reminding the Council that while the Public Works Department had not objected to Mr. Balthrop providing public comment or testifying during the argument, those remarks were not part of the record. She stated that additional public comment would be received from City Manager Uslar regarding some of Mr. Porter’s arguments. She said that the fact was that City Manager Uslar had considered all of the record, and all of the Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
10 evidence. She said that while Mr. Porter had argued that City Manager Uslar had not had the benefit of hearing directly from Mr. Balthrop as the arbitrator had, Mr. Porter could have brought Mr. Balthrop to provide comment but had chosen not to do that. She said that the City Manager's decision had not been based on the Skelly hearing, but was based on the record, which he had fully considered. She said that City Manager Uslar had also used his common sense and reviewed the recordings of Mr. Balthrop’s investigative interview, where she said it was very clear that Mr. Balthrop had known that he was there to talk with Mr. Rose about the incident at Subway, because Mr. Rose had said so about five minutes into the recorded interview. She said that it was also very clear from the recording that Mr. Balthrop had gone onto the offensive because he had known that he was in trouble and needed to explain and to come up with some explanation for why two independent unbiased witnesses would say that he had made this lewd gesture toward his groin while he said, "tell Aysel she can suck it." She reiterated that this was what Mr. Balthrop had done, and that this was the conduct at issue, which she asserted was egregious and severe.
Ms. Hurtado continued, stating that it did not have to be a pattern of conduct, as she said Mr.
Porter had alleged, but that under the City Code, one single incident was sufficient to impose up to termination, and that this was what the City Manager had found. She said that the arbitrator's logic had been flawed in not finding the behavior severe and egregious, and she said that two people had witnessed it: Leslie Fraide, at the time 19 years old, who she said had been very offended by it and felt it inappropriate and unprofessional, and Lieutenant Jesus Sanchez, who she said also had felt the same way. She said that these two people did not believe the behavior was appropriate in the workplace and had felt it was severe and egregious. She asked what motive these two witnesses would have to lie. She reminded the Council that Mr. Balthrop had had the opportunity to correct anything that he felt he had not remembered at the time of his investigative interview, but had never done so, had never contacted Mr. Rose to add or correct anything he had said. She said that instead, Mr. Balthrop had come before the Council at this meeting and continued to deny and come up with excuses why it was not possible that he had made the gesture toward his crotch. She said that using common sense, when listening to the recorded and investigative interview that was part of the record, it was very clear that Mr.
Balthrop was trying to make up crazy conspiracy theories for why two people would make up something like this that Mr. Balthrop said he had not done. She said that it had not just been a rude comment, rather it was severe and egregious and was not anything any City of Monterey employee should be allowed to do and remain on the job.
Ms. Hurtado went on, saying that Mr. Balthrop’s awards were not relevant to the matter and that the arbitrator had found the same, which she noted was part of the record. She said that Mr.
Balthrop’s conduct was at issue. She said that no evaluation had been done for Mr. Balthrop in several years and noted that she believed the most recent evaluation had been completed in 2015. And she said that again, the arbitrator had found that these things were not relevant to her determination, which was also part of the record, and that the City Manager had also found it not relevant. She stated that it was not mitigating that Mr. Balthrop had been with the City for many years. She said that what was relevant, and what the Council should focus on, was Mr.
Balthrop’s conduct. She said that Mr. Balthrop had stated at this meeting and prior that he was sorry, but she stated that he had never apologized, or tried to apologize, to any of the people who had had to witness his unprofessional conduct. She asserted that Mr. Balthrop was sorry now because he had lost his job. She noted that Mr. Balthrop still maintained that he had not done the gesture, and said that again it was another excuse and another example of Mr.
Balthrop not taking responsibility for his actions. She said that when Mr. Balthrop said that he did not do the gesture, he was in effect telling the Council that Leslie Fraide and Lt. Sanchez had lied—was calling them liars—and that he was therefore not sorry because he was calling them liars and saying that he was somehow the victim in the matter. She noted that Mr.
Balthrop had even made a comment to Mr. Rose that Leslie Fraide could not have been Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
11 offended by his comment and gesture because she had a neck tattoo and because he stated she looked like she had come out of prison. She asserted that this was not a comment that would come from someone who was sorry for their actions, or who deserved to work for the City of Monterey under these circumstances. She noted that Mr. Balthrop’s legal counsel had said that this behavior was not a pattern for Mr. Balthrop, and she reiterated to the Council that a single incident was sufficient if found to be severe and egregious. She stressed that the City Manager and witnesses Ms. Fraide and Lt. Sanchez had found the behavior to be severe and egregious, and asked the Council to uphold the determination of the City Manager and of Mr.
Rose, the attorney investigator who she said had conducted a very thorough investigation. She said that the Council had all of the materials upon which City Manager Uslar had relied, and asked that the Council uphold the discipline that this conduct deserved, which she reiterated was termination. She concluded her rebuttal, asking City Manager Uslar to provide comment during the public comment portion of the proceeding.
Mayor Williamson asked Mr. Porter to make his rebuttal.
Mr. Porter began his rebuttal by countering what he said was opposing counsel's statement that Mr. Balthrop’s evaluations should not be considered because the last one issued to him by the City, according to the City’s discretion and his supervisor's discretion, was in 2013. He said that Mr. Balthrop had not been in charge of when he received evaluations, but that when he had received evaluations they were always stellar. He said that in this rebuttal he wanted mostly to focus on the subject of the purpose of discipline. He said that Ms. Hurtado, based on her wording, had wrongfully asserted that discipline should be punitive—that because Mr. Balthrop had done something, he must pay. He said that Ms. Hurtado had said that Mr. Balthrop could not be an employee because he had made this egregious comment. He said that, on the contrary, case law was clear that discipline was supposed to be corrective. He said that it was the Council’s position to evaluate what would be the corrective and appropriate level of discipline to address this issue and that there were numerous levels of discipline within the City’s discretion. He said that throughout the process, however, whenever the City had had the opportunity to evaluate and determine what level of discretion [sic] should be used, they had chosen the maximum level of discipline. He noted that this was what the Public Works Director and the City Manager had both recommended. He stated that, however, the third-party arbitrator, who he said had the insight and perspective of seeing numerous different public employers and other types of employers, had determined that a three-day suspension would be appopriate. He said that in this situation, Mr. Balthrop had articulated both at this meeting and during the evidentiary hearing on the record that he took full responsibility for his actions and that he could not recall making a gesture in conjunction with his rude comment. He said that Ms. Hurtado had wrongfully stated that Mr. Balthrop had called Ms. Fraide and Mr. Sanchez liars during the evidentiary record of the arbitration. He said that Ms. Hurtado had asked Mr.
Balthrop this very question: Were the witnesses lying? He said that in repsonse Mr. Balthrop had said he did not know, that all he remembered was what he remembered, and that he could not testify to something about what someone else was thinking or what someone else recalled, if it was an incident that he himself could not recall.
Mr. Porter continued, stating that Ms. Hurtado had also said that in the evidentiary record Ms.
Fraide, to whom the comment in question had been made, had affirmed that the comment was severe and egregious. He asserted that Ms. Fraide had not said that, and had instead said that the comment was embarrassing and that she had interpreted it to be a dirty comment. He agreed that both of those were fair assessments but stressed that it was inaccurate and dishonest to say that the witnesses had affirmed the City’s vocabulary as far as the requirements of the conduct being severe and egregious enough to be a one-off incident deserving of termination. With all of this in mind, he asked the Mayor and Councilmembers to use their discretion and common sense in evaluating the appeal. He reiterated that Mr. Balthrop Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
12 had been with the department for most of his life and that it was unfair for Mr. Balthrop to be terminated based on one comment where the recipient of the comment said she felt embarrassed, or that she interpreted the comment to be dirty. He said that this was ultimately inconsistent with the City’s progressive discipline policy, with the goals of the City, with the position of being pro-employee and pro-worker, and with valuing and trusting its employees and correcting them when they made mistakes. He said that Mr. Balthrop had articulated that he had made a mistake on one day in December of 2022, which was one day of his 23-and-a-halfyear career. He reiterated that this had not been severe and egregious conduct, that Mr.
Balthrop took accountability and had assured the Council that it would not happen again. He said that all of this mattered, and that Mr. Balthrop’s employment history mattered because the City’s interest should be in correcting the behavior. He concluded his rebuttal, reiterating that a three-day suspension was more than appropirate to correct the behavior and that a termination was excessive and inappropriate.
The Council determined to ask questions of the attorneys after a short recess. The Council recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 7:56 p.m.
Mayor Williamson noted that the Council had just heard the oral arguments and rebuttals from attorneys on both sides of the matter and stated that the Council could ask questions of both parties.
The Council asked Ms. Hurtado to provide the legal definition of "severe and egregious," in response to which Ms. Hurtado referred the Council to the City Code and then reviewed the City Code to find the section number. City Clerk Klein suggested that the section in question was Section 25-3.03, and Ms. Hurtado directed the Council to Section 25-3.03, the Harassment/ Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy. She said that at the beginning of this City policy was the explanation for why the policy existed, which she said was to prevent exactly this type of behavior in the workplace, and said that under subsection (c), the policy defined Abusive Conduct/Bullying as "conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests." She said that as regards the conduct of an employee in the workplace with malice, Mr. Balthrop had had malice toward Aysel Gan. She stated that Mr. Balthrop did not like Ms. Gan, and had testified extensively about the reasons he did not like Ms. Gan. She said that the conduct, the comment that "Aysel can suck it" while gesturing to his genital area, had been done with malice that and a reasonable person, or in this case, two reasonable people, had found it hostile, offensive, and unrelated to anything that had to do with anything that the City could assert was a legitimate business interest. She said that the conduct had had nothing to do with Mr. Balthrop’s work there. She noted that the code section provided that "abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse... verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating" and that it went on to say that "a single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious."
The Council asked Ms. Hurtado how Mr. Balthrop’s conduct rose to the level of “severe and egregious,” rather than rude or discourteous. Ms. Hurtado answered, noting that the same code section provided examples of abusive conduct or bullying, such as under subsection (c) which provided that "gestures, such as nonverbal, threatening or insulting movements or excessive staring," and that another subsection provided examples of abusive and offensive remarks. She reiterated that this was a situation where one would have to use common sense to determine what was egregious and what was severe. She said that Lt. Sanchez had stated he would not want his daughter to be subjected to Mr. Balthrop’s conduct, that it was inappropriate in the workplace and that was why he had felt the need to step in and help Ms. Fraide, who was at the time 19 years old and was so surprised she was at a loss for what to do. She said that for Ms.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
13 Fraide it was not an everyday encounter but was completely out of the ordinary, completely inappropriate, severe, and egregious. She asserted that she knew that the Council would not want anyone to be exposed to this type of conduct, particularly when representing the City of Monterey. She said that if a Counclmember were to do something like this, it would be considered severe and egregious. She said that if anybody working for the City were to do something like this, it would be severe and egregious. She asked the Council whether they would want to be exposed to somebody conducting himself in this manner in the public, during work hours in his work uniform, and stated she did not believe they would. She said that it was not just a rude comment, but a gesture combined with a lewd comment. She reiterated that it had been in front of two people who did not deserve to be treated in this way. She stressed that the Council had to set the standard for the City’s employees, and that the Department did not want this to be the standard, that an employee could do something like this and expect to continue working for the City. She reiterated that one would use common sense in making the determination.
The Council stated that the examples of abusive conduct or bullying did not necessarily speak directly to the question regarding "severe and egregious," stating that those examples seemed to define abusive conduct or bullying overall, but not specifically a single act that would rise to the level of severe and egregious. In response, Ms. Hurtado noted that the City Code did not define that, and that statutes or other legal language that do not define something more explicitly can instead provide examples. She said that the code cannot say what is particularly severe and egregious because one is expected to use one’s common sense, life, experience, background, and assessment, in making the determination, as she noted the arbitrator and the City Manager had done and as the Mayor and Councilmembers were called upon to do. She said that the Council, in judging whether something was severe and egregious, would not only need to use those tools that they all had as part of their experiences as people, but should remember that the people who had experienced and been subjected to the conduct directly, were offended. She reiterated that Lt. Sanchez had felt it important enough to report to Mr.
Balthrop’s supervisor. She noted that Mr. Balthrop’s supervisor was present at the meeting and could speak to how Ms. Fraide had reacted. She stated that Ms. Fraide had been offended and very, very upset about the incident, had not known what to do, and had never experienced anything like it in the workplace. She reiterated that Ms. Fraide had been only 19 years old. She said that Lt. Sanchez had filed a written complaint, followed up, and taken the time to come to the arbitration to explain to the arbitrator why he felt it was so severe and egregious. She reiterated that Ms. Fraide had been offended, did not know what to do, and did not feel it was appropriate. She stated that of course it was not appropriate, that nobody would find it appropriate in the workplace, and that even Mr. Balthrop admitted that he should not have said it. She noted that Mr. Balthrop would not admit to the gesture and continued to minimize his conduct, but that even he admitted that it was severe and he should not have said it, and that it was egregious for him to have done so. She stated that it was not rocket science but just common sense. She said that the Council could look to the code to guide them, but also needed to apply the code section, the language, and their common sense and experience to the facts of the case, and needed to find that there was just cause to terminate Mr. Balthrop based on all of this and on his dishonesty. She reminded the Council that Mr. Balthrop was terminated not only for violating this one code section relating to severe and egregious conduct, but also for all the other code sections and for dishonesty during the investigative process. She said that any one of Mr. Balthrop’s code violations was sufficient to justify his termination. She reiterated that dishonesty had been a particularly important one, because Public Works Director Renny had found, and had testified at the arbitration that she found, that termination was the only appropriate discipline because Mr. Balthrop worked at the Presidio, a secure military facility, where employees should be trustworthy. She said that Mr. Balthrop had shown himself not to be trustworthy based on the fact that he had lied to the investigator and to the arbitrator. She said that he had lied throughout the investigation and the whole process, and had lied to the Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
14 Council at this meeting. She said that Public Works Director Renny had found that Mr.
Balthrop’s dishonesty and failure to take responsibility, along with all the other violations of the Monterey City Code, were sufficient to terminate him.
The Council asked Ms. Hurtado to address the allegation that the City had supplanted progressive discipline with training, or that if an employee had been trained in something which they then violated, that the training would preclude progressive discipline and advance the incident to punitive discipline. Ms. Hurtado said that the City’s position was not that progressive discipline was inappropriate in this case because Mr. Balthrop had received training. She said that what had been presented to the arbitrator was that Mr. Balthrop had received multiple sexual harassment trainings through the course of his employment, and she said that the arbitrator had considered that fact. She said that the City did not hold the position that anytime an employee has received training and then commits an offense they should be terminated, but she pointed to the context, stating that Mr. Balthrop should have known better and that progressive discipline would not have been effective in this situation. She said she believed that Mr. Balthrop had completed six or more courses of sexual harassment training and asked what one more training would have done. She said that this was the context in which the evidence had been presented, and that clearly the trainings Mr. Balthrop had completed had had no effect and had not prevented the abusive behavior in question. She said that this was the context in which Public Works Director Renny had felt that termination was appropriate, along with other factors which she said included dishonesty, failure to take responsibility, and the severity and egregiousness of the conduct.
The Council asked Ms. Hurtado to explain in what appropriate or proper scenario Mr. Balthrop could have apologized to the people who had witnessed his behavior, and whether such an action would have been considered witness tampering or tampering with an investigation. Ms.
Hurtado responded that Mr. Balthrop had been saying he was sorry for the comment, not for the gesture but for the comment, and could have very easily contacted the City by going through Ms. Hurtado, City Attorney Davi, or City Manager Uslar. She said that Mr. Balthrop could have written a letter of apology without having to contact Ms. Fraide directly. She said that if she sincerely wanted to apologize to someone, she would find a way to convey that, not necessarily in person. She asked: why not write a letter making a genuine gesture of remorse, apologizing for putting the witnesses in that position and making the witnesses feel uncomfortable and harassed, and making the witnesses feel that he was unprofessional? She said that, instead, Mr. Balthrop had gone on the offensive and proceeded to call the witnesses liars, and that to this day Mr. Balthrop was still calling them liars. She said that this was not a sincere apology.
The Council asked Ms. Hurtado to address the gesture as opposed to the comment, specifically regarding how important the gesture specifically had been in the determination that Mr.
Balthrop’s conduct had risen to the level of severe and egregious, and asked whether Ms.
Hurtado agreed with Mr. Porter that Lt. Sanchez could not have seen the gesture based on his physical position in the scenario. Ms. Hurtado answered that the conduct consisted of both the gesture and the comment. She reiterated that two witnesses had said that they happened at the same time. She said that the comment alone would still be egregious and severe whether or not it was made with the gesture, but she reasserted that Mr. Balthrop had done both and that that was what the two witnesses saw. She said that the arbitrator had found that Lt. Sanchez was credible when he said he saw the gesture and heard the comment. She stressed that Mr. Porter wanted to argue that the arbitrator had been in the best position to judge the facts, and she repeated that the arbitrator had made a finding of fact that Lt. Sanchez was credible when he said he saw the gesture and heard the comment, and that City Manager Uslar had relied upon this in finding that that is what had happened. She urged the Council not to separate the gesture and the comment, stating that, despite Mr. Balthrop’s denials, there was plenty of evidentiary record that both the gesture and comment had happened. She reiterated that Ms.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 14, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
15 Fraide had seen and heard it, and that Lt. Sanchez had seen and heard it, and that they had no reason to lie. She concluded that Mr. Balthrop was the one being dishonest.
The Council said that Mr. Balthrop’s comment was of a serious nature and was offensive and requested that Ms. Hurtado further clarify regarding how that one comment by Mr. Balthrop would consitute failure to perform his duties, inefficiency, and willful insubordination. In response, Ms. Hurtado said that the arbitrator had made no finding about those violations, even though evidence had been presented to her about those violations. Ms. Hurtado said she couldn't say why there had not been findings made, other than perhaps oversight or the arbitrator having not been careful enough in making her determination. Ms. Hurtado said that Mr. Balthrop had been found to have made these violations because he had disagreed with what the manager of the Subway restaurant had asked him to do. She explained that Ms.
Fraide had been asking him not to walk through the rear door, because Ms. Gan had told her not to allow people to walk through the back. Ms. Hurtado explained that this was violation of policies and procedures that Mr. Balthrop should have followed, and stated that instead he should have said, as an employee, that of course he would enter the Subway through the front entrance. She said that because Mr. Balthrop chose willfully to do what he wanted to do and ignored valid requests from the manager of the Subway, both Ms. Fraide and Ms. Gan, it had been an inexcusible neglect of duty as well as willful violation of rules, regulations, and policies, and that it further constituted willful disobedience and insubordination. She explained that it was not in the code that instructions had to come from a boss for these violations to apply.
The Council asked Mr. Porter to address Mr. Balthrop’s comment about Ms. Fraide having a tattoo and looking like a prisoner, as well as his unwillingness, for an hour and 20 minutes during the interview, to take responsibility for his inappropriate behavior. Mr. Porter said that employees who have never been interviewed or interrogated before will often feel nervous in an investigation setting and will often be scatterbrained and not articulate things in the way he said they probably should. He said that in this specific situation, Mr. Balthrop had been harkening back to an incident that he thought was innocuous and that did not stand out in his mind. He stated that Mr. Balthrop did not understand at the time when the incident was unfolding that Ms.
Fraide had been offended by his behavior, or that Mr. Sanchez had been offended on Ms.
Fraide's behalf or on behalf of his daughter who was not there. He said that it was his position that Mr. Balthrop just spoke with his gut at that particular meeting, and had been trying to speculate about something he did not recollect about how it could have occurred. He said that Mr. Balthrop speculating about one thing or another was not the same as testifying as to the facts of what had happened. He stated that Mr. Balthrop had been guessing about what had happened, and based on someone's appearance how they might have felt. He said that those things were not fair or good to do all the time, but that in a situation when Mr. Balthrop was nervous being interrogated by someone who had just articulated that he could be terminated depending on the answers to the questions, Mr. Balthrop had been scatterbrained and trying to grasp at what the investigation could be about.
Mr. Porter continuing, stating that in the latter half of the investigative interview, Mr. Balthrop did recall. He said that Mr. Balthrop had taken a break and spoken with his union representative, had gone through the incident in his mind, had been refreshed and remembered what happened and then had explained in the interview that he thought he now remembered making the comment. He said that the investigator, Mr. Rose, had shaken Mr. Balthrop’s hand and thanked him for being honest. He said that Mr. Rose had articulated that Mr. Balthrop was being honest, and that Mr. Balthrop’s position was more accurately reflected at this meeting and during the evidentiary record made during the arbitration. He said that when pressed about these issues by Ms. Hurtado on cross-exampination, Mr. Balthrop had not doubled down and stated that Ms. Fraide should not have been offended or that he had been right to make the comment. He said that Mr. Balthrop had taken accountability, regretted making the comment, Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 15, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
16 and regretted articulating those thoughts. He asserted that they were not representative of facts or beliefs that Mr. Balthrop held at the present time.
The Council asked Mr. Porter to define “severe and egregious,” and to explain why the conduct in question had been rude, discourteous, offensive, but had not risen to the level of severe and egregious. Mr. Porter said that the City’s policy used the term "especially severe and egregious," not just "severe and egregious," and that this indicated that the intention of the policy as written was that it was not just supposed to be severe and egregious. He said that there were several categories of abusive conduct that the code listed and described: abusive conduct, severe and egregious, and especially severe and egregious. He said that he would think that especially severe and egregious conduct would require immediate suspension, immediate removal from the workforce. He said that as shown in the administrative record, Mr.
Balthrop had not been placed on administrative leave until sometime after the investigation was conducted; he said that the City had known what comments Mr. Balthrop had made regarding Aysel Gan and that the City had not placed him on administrative leave even though he and the witnesses had been interviewed. He stated that this was not consistent with the City now holding that the behavior had been especially severe and egregious. He said severe and egregious conduct was unacceptable behavior that could not be tolaterated in the workplace, such as racial slurs, or an abusive comment that was so egregious that the recipient of the comment had to go home or take time off work. He said that what was especially severe and egregious should not be said in the Council Chamber and that he would feel uncomfortable giving an example. He said that saying that someone can "suck it," "kick rocks," or "shove it," did not constitute a severe and egregious comment. He said that this had been articulated by the arbitrator in the record. He said that the fact that the comment was being openly quoted, that witnesses had articulated it, and that Mr. Balthrop was apologizing for the comment was indicative that it was not a severe and egregious comment. He said it was offensive, it could be humiliating, intimidating, or threatening, but that it was not especially severe and egregious.
Ms. Alves stated to Mr. Porter that Ms. Hurtado had read a definition of severe and egregious from the City’s policy and asked Mr. Porter if it was his understanding that it was not the definition of severe and egregious. In response, Mr. Porter said that Ms. Hurtado said that a definition for severe and egregious was not within the policies, and that she had said that people needed to use their common judgment and discretion based on life experiences to determine what was severe and egregious. He said that he agreed with Ms. Hurtado that "severe and egregious" and "especially severe and egregious" were not outlined in the policy.
He said that it was something that he felt needed to be determined based on past practice and the way that discipline had been issued amongst other employees. He said that further examples would be those that he had mentioned such as racial slurs or other conduct rising to a level recognized as unfitting for even First Amendment rights, something horrific and upsetting to anybody who might listen, and acceptable to have in the workplace for even a single day further.
The Council asked Mr. Porter to address Ms. Hurtado’s statement that Mr. Balthrop could have apologized and could have written an apology note, and to address why his client had not apologized. Mr. Porter said that generally, during an administrative investigation and an appeal process, with allegations about harassment or abuse between a victim and an employee, the victim's receiving a letter passed off through multiple hands was not normally conducive to making the victim feel better. He began to describe a scenario in which Mr. Balthrop might have the opportunity to address the witnesses in the workplace, in a safe location where they were not worried about a comment being misconstrued, but did not finish the scenario. He said that he had rarely seen an employee go out of their way to write a letter and give it to opposing counsel during an ongoing appeal and investigation. He said that sending an apology letter through that kind of roundabout system was uncommon and generally not conducive to Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 16, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
17 remedying the situation. He said, however, that if the City approved and felt it would remedy the situation, Mr. Balthrop would be more than willing to write letters, meet in person, have a phone call and interact with the witnesses in some specific way. He said that Mr. Balthrop would be on board with writing an apology letter and that an apology letter would be an appropriate part of resolution of this situation. Regarding remedies, he added that Ms. Hurtado had questioned what taking another training course could do, and he said that instead he believed the appropriate remedy would be to suspend Mr. Balthrop. He said that Mr. Balthrop had never been suspended. He said that saying that because a course may not help, termination was the only solution did not make sense when other disciplinary measures were at the City’s disposal.
The Council asked Ms. Alves whether the Council had any discretion on discipline between the three day suspension recommended by the arbitrator and the termination recommended by the City Manager. Ms. Alves answered, stating that the Council would make a decision in closed session, which would be reported out, either to uphold or deny the City Manager's decision to terminate Mr. Balthrop. She said that a written decision would be prepared within 10 working days, and would be due to the parties, containing further findings along the lines of what the arbitrator had decided: the facts, if there was just cause for termination, and if there was not cause for termination then what level of discipline would be appropriate.
The Council noted that the final notice of disciplinary action had been on November 7, 2023, and asked when the first notice took place. Mr. Porter responded, stating that on October 13, 2023, Mr. Balthrop had been sent notice of proposed discipline. Ms. Hurtado added that on the same day Mr. Balthrop had received notice that he was being placed on administrative leave.
The Council asked Mr. Porter what evidence he had for his allegation that the City Manager had a pattern of pushing people out who were near retirement, and Ms. Alves interjected, noting that this allegation had been stricken from the Council’s consideration because it was not part of the original evidentiary record. Ms. Hurtado added that the comment had been very inappropriate because Mr. Porter was aware he should not mention anything outside of the evidentiary record.
The Council asked why Mr. Balthrop had not received any evaluations since 2015. Ms. Hurtado said that she did not know the answer and would ask Public Works Director Renny to speak to this during public comment.
The Council asked whether the arbitration had been just for determining the honesty issue, or the actual act. Ms. Hurtado said that it was for both. She said that there had been multiple violations of Monterey City Code, including being dishonest during the investigatory interview when, before the interview, Mr. Balthrop had already been advised he should be truthful with Mr. Rose. She reiterated that the arbitration was for dishonesty during the investigation and for the conduct itself, and reiterated also that there were multiple code sections that were violated by Mr. Balthrop’s conduct.
The Council asked Mr. Porter to put into context his assertion that Mr. Balthrop’s comment had been an offhanded comment, and his reference of a middle school playground, and asked him whether he felt this was a light subject that the Council was dealing with. Mr. Porter said no, that by stating that this was an offhanded comment that one might hear at a school for children, he was referencing that in the evidentiary record regarding the Skelly hearing, when Mr. Heron had represented Mr. Balthrop, there had been discussion about "suck it" being a common catchphrase relating to a wrestling move or the Wrestling Federation. He said that he was not minimizing the comment or saying that Ms. Fraide should not have been offended, or that Mr.
Sanchez should not have been offended on Ms. Fraide's behalf, or on behalf of his not wanting that comment to be made to his daughter. But he said that while the comment might be Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 17, Packet Page 24 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
18 intimidating or humiliating in certain contexts, it did not rise to the level of being “especially severe and egregious.” He said that in his view, one would not hear severe and egregious comments being made at a schoolyard, unless those students would have consequences of being suspended or receiving similar discipline. He reiterated that he wanted the Council to acknowledge and understand the full context, that this was not a racial slur but rather an offhanded comment that equated not to some kind of request for sexual favors, but more to "this person can shove it," or "they can kick rocks," which he said was the intent and the tone.
He said that this was how the phrase was generally used socially and that this was what he had tried to articulate with his remarks.
The Council stated that the analogy of student conduct on the playground did not resonate, noting that this incident did not involve a student but a grown man with 24 years of experience in City employment, who was used to working with vendors, the public, coworkers, and a chain of custody. Mr. Porter was asked how he would describe Mr. Balthrop’s conduct if not egregious. Mr. Porter responded, stating that the specific city code language discussing abusive conduct and bullying described Mr. Balthrop’s conduct: humiliating, threatening, or intimidating.
He said that Ms. Fraide had said she felt embarrassed (which he noted was pretty synonymous with being humiliated) by the comment even though it was about Ms. Gan. He said that Mr.
Balthrop recognized that his conduct did fall into that category. He said that in this situation the burden of proof laid with the City as far as proving that it amounted to “especially severe” and especially egregious conduct. He said that he would go one step further to say that if there were concerns about the meaning of especially severe, or especially egregious, then it was obscured in the policy and therefore unfair to suddenly say that Mr. Balthrop’s conduct in this situation had risen to such a level, since it was not clear what that level was. Regarding the playground analogy, Mr. Porter agreed that Mr. Balthrop was an adult and a professional who dealt with many different vendors, employees, and important people with the City in his line of work, and whether or not his comment had been especially severe or especially egregious, he said the Council should look at the actual conduct and the actual comment itself. He said that it was something that you might expect a teenager to say to one of his friends, that it was a phrase that was commonly used, and people weren't arrested for saying it. He said that people who said it weren't taken in and charged with a hate crime for making an unforgivable, especially severe comment. He said that the comment could be childish, immature, and embarrassing. He acknowledged that the comment was embarrassing for Mr. Balthrop and that it had been embarrassing for Ms. Fraide, but he reasserted that it was not “especially severe and egregious.” He said that it was not clearly defined in the policy, and asked: if “this person can suck it" was severe and egregious, then what comment was not severe and egregious that would still merit discipline and correction? He said that he had a hard time thinking of comments that would amount to being threatening, intimidating, humiliating, gratuitous sabotage, or undermining of a person's work that were less than "this person can suck it." He reminded the Council that there were multiple categories, not just threatening and humiliating; there was "severe and egregious," and "especially severe and egregious." He said that it was his client's position and the union's position that Mr. Balthrop’s conduct fell under the first category of being abusive conduct, but not rising to those severe and egregious levels. He said that it was the job of the City and investigator—the party looking to impose discipline—to prove that the conduct rose to the higher levels of abusive conduct.
The Council stated that, along the lines of looking at the substantiated violations listed in the investigator's report, Mr. Rose had also outlined compelling evidence based on witnesses and ultimately a partial agreement by Mr. Balthrop that there was substantial evidence of dishonesty. The Council pointed to Monterey City Code section 25-14.02 subsection (h) "Dishonesty, involving employment," and subsection (o), "Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees within the scope of employment," and asked Ms. Hurtado to confirm that those were the correct code sections that applied when discussing this substantiated evidence Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 18, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
19 reported by Mr. Rose. Ms. Hurtado confirmed that they were the correct code sections and added that Monterey City Code section 25-4, subsection (f) allowed the City Council to "reaffirm the disciplinary action, reverse it or modify it." She urged the Council to affirm the City Manager's determination.
Returning to the discussion of whether "especially" applied to the conduct in question, the Council asked Ms. Hurtado to confirm that in addition to subsections (h) and (o), Monterey City Code section 25-[14.02] also applied, regarding satisfactory performance, and that the Council would use these sections as possible evidence for findings. Ms. Hurtado confirmed this understanding. The Council posited that the combination of violations could merit, or rise to a level of significance that would merit, an affirmation that Mr. Balthrop should be terminated when looking at them in combination, and Ms. Hurtado agreed. She said that the point she had been trying to make was that Mr. Porter was trying to focus on a single word: "egregious," or "especially," but that Mr. Balthrop had violated multiple city codes, which she said had been documented from the very beginning of Public Works Director Renny’s notices to Mr. Balthrop about the discipline and investigation, and in all of the documentation so far. She stressed that it was a combination of all of those violations of multiple city codes that the Council needed to consider in determining whether termination was appropriate.
The Council spoke about the moment in the investigatory interview when Mr. Balthrop either had become motivated to be truthful, or had put facts together in his head to the point where he was capable of then giving a more clear picture, and then had admitted to making the statement but still declined to admit that there had been a gesture to his groin. It was asserted that there had been significant recall of the time period by Mr. Balthrop, such as who was there, the back door, flickering lights, rainy day, wet floor, and the heated discussion which was in evidence by Mr. Rose's report. It was stated that the investigator had reported that the manager of Subway and Mr. Balthrop had had a heated exchange, and that Mr. Balthrop had also admitted, to great depth and recall, that it was a heated exchange, and that yet the discussion of the heated argument seemed to Mr. Balthrop only to relate to entering through the back door when he was not supposed to, but not to any of the other facts of what he allegedly had expressed and displayed in front of a victim and witness. Mr. Porter was asked to explain how Mr. Balthrop could have recalled all of those facts but not the central point of why people were offended. Mr.
Porter responded, stating that Mr. Balthrop’s initial interview with Mr. Rose had been fairly long.
As to nuances of why an individual might recall and remember specific things when under stress or pressure, he said he could not articulate this and would probably need an expert on memory recall to explain, but he said that Mr. Balthrop’s position at the present time, based on his memory, he was that during the first half of his interview with Mr. Rose, Mr. Balthrop could not remember the incident. He said that based on the questions Mr. Rose asked, different ideas were prompted in Mr. Balthrop’s mind, some of which were memories of specific aspects or portions of the day or of his interaction, and that some of the other questions might have prompted Mr. Balthrop to grasp or speculate as to what was going on in the specific situation.
Mr. Porter continued, saying he wanted to highlight some interview tactics, or at least the interpretation of Mr. Balthrop’s response that Mr. Rose had highlighted in his report. He said that Mr. Rose was the one who had suggested Mr. Balthrop take a break with his union representative, and that Mr. Balthrop had agreed to take a break and discussed with the union representative, when he then recalled, recounted what happened that day, came back, and articulated that he did remember making the comment but did not remember making the gesture. Mr. Porter asserted that Mr. Rose had used the offer of a break against Mr. Balthrop in the report, saying that he had only remembered after he was told to take a break, and had therefore been dishonest. He alleged that this was an unfair investigation technique, describing a flustered and frustrated subject of an investigation who was therefore offered a break, only to “fall on the sword” when the break worked and the subject was then able to recall parts of the Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 19, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
20 incident. He said that Ms. Hurtado claimed that Mr. Balthrop was lying and had lied during the arbitration, but he asserted that there was no evidence that Mr. Balthrop was lying or had lied.
He said that there was evidence that one witness, Lt. Sanchez, said he saw Mr. Balthrop motion to his groin when he made this comment. He said that Ms. Fraide had said that she did not remember Mr. Balthrop motioning to his groin and did know that he had motioned to his knee.
He said that Mr. Balthrop had said that he did not remember making the motion or the gesture, but that he did know that he commonly slapped his knee or motioned to his knee. He said that although the City argued in favor of two witnesses being compelling, Mr. Balthrop’s comment in his recollection was more consistent with Ms. Fraide’s recollection. He said that Mr. Sanchez’s comment, although found by the arbitrator to be credible, was inconsistent with Ms. Fraide's comment. He said that when he had cross-examined Mr. Rose, Mr. Rose had admitted that these two witnesses were inconsistent, that their recollections were inconsistent with each other’s, and that ultimately Ms. Fraide’s recollection was more in line with Mr. Balthrop’s recollection. Therefore, he asserted that the dishonesty allegation should not be sustained.
The Council requested more information on the timeline between the time the incident was reported in January of 2023 to the next action taken by the City, leading to the Skelly hearing.
Ms. Hurtado responded, stating that the incident took place in December of 2022, and was reported by Lt. Sanchez to Mr. Balthrop’s supervisor General Services Superintendent Dwight on January 19, 2023. She said that there was then a notice of an investigation and a request to schedule investigative interview on February 21, 2023, and that the interview had been held on March 6, 2023. The Council asked a follow-up question, requesting to know whether, upon General Services Superintendent Dwight’s receipt of the complaint from Lt. Sanchez, he had interviewed the Subway employee. Ms. Hurtado answered that she did believe General Services Superintendent Dwight had spoken directly with Ms. Fraide, and that he was present at the meeting and was prepared to provide public comment. The Council requested to hear from General Services Superintendent Dwight about the time period after the letter in relation to the December offense date, as it would be one more marker in terms of what Mr. Balthrop had been told by the Subway manager.
The Council indicated they would have questions for General Services Superintendent Dwight and City Manager Uslar, and Mayor Williamson, noting that the staff members would speak only as public commenters, suggested the Council ask their questions in advance so that staff could address them. The Council asked to hear from General Services Superintendent Dwight a general summary of the interview that he had conducted with the victim at Subway: where the interview and taken place, whether she had recalled the gestures of the arms or hands to the groin, and whether she had affirmed the verbal statement "[...] can suck it" was made. They also requested information on his interview with the Lieutenant from the Presidio of Monterey.
The Council requested clarification about when they are to consider a “preponderence of evidence,” whether that meant “greater than fifty percent.” Ms. Hurtado said that it meant more likely than not, and did not have to be a certain amount over fifty percent, and could be just a hair above fifty percent.
The Council requested that Mr. Porter clarify an allegation that he had made that the City Manager had used evidence he was not supposed to use. Mr. Porter responded, stating that he had specifically referenced Mr. Balthrop, relying on the language about the two witnesses. He said that this went back to the concern about what Ms. Fraide had articulated and recalled in City Manager Uslar’s report. He said that the evidence that had been ignored, or that had referred more back to Mr. Rose’s investigation, which he said was contradicted and refuted during the arbitration, was the inconsistency between the testimony of the two witnesses, Mr.
Sanchez and Ms. Fraide. He said that according to the interview conducted by Mr. Rose, the recorded, transcribed reports contradicted each other in those specific ways as to the gesture.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 20, Packet Page 27 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
21 He said that City Manager Uslar’s report relied on Mr. Rose’s initial investigation report, which he said Mr. Rose had then admitted was not accurate during arbitration, and that Mr. Rose had admitted that the two witnesses were actually not entirely consistent. On further question from the Council, Mr. Porter said that it was in the transcript, which Mr. Porter said he did not have marked in front of him; he said it took place at the specific point when he said Lt. Sanchez said that Mr. Balthrop had made a clear gesture, which Mr. Porter said he thought Lt. Sanchez had called a “T” pose, or some kind of specific pose, which was very clear, gesturing to his genitals.
He said that Ms. Fraide had articulated that Mr. Balthrop had made some motion toward his knee or toward his leg, toward his lower body. He said that these were two very different things, that a person could fling his arm toward his other arm, maybe because of being exasperated, or could just smack his leg for some reason, and that this was very different from gesturing toward his genitals. He said that this distinguishing thing was put on the record during the arbitration, which he said was a critical discernment, because he said the City’s position to this point had leaned on the fact that they said Mr. Balthrop was dishonest because of his position or recollection of the gesture. He said that therefore a lot hung on whether Mr. Balthrop did the gesture or not: if Mr. Balthrop did not do the gesture, Mr. Sanchez remembered it inaccurately, and Ms. Fraide and Mr. Balthrop did remember it accurately. He said that Mr. Balthrop was honest and that his comments were consistent, and that it was critical and important to highlight the distinction.
Ms. Alves asked Mr. Porter to point to where in the administrative record he saw that Ms. Fraide said that she only saw Mr. Balthrop point to his knee, because she said that in the investigation report Ms. Fraide had described the gesture pretty thoroughly and not just as pointing to his knee.
Mr. Porter responded that he believed that Ms. Fraide had used the term, “lower body.” Ms. Hurtado referred to Finding No. 16 on page eight of the arbitrator's decision, in which she noted that the arbitrator had made the following finding of fact: “Lieutenant Sanchez and Ms.
Fraide told Mr. Rose that Mr. Balthrop said, ‘Aysel can suck it,’ and gestured toward his groin.” Ms. Hurtado asserted that Mr. Porter was trying to confuse the Council and muddy the record in terms of the facts that the arbitrator found, and upon which the City Manager had relied in making his decision. She said that the arbitrator had clearly found that both witnesses had told Mr. Rose the same thing. She went on, stating that it did not matter whether Mr. Balthrop had gestured toward his knee or his groin; he had made this comment and clearly intended to gesture toward his genitals as he said it, because of the context of the statement and what he was referring to, which she said is why it was offensive and egregious. She urged the Council not to be confused by what Mr. Porter was arguing, because she said it was not based on the record at all.
Mr. Porter added that Ms. Hurtado had not mentioned the footnote that was referenced in Finding No. 16, which he said was that, “in this case, the Finding of Fact is that Mr. Rose heard these allegations in the course of his investigation, not that the allegations are true.” Ms. Hurtado noted that Mr. Porter had argued that the witnesses weren't consistent, but they were consistent in what they told Mr. Rose. She said that the arbitrator had noted in the findings of fact that they were consistent, and also that Lt. Sanchez on his own was credible when he described the gesture and the comment.
Mr. Porter noted that the footnote specifically said that this was what Mr. Rose had heard during the course of his investigations. He said that he thought there was a distinction between what the individuals had said and what Mr. Rose had heard. He said that during the arbitration, Mr.
Rose had consistently summarized what the witnesses had articulated, and admitted that he Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 21, Packet Page 28 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
22 would need to reference his specific records themselves, and that he had not been able to recall. Mr. Porter said he was specifically trying to get at the fact that while the arbitrator's Finding No. 16 said that Mr. Balthrop gestured toward his groin, according to Ms. Fraide and Lt.
Sanchez, the footnote specifically said that this was what Mr. Rose heard, according to Mr.
Rose, which Mr. Porter said was different from whether or not they actually happened or the allegations were true.
Ms. Alves repeated her request for Mr. Porter to find the citation to where he claimed Ms. Fraide had made the comment that that it was only a gesture to Mr. Balthrop’s knee, stating she thought that it was an important distinction.
Mr. Porter said he wanted to clarify that his recollection was that Ms. Fraide said Mr. Balthrop had gestured toward his “lower body,” and that he had misspoken when he said “knee” specifically. He said he could not find in the record where she said that Mr. Balthrop had motioned to his knee.
The Council asked Mr. Porter to find that knee citation and to let the Council know when he did.
The Council asked questions and noted it could be more appropriate for City staff to answer, and if so, the City staff members present were asked to respond during their public comment.
The Council asked for more information on the City’s practices regarding performance plans to address performance deficiencies, and whether an employee would be put on a performance plan if there were peformance issues. It was stated that it was the Council’s understanding that while presently, all employees should be on annual performance plans, in the past that was not always the case and if an employee had reached the top step on their pay scale, they had no longer been required to be on a performance plan. It was stated that it seemed like there had not been consistent performance plans offered to Mr. Balthrop, and it was stated that it was assumed that this was because there had not been issues with his performance. It was stated that the Federal government used "Douglas Factors," which it was explained were factors that made sure management considered with a wide aperture all of the circumstances that might impact the level and type of discipline chosen in a scenario. From this viewpoint, clarification was requested regarding whether Mr. Balthrop’s position was a front-line, supervisorial, or lead position with people reporting to him; whether outside of this incident Mr. Balthrop had been normally able to get along with others and be dependable in the performance of his duties; whether, if Mr. Balthrop returned to work, management felt he would be able to perform his assigned duties; whether there been other cases where an employee had been removed for similar misconduct; what the range of penalties in this scenario would be according to the city code; what the agency's thought was on Mr. Balthrop’s ability to be rehabilitated; and whether there had been any mitigating circumstances, personal problems, or extra stress going on at the time that may have caused Mr. Balthrop to perform or behave differently from normal.
Ms. Hurtado said the MOU was very clear that the proceeding needed to be based on the administrative record, and that she therefore hesitated to put additional information forth given that. She urged the parties to stick to the administrative record because of the MOU and because those were the rules under which everyone involved had been operating.
On question from the Council, Ms. Alves said that it was appropriate for the Council to ask such questions and receive answers from the attorneys with only information that had been put forth in the administrative record, but said she would refrain from having public comments be specific to these questions due to the amount of information and the limited time available to speak.
Ms. Hurtado then addressed the questions. She stated that Mr. Balthrop’s position had not been supervisorial. She said that there had been no mitigation for Mr. Balthrop’s conduct, that the Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 22, Packet Page 29 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
23 only mitigation that had been offered was that Mr. Balthrop did not remember when he was asked about his conduct, had been an employee for a very long time, and was sorry and had remorse now, that Mr. Balthrop’s last performance review almost ten years prior had been satisfactory, and that he had received awards. She said that the arbitrator had found that the awards and performance review were not relevant and that what was relevant was to focus on his conduct. She said that the City Manager had found that none of that was mitigating, given the seriousness and egregiousness of the conduct as well as Mr. Balthrop’s dishonesty. She said that Mr. Balthrop’s ability to get along with others was abysmal based on what was in the record, stating that there was evidence in the record, specifically in Mr. Rose’s investigation report, that Mr. Balthrop had had a lot of conflict with people at the Presidio of Monterey, had had a sense that people were after him, and had had conflict with all of the security guards at the Presidio. She said that as soon as Mr. Balthrop had been called in for an interview with Mr.
Rose, he had immediately gone on the offensive and started coming up with incredible reasons why a security guard might make things up against him that had not happened. She said that Mr. Balthrop’s plan had been to say that all of the security guards at the Presidio were after him and harassing him, and that this was why this one particular security guard was making things up. She clarified that Lt. Sanchez was a different security guard who had never had a conflict with Mr. Balthrop, but that Mr. Balthrop thought the person reporting his conduct to General Services Superintendent Dwight was a different security guard. She said that security guards had also filed a complaint against Mr. Balthrop for various different reasons, and that Mr. Rose had not investigated these complaints because he had found them peripheral to the main complaint. She said that Mr. Balthrop had also had theories about Lt. Sanchez having a crush on Ms. Fraide, and that this was why he had made the complaint, and that none of the theories made sense and this was why Mr Rose had not considered any of it and it was a footnote in his report, but she noted that it was in the record that Mr. Balthrop was having a lot of conflicts with security guards and was unable to get along with them. She also noted that Ms. Fraide had said in her testimony that Mr. Balthrop would often come in and leer at the other women that were working at the Subway. She said that this did not paint a picture of someone able to get along in a professional manner with people he worked with. On question from the Council regarding the conflict with security guards, Ms. Hurtado said that this was based on Mr. Balthrop’s comments in the interview and that one of the security guards had filed a complaint about Mr. Balthrop’s behavior at the entry gate, for conduct such as not showing proper identification when he came onto the base, driving up playing really loud music, and basically not following rules and regulations. She reiterated that these complaints were not investigated but were noted in the report.
Mr. Porter said that none of these complaints or issues were in the notice of proposed discipline, or the notice of final discipline, and he asserted that leaning on them would be a violation of Mr. Balthrop’s Skelly rights, because he would not have the opportunity to appeal or address those specific issues. He said that in the evidentiary record, during the arbitration, Mr.
Balthrop had explained and testified as to some of the mitigating factors for his conduct and nuances as to why he had been under stress at the time. He said that it was true that the arbitrator had not leaned on those mitigating factors when she came up with the determination that a three day suspension was appropriate and a termination was inappropriate. He spoke about the mitigating factors, stating that leading up to the incident the City had been short two electricians for two years, who would have been working with and assisting Mr. Balthrop. He said that Mr. Balthrop had been the only certified electrician of the two electricians that the City had. He said that Mr. Balthrop had been overworked, very stressed, and overseeing lots of projects. He said that Mr. Balthrop had continually asked for more staffing to alleviate the fact that two electricians were doing the work of four electricians for over two years. He said that Mr.
Balthrop had testified about the stress of overwork, lack of sleep due to sleep apnea, and later when he was being interviewed, the perception of being under investigation and having his job hanging in the balance. He said that it did make sense that staffing issues would cause Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 23, Packet Page 30 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
24 additional stress. He said that as Mr. Balthrop had testified, it was out of character when he said “[this person] can suck it.” He said that it was out of line with how Mr. Balthrop conducted himself in his career for 23 years, but that he was overstressed, lacking sleep, and was not thinking straight, maybe saying things without thinking and he said that it was in this context that Mr. Balthrop made this offhanded comment. He said he was not justifying the conduct, not excusing it, but showing that it was not part of who Mr. Balthrop was normally, which he said was evident from Mr. Balthrop’s entire career with the City. He asked the Council to take these different considerations into account before making a decision.
The Council checked with Mr. Porter to find out whether he had been able to find the citation he had been looking for in the administrative record. He said that he did not have the entire administrative record in front of him at the meeting but that he was looking specifically at Mr.
Rose’s transcript of Ms. Fraide's interview. He said that he wanted to note that Ms. Fraide had not testified at the arbitration, and that he did not want to make assumptions about whether or not a witness was called to testify, as that was the witness’ prerogative and the City’s prerogative, however he said that the record itself and the transcript itself would be considered administrative hearsay, stating that the union or Mr. Balthrop and Mr. Porter had not been able to cross-examine Ms. Fraide. He said that Ms. Fraide had never come and explained what she saw, what she heard, her position, or her feelings, and that they had been forced to rely on Mr.
Rose’s impression and recollections of Ms. Fraide. He said that in the transcript of Mr. Rose's interview of Ms. Fraide, which he said was the City’s Exhibit 7 (C7), at 8 minutes and 25 seconds into the interview, Ms. Fraide said, “he made this gesture with his body.” He said that Mr. Rose had not seen the incident himself and did not know specifically what was going on in Ms. Fraide's mind, and he reiterated that the union had not had an opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Fraide. He said that therefore the City was forced to rely on Mr. Rose's account and recollection, and that Ms. Fraide's transcript could be used as evidence insofar as it supported and coincided with what Mr. Rose had testified about and on which he was cross-examined.
Ms. Alves said that Mr. Porter was referencing the City’s Exhibit 7, but that in the administrative record that the Council had received, Exhibit 7 was the arbitrator's finding of facts and recommendations. She said that the Council had only received the administrative record, and not the City’s or union’s exhibits that had been presented during arbitration.
Mr. Porter said he would get to the specific reference, and Mayor Williamson suggested going to public comment, which he noted would give Mr. Porter more time to try to find the reference.
Ms. Alves said that the Council might receive extra evidence in public comment, and said that to the extent that it might go beyond the evidentiary record, the Council could not use it in making their decision. She informed Mr. Porter that because Mr. Balthrop had been able to speak under the stipulated oral argument agreement between the City and the appellant, an additional comment from Mr. Balthrop would violate that agreement.
Mr. Porter responded that what Mr. Balthrop articulated was all in the evidentiary record as far as his work history, awards, and evaluations.
Ms. Alves said that the City and appellant had agreed to 30 minutes each of oral argument and that they had already gone beyond that, so she did not think the Council could take further oral argument from Mr. Balthrop under the stipulated agreement.
The period for public comment was opened.
Ryan Heron, union representative for General Employees of Monterey (GEM) and for Mr.
Balthrop, said that there had been much discussion regarding defining "severe and egregious" Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 24, Packet Page 31 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
25 and about whether Mr. Balthrop had been dishonest. He said that the union asked the Council to uphold and affirm the decision of the neutral, mutually accepted, outside arbitrator, who he said had determined that the conduct was not egregious and that Mr. Balthrop had not been dishonest. He asserted that if the Council did not, he believed it would have an extremely negative impact on the overall morale of the City workforce. He said it would send the message that a neutral, professional, outside hearing office was merely disregarded and that her opinion did not matter, and that the City Manager could "merely take that process and crumple it up and throw it away" and disregard that opinion. He said that it was a really important decision that the Council had to make, and that he respected and honored that, but wanted the Council to take into account the weight of it. From his standpoint, he said that what was severe and egregious was for the City Manager to take the arbitrator's opinion and completely disregard it. He asserted that this was unacceptable and did not uphold the values that he said the City Council wanted to demonstrate. He said that the message that it sent the City workforce was that it was the City Manager’s decision to make and that he could disregard what the professional and the union said. He said this demonstrated a lack of respect for labor and for the hearing officer who had decades of experience in cases like this. He closed by asking the Council to consider adopting what the professional hearing officer had recommended.
Chris Dwight, General Services Superintendent for the City of Monterey and Mr. Balthrop’s immediate manager who was the division head for his electrician position, said that he had had firsthand interactions with several of the inviduals named and wished to provide his perspective.
He went through a quick timeline of the events. He said that on January 19 he had received [Lt.] Sanchez's email with the claims including the statement that he said was in record or quoted.
He said that he had immediately understood the severity of the situation and had spoken with Lt. Sanchez to understand what had happened, whereupon he said that Lt. Sanchez had articulated to him that that he felt the conduct was severe and egregious which was why he had taken the steps he did to document it in an email. General Services Superintendent Dwight continued, stating that he had immediately sought out Ms. Fraide to corroborate the email from Lt. Sanchez, and to see what her experience was and what actions General Services Superintendent Dwight needed to take needed to take as the manager responsible for the division. He said that he went to Subway, and made sure that he and Ms. Fraide were able to step aside to talk privately and that she had agreed to do so and had said she was comfortable speaking about it. He noted that while it had been some time since the incident in December, Ms. Fraide had been very clearly upset even after that amount of time had lapsed. He said that this had shown him that he was dealing with something important. He said that he shared with her his very brief understanding without giving any details, but expressed that he had received a complaint, and that he had asked Ms. Fraide to explain in her own words what had happened.
He said that Ms. Fraide had articulated that Mr. Balthrop had said those words and had made that movement gesturing to his groin. He said that he had then run it up his chain of command.
He said that by the nature of the conduct it had obviously been severe and egregious to Ms.
Fraide, and that she had been clearly upset. He read aloud from the emailed complaint from Lt.
Sanchez: “Jerod ignores me and continues talking to Leslie. Jerod stated he has keys so it wouldn’t matter if she locked the door. He has keys to the installation, he spoke.” He said that he found it upsetting that an individual said these things to a young woman who then felt she could not lock the door behind her establishment. He closed by adding that he also had other evidence that he could not state at this hearing about dishonesty and relating to his supervision of Mr. Balthrop that he did not find in Mr. Balthrop’s file.
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director for the City of Monterey, said she had listened to the interviews twice. She asked the Council to picture being a young lady working in a Subway shop when a City employee walks into the Subway in his City uniform, representing the City at the Defense Language Institute, with which the City has a contract. The employee comes in through the back door, disregarding her request that he not come through the back door. She Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 25, Packet Page 32 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
26 described that in this scenario the man gets upset and the woman gets a little upset, and then he says “suck it” and makes a gesture. Public Works Director Renny stated that she would not make the gesture, that it was especially egregious and it was embarrassing and humiliating.
She said that in the interview Mr. Balthrop had mentioned something about wrestling, and she said that if you Google it, in wrestling, the term “suck it” goes with a specific gesture. She stressed to the Council that as a woman, if a man were to make that gesture and say those words, she would not be thinking of wrestling; she would be horrified and it would be shocking to her. She added that it was shocking to her that this person representing the City wearing a City uniform had done this in public. She said that in the recording she could hear Ms. Fraide's humiliation, and that as Ms. Hurtado had noted, there were other things that had made Ms.
Fraide uncomfortable. Public Works Director Renny said that she would like to see remorse from Mr. Balthrop, and that all people make mistakes, but noted that Mr. Balthrop had said in his own words that he couldn't believe Ms. Fraide would be offended because she was a girl who looked like she just got out of jail, because she had a neck tattoo. She stressed that no human being should be treated that way. She ended her comment with a quote: “The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior that the leaders are willing to tolerate.” Hans Uslar, City Manager, said that the core issue was that a male had pointed to his penis and said “Aysel can suck it.” He asked the Council whether that was acceptable for the City. He said that the Council had heard academic definitions of “egregious” and “especially egregious” behavior, and had heard Mr. Porter say racial slurs were worse than sexual harassment statements, and he asked if the Council wanted to decide that racial slurs were worse than someone pointing to his penis and saying “Aysel can suck it.” He asserted that Mr. Balthrop was a liar who had lied to the Council at this meeting when he stated that he couldn't remember what was going on and it took him a while to recollect what was going on. City Manager Uslar asserted that Mr. Balthrop recollected immediately and knew five minutes into the interview that the discussion was about what happened at the Subway, and that this was in the record. He said that Mr. Porter had tried to spin the story that there were investigative tactics used to try to figure something out. He said that only after the investigator had confronted Mr. Balthrop with statements of two witnesses who could confirm what Mr. Balthrop had said and gestured, and then suggested a break, Mr. Balthrop then took a break and became more honest and agreed and recollected that he had said the phrase in question. City Manager Uslar stressed that these were the undisputed facts. He said that Mr. Porter had claimed that Mr. Balthrop’s lies were speculations, which he said was an interesting spin on truth from an officer of the court. He said that he was glad the Council had identified the middle school playground argument. He said that keeping someone with Mr. Balthrop’s behavior on staff would not represent the organization that he wanted to lead or the organization that the Council wanted to oversee. He said that the “Me Too” movement had helped recognize women and their rights of integrity. He closed by stating that this event did happen, and that he did not buy for a second that the female employees of the City would support Mr. Heron's claim that affirming the termination would negatively impact worker morale. Instead, he said that the opposite would be true.
Mayor Williamson asked for any Council comments. It was briefly stated by the Council that the Councilmembers would contemplate what the Council had said, review the findings of the investigation and the statements and testimony at this meeting, and make a considered evaluation and judgment on whether the termination could be sustained.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Haffa stated that he had a conflict that would not allow him to attend the next Community Human Services meeting, and asked if the Council’s alternate could attend in his place.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 26, Packet Page 33 City Council Minutes October 15, 2024
27 CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session ***
The Council adjourned to closed session at 9:47 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION (EVE)
10. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release Pursuant to Government Code section 54957 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a roll call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent, the City Council affirmed the City Manager’s decision to terminate the employment of Electrician Jarod Balthrop
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
At 11:41 p.m., Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira announced that in the matter of Item 10 (listed above), on a roll call vote of 4 yeses (from Councilmembers Barber, Haffa, and Smith, and Mayor Williamson), with Councilmember Garcia absent, the City Council affirmed the City Manager’s decision to terminate the employment of Electrician Jarod Balthrop.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 11:42 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 27, Packet Page 34
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson (arrived at 4:12 p.m.)
Absent: Haffa
City Staff
Present:
City Manager, City Attorney, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Barber called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with Mayor Williamson and Councilmember Haffa absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.
STUDY SESSION
1. Receive a Report and Presentation on Expanded Path of History and Anthropological Research on Dutra Street (Not a project under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received report and presentation
Library & Museums Director Edwards gave the staff presentation, which included outlining the history of the City's Path of History; proposed additions to the current path; other ways the City's rich history was shared; and the history of the Dutra Street area and its past Rumsen inhabitants, including the City's acquisition of properties to clear space for public safety buildings. He answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Mayor Williamson arrived at 4:12 p.m.
The Council made suggestions for expanding the public's awareness of Monterey's history, including the indigenous people's history. The suggestions included potentially offering a virtual, interactive experience; promoting Monterey's history with other school districts throughout the state and developing more educational opportunities which could tie in with the aquarium; printing a book; partnering with See Monterey or the Chamber of Commerce to jointly build fiscal and human resources. The Council praised Library & Museums Director Edwards for his knowledge and for bringing his expertise and passion to the City. Library & Museums Director Edwards thanked his staff who he said had helped him with research.
Public comment was received from: Bob Evans, of the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission, who noted the resources required to do all of the wonderful things discussed, and asked that historical outreach be included in budget discussions each year and be highlighted and kept upDate: 11/5/2024 Item No.: 3.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 35 City Council Minutes October 23, 2024
2 to-date on the City's website and neighborhood associations' websites; Rudy Rosales, of the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, who shared a photograph of Dutra Street and spoke to his family's history at their house there, and asked for more consideration to the local Indigenous people, including holding a celebration and believing Indians instead of archaeologists; Karen Brown, who urged the City to recognize past wrongs and asked what the Council would do and say to amplify the experience of indigenous people who had been displaced at Dutra Street; Mike Sovereign, of the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission, who spoke to the wonderful but limited staff resources available for museums and history and asked for more staffing; Nancy Soule, who suggested that an unfinished Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) memory garden at the corner of Madison and Pacific Street could be repurposed to include indigenous people in the honoring of lost people, and said that the California State Parks already had information on historic locations which could be linked to expand the City's outreach; Philip Laverty, who noted that in his experience amplifying social justice topics increased visitorship to historical sites, and explained that understanding what happened with the 18 unratified treaties of 1851 was a critical aspect of local native history; and Nina Beety, who said that the Monterey history that was celebrated tended to be very Spanishcentric, said it was important to identify sites where atrocities had regularly taken place, and echoed calls for events and gatherings that would honor the native peoples' presence on the land.
The Council thanked the participants for their public comment. It was stated that the Council was learning more about Monterey's history and about things that everyone should know about.
Appreciation was expressed to Vice Mayor Barber for helping to bring forward Karen Brown's research. The public was encouraged to stand by for more information. The Council expressed that they looked forward to moving forward together with the community on this subject, stressing that there was a need to integrate social justice within the City's history. It was noted that the wrongs would not be solved overnight and that one act would not be able to address all the atrocities that had happened in the history of the region. It was noted that the Old Town neighborhood had a nice Path of History feature on their website and other neighborhood associations were encouraged to do the same. It was stated that Monterey was something special to treasure, provide for, and pass along to the next generation. Thanks were expressed to all of those who had taken this topic on as a personal mission to help others become more educated as they make decisions in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 36
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
4:00 PM
MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER, 301 E FRANKLIN ST.
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson
Absent: Haffa
City Staff
Present:
Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Parks and Recreation Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Recreation Manager, General Services Superintendent, Sports Center Manager, Aquatics Coordinator, Recreation Supervisor, Engineering Projects Manager, Recreation Coordinator, Recreation Specialist
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. outside the entrance to the Monterey Sports Center (MSC). City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.
STUDY SESSION
1. Conduct Council Field Trip to Monterey Sports Center (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Conducted field trip
Parks and Recreation Director Larson made a verbal presentation, beginning outside the entrance to the MSC, and continuing as she led the Council and attendees through various locations of the MSC. She answered Councilmembers' questions as they arose. Additional input and answers to questions throughout the tour were provided by Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Sports Center Manager Rothschild, Public Works Director Renny, General Services Superintendent Dwight, Recreation Manager Leon, and Aquatics Coordinator Graffagnino. Topics covered included a brief history of the MSC; specific features of the MSC's facility, operations, amenities, uses, programming and initiatives; service priorities of the MSC’s staff; needs, challenges, and plans for facility repair and maintenance; recent and upcoming improvements and renovations; the MSC's role in the community, including providing a "third place" and training future leaders; the difficulty and complexity of the staff work that goes into operating the MSC; funding, including from state grants and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP); plans and challenges for potentially reopening the snack bar/cafe and/or the Kids Zone childcare program; and the excellent MSC staff and their strengths. During the visit to the Studio 1 room, the Councilmembers joined a Zumba class to do the "Thriller" dance.
Public comment was received from Jean Rasch, who said she had heard young people in the community ask for a childcare program to return to the MSC, and Scott Hanson, who said that as a member of the NCIP Committee he was always on the lookout for MSC projects that would benefit from NCIP funding.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 4.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 City Council Minutes October 30, 2024
2 The Council briefly discussed the MSC following public comment, praising MSC staff for looking into solutions for the snack bar/cafe and Kids Zone, and for the work that they did to make the facility so special, and appreciation for the tour and for hearing about the amazing things going on at the MSC.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 5:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Christian Mercado, Engineering Projects Manager SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $497,702.00 to NX Plumbing & Underground Division for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (CIP) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:
1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (35C1555) (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;
2. Rejecting all non-responsive bids;
3. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;
4. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, NX Plumbing & Underground Division, in the amount of $497,702.00;
5. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and
6. Authorizing staff to spend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.
VALUE DRIVERS:
In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.
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.
Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety initiatives.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This action 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.” This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 5.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 39 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
On October 1, 2024, seven (7) bids were received by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:
Bidder Total Bid
NX Plumbing & Underground Division $497,702.00
FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. $603,276.00
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. $721,721.00 Precision Grade Inc. $728,855.00
The Don Chapin Company $756,081.00
Coastal Paving & Excavating Inc. $887,887.00
Zara Construction Non-responsive
The bid from Zara Construction was deemed non-responsive due to not receiving a bid bond in the form of a certified check or cashier’s check. The basis of award for this project is based on the Total Bid.
Estimated Construction Cost:
Total Bid $497,702.00
Construction Contingency (15%) $74,655.30
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $572,357.30 Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 74,655.30 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $647,012.60 Available Funding Sources:
Measure P/S-ADA (35C1555) $8,924,189.28
The Project is funded by the Measure P/S-ADA Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project account (35C1555). This account has an available funding balance of $8,924,189.28 as of October 9, 2024, there is sufficient funding to award and $572.357.30 will be encumbered from project account 35C1555.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the demolition and replacement of existing curb ramps with ADA compliant curb ramps, the resetting of twelve (12) street signposts and one guy wire, and the relocation of seven fire hydrants. All work within the public-right-of-way. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorial exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 40 №10/24
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a - Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project does not involve the creation of additional automobile lanes.
Exception c – Significant Effect. A categorial exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project would not impact historic resources as project improvements would only occur in the public right-of-way. The project is located in the area of high archeological sensitivity as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8). The project will disturb native soil. A Phase I Archeological Report was prepared for the project on May 7, 2023, by Dudek. As recommended by the report, the project will have a qualified archeologist monitor all ground disturbing activities during construction and will comply with California regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.
Therefore, the project would not have an impact on historical or archeological resources.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this Project. However, this is not recommended. The proposed project implements upgrades necessary for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
DISCUSSION:
The Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (Downtown) consists of curb ramp improvements to 20 locations (8 intersections) in the Downtown Neighborhood. The project would reconstruct existing pedestrian ramps to achieve compliance with current Americans with Disabilities Act Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 41 №10/24
(ADA) standards. These improvements help the City implement steps identified in the ADA Transition Plan and create a more walkable and accessible Downtown neighborhood.
The intersections scheduled for curb ramp improvements include:
Bonifacio Place at Adams Street: three (3) ramps
Pearl Street at Adams Street: two (2) ramps
Truncated domes will be installed on the existing two (2) curb ramps along Calle Principal fronting the City of Monterey Public Parking Garage – Lot 7. Cortes Street at Del Monte Avenue: two (2) ramps
Cortes Street at Fremont Street: one (1) ramp
Church Street at Figueroa Street: two (2) ramps
Webster Street at Figueroa Street: eight (8) ramps
Figueroa Street at Anthony Street: two (2) ramps
These locations are subject to change due to conditions in the built environment.
Construction for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (Downtown) is anticipated to start in the Spring of 2025.
Measure P/S is a 1% sales tax approved by voters in 2014 and continued in 2018 for the purpose of fixing streets, sidewalks, and storm drain systems. Since its adoption, revenue from the tax has effectively improved the City’s accessibility. Measure P/S funds are a dedicated and reliable resource for fixing and maintaining the City’s streets, curb ramps, sidewalks, and storm drains. Over the past decade, Measure P/S funds have been used to maintain City streets, sidewalks, and storm drains and upgrade ADA ramps. Without this resource, the City would not be able to maintain its streets and sidewalks to the same level of service.
The project plans and specifications were developed by City staff and consultants RuggeriJensen-Azar (RJA). The project was advertised for construction bids on the City’s eProcurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, on Thursday, August 8, 2024. Seven (7) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on October 1, 2024. The bid from Zara Construction was deemed non-responsive due to not receiving a bid bond in the form of a certified check or cashier’s check. The lowest responsive responsible bid was submitted by NX Plumbing and Underground Division, in the amount of $497,702.00.
CM/ab
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Bid Tabulation
3. Engineers Estimate
e: NX Plumbing & Underground Division
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 42 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $497,702.00 TO NX
PLUMBING & UNDERGROUND DIVISION FOR THE CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT, PHASE 9
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of October 2024, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received seven (7) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (35C1555) (“Project”); WHEREAS, NX Plumbing & Underground Division, FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc., Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., Precision Grade, Inc., The Don Chapin Company, and Coastal Paving & Excavating, Inc. submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, Zara Construction submitted an incomplete bid deemed non-responsive due to not receiving bid bond in the form of a certified check or cashier’s check; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, NX Plumbing & Underground Division submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $497,702.00;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the capital improvements program project account 35C1555 to complete the project;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the demolition and replacement of existing curb ramps with ADA compliant curb ramps, the resetting of twelve (12) street signposts and one guy wire, and the relocation of seven fire hydrants. All work within the public-right-of-way. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorial exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a -Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project does not involve the creation of additional automobile lanes.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 43 Exception c – Significant Effect. A categorial exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project would not impact historic resources as project improvements would only occur in the public right-of-way. The project is located in the area of high archeological sensitivity as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8). The project will disturb native soil. A Phase I Archeological Report was prepared for the project on May 7, 2023, by Dudek. As recommended by the report, the project will have a qualified archeologist monitor all ground disturbing activities during construction and will comply with California regulations regarding the accidental discovery of human remains. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on historical or archeological resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Approves the plans and specifications for the Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (35C1555) (“Project”), which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;
2. Rejects all non-responsive bids;
3. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;
4. Awards a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, NX Plumbing & Underground Division, in the amount of $497,702.00;
5. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and
6. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 44 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, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 45 City of Monterey
Finance Department
Rafaela King, Finance Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT, PHASE 9 (35C1555)
EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT, PHASE 9 (35C1555)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: October 1, 2024 at 2:00 pm
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
NX Plumbing and
Underground Division
$497,702.00
FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.
$603,276.00
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$721,721.00
Precision Grade Inc $728,855.00
The Don Chapin Company $756,081.00
Coastal Paving &
Excavating Inc.
$887,887.00
Zara Construction $998,915.00
TABLE 1
Vendor Total
NX Plumbing and
Underground Division
$497,702.00
FBD Vanguard
Construction, Inc.
$603,276.00
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$721,721.00
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 46
EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT, PHASE 9 (35C1555)
Vendor Total
Precision Grade Inc $728,855.00
The Don Chapin Company $756,081.00
Coastal Paving &
Excavating Inc.
$887,887.00
Zara Construction $998,915.00
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 47 Job Number: 212013
Date of Preparation: 05/10/2024
Opinion of Probable Cost
Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (Downtown)
May 10, 2024 Revised: September 16, 2024
Monterey, CA
Revision Date Revision Description
In providing this Opinion of Probable Cost, the Client understands that the Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Design Professional is not a Professional Cost Estimator. The Design Professional makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs. It is the Client's responsibility to review all unit prices and make changes as the Client sees fit to reflect the actual market prices the Client is experiencing and to reflect the Client's method of operation.
This document shall be considered incomplete unless accompanied by all sheets, including notes.
SUMMARY
A. DEMO & GRADING $273,100
B. PAVING & CONCRETE $168,265
C. MISCELLANEOUS $112,000
$553,365
$553,365 10% Contingency: $55,337
$608,702
Sub-Total Improvements:
Total Improvements:
W:\Jobs 21\212013 - Monterey On-Call\Projects\-1000 Curb Ramps - Downtown\Documents\Final\Studies and Calculations\Quantities and Costs\OPC-Monterey Downtown ADA.xlsxPage 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 48 Job Number: 212013
Date of Preparation: 05/10/2024
Opinion of Probable Cost
Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (Downtown)
May 10, 2024 Revised: September 16, 2024
Monterey, CA
Revision Date Revision Description
In providing this Opinion of Probable Cost, the Client understands that the Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Design Professional is not a Professional Cost Estimator. The Design Professional makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs. It is the Client's responsibility to review all unit prices and make changes as the Client sees fit to reflect the actual market prices the Client is experiencing and to reflect the Client's method of operation.
This document shall be considered incomplete unless accompanied by all sheets, including notes.
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
A. DEMO & GRADING
1. Mobilization 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
2. Sawcut, Demo, Removal, & Offhaul of Ex- Roadway Section 5,210 SF $20.00 $104,200
3. Demo, Removal, & Offhaul of Ex-PCC Curb & Gutter 580 LF $20.00 $11,600
4. Demo, Removal, & Offhaul of Ex-PCC Valley Gutter 55 LF $20.00 $1,100
5. Demo, Removal, & Offhaul of Ex-Conc (swks,ramps,etc.) 5,310 SF $20.00 $106,200 Sub-Total Demo & Grading: $273,100
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
B. PAVING & CONCRETE
1. Street AC Pavement (4"/8") 465 SF $10.00 $4,650
2. Street AC Pavement (4.5"/8") 3,245 SF $13.00 $42,185
3. Street PCC Pavement (6"/8") 1,130 SF $10.00 $11,300
4. Standard Curb and Gutter 300 LF $50.00 $15,000
5. Vertical Curb (not incl. ramp vertical curb) 27 LF $30.00 $810
6. Valley Gutter 200 LF $40.00 $8,000
7. Retaining Curb, 6" to 12" Tall 11 LF $40.00 $440
8. 3-5/8" PCC Sidewalk & Base (incl. concrete @ Herringbone pattern) 2,510 SF $8.00 $20,080
9. Non-Traversable Thermoplastic W/ Herringbone Brick Pattern 260 SF $10.00 $2,600
10. Accessible Ramp (incl. concrete, vertical curb, detectable surface) 3,100 SF $20.00 $62,000
11. Accessible Ramp Detectable Warning Surface 60 SF $20.00 $1,200 Sub-Total Paving & Concrete: $168,265
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
C. MISCELLANEOUS
1. Adjust Utility Cover to Finish Grade 6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000
2. Remove and Relocate Existing Bollards 4 EA $1,500.00 $6,000
3. Stormwater Compliance 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
4. Traffic Control 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
5. Construction Surveying 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
6. Signing and Striping (incl. removal, red curb) 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000
7. Reset or Relocate Roadside Sign 12 EA $1,000.00 $12,000
8. Record Drawings 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000
Sub-Total Miscellaneous: $112,000
W:\Jobs 21\212013 - Monterey On-Call\Projects\-1000 Curb Ramps - Downtown\Documents\Final\Studies and Calculations\Quantities and Costs\OPC-Monterey Downtown ADA.xlsxPage 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 49 Job Number: 212013
Date of Preparation: 05/10/2024
Opinion of Probable Cost
Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 9 (Downtown)
May 10, 2024 Revised: September 16, 2024
Monterey, CA
Revision Date Revision Description
In providing this Opinion of Probable Cost, the Client understands that the Design Professional has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the Design Professional is not a Professional Cost Estimator. The Design Professional makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs. It is the Client's responsibility to review all unit prices and make changes as the Client sees fit to reflect the actual market prices the Client is experiencing and to reflect the Client's method of operation.
This document shall be considered incomplete unless accompanied by all sheets, including notes.
NOTES
1. THIS IS A OPINION OF PROBABLE COST BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER. THE CIVIL ENGINEER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION CONCERNING THE ABOVE ITEMS SHOWN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BEING PREPARED. 2. QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE CALCULATED FROM IMPROVEMENT PLANS TITLED CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT PHASE 9 DATED MAY 10, 2024 WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION. 3. COST FIGURES SHOWN HEREIN ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. ACTUAL COSTS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE ITEMS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AT BIDDING TIME, THE GENERAL MARKET SITUATION, THE CONTRACTOR'S WORKLOAD, SEASONAL FACTORS, LABOR AND MATERIAL COST, ETC.
4. ITEMS SHOWN ABOVE AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION DUE TO CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS RESULTING FROM ON-GOING AGENCY REVIEW. 5. a. CONSTRUCTION STAKING b. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR TESTING
c. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
b. BONDS AND BONDING FEES
d. IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS
e. PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FEES (CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, ETC.)
f. MONITORING DURING CONSTRUCTION
g. TRAFFIC CONTROL
h. JOINT TRENCH
THIS COST ANALYSIS EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
W:\Jobs 21\212013 - Monterey On-Call\Projects\-1000 Curb Ramps - Downtown\Documents\Final\Studies and Calculations\Quantities and Costs\OPC-Monterey Downtown ADA.xlsxPage 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 50 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Senior Associate Planner SUBJECT: Authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Assistance Grant Funds in the Amount of $1.64 Million, and Authorize a Contract with the California Coastal Commission (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Authorize the Finance Director to receive and appropriate the funds upon award of the grant, and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the California Coastal Commission.
VALUE DRIVER:
Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On October 9, 2024, the California Coastal Commission approved an award of $1.64 million in LCP Local Assistance grant funds for the City of Monterey to prepare a sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation plan, economic analysis, LCP amendment, and associated public outreach and engagement. If the grant is not authorized, the City will, in short time, be out of compliance with SB 2721 approved by the Governor on October 7, 2023, which requires local governments to incorporate sea level rise plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal Programs.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City has been awarded a grant from the Coastal Commission in the amount of $1.64 million. The grant would fund the preparation of an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation plan, economic analysis, and LCP amendment that will be required as a program in the draft Local Coastal Plan (Draft LCP) (currently being prepared for 2025 approval). The grant allocation includes both consultant time and City staff time needed to 1 Senate Bill 272: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB272 Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 6.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 51 №10/24
manage and administer the grant. If the grant is not authorized, the City cannot enter into a grant agreement with the Coastal Commission, and the City will ultimately be required to fund a similar study utilizing the City’s General Fund.
This is a reimbursable grant. The City expects to expend approximately $300,000 during FY25.
The remaining balance will be appropriated and included in future budget years based on the amount expected to be expended each year.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund activities, such as basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
These would be strictly for information gathering purposes.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The activities would not cause a cumulative impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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 activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The activities would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 52 №10/24
Government Code. The activities would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
An alternative would be to not authorize the allocation of funds awarded by the Coastal Commission and forfeit the LCP Local Assistance Grant award.
DISCUSSION:
The City’s Goal for a Local Coastal Plan
The Coastal Act mandates the protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as providing priority visitor-serving and coastal-dependent or coastal-related development while simultaneously minimizing risks from coastal hazards. The Coastal Act requires each local government to prepare a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for the coastal zone portion of its jurisdiction.
The purpose of an LCP is to meet the requirements and implement the provisions and policies of the Coastal Act. LCPs serve as a blueprint for the development and buildout of the coastal zone while addressing emerging issues such as climate change, sea level rise, and affordable housing. Generally, an LCP consists of a local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other documents that implement the Coastal Act at the local level (CA 30108.6). Once an LCP is certified, the local jurisdiction is delegated authority to approve Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for development in the coastal zone. Without a certified LCP, the responsibility and authority for CDP’s remains with the Coastal Commission.
An LCP includes both a Land Use Plan (LUP) and an Implementation Plan (IP). The City has four certified LUP’s for the subareas of Del Monte Beach, Cannery Row, Monterey Harbor, and Skyline. The LUP for Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake was never certified and an IP was never prepared for these subareas. The City is working diligently towards finalizing a Draft Local Coastal Plan (Draft LCP) - one comprehensive plan that combines all subareas into one document and includes an Implementation Plan. The City’s goal is to achieve certification from the Coastal Commission in 2025. The Draft LCP will first be reviewed by the Coastal Commission and then will be available for public review. Planning staff will provide updates on the progress of the LCP and opportunities for public outreach at the project website:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/local-coastal-program
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 53 №10/24
Sea Level Rise Studies and Adaptation Plans
Multiple sea level rise studies have been prepared for the City. Most recently, on February 2, 2021, the City Council adopted the study, Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise (Resolution No. 21-012 C.S.). This study prepared by the City in partnership with consulting firm Kimley-Horn won an Outstanding Climate Document Award at the annual Association of Environmental Professionals conference. This study examined the risks that sea level rise poses to transportation and other lifeline infrastructure and explored conceptual options to minimize those risks.
In 2019, an AB 691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment (SLR Assessment) was prepared for State Public Trust Lands2. This study provided an SLR Assessment of tidelands granted to the City of Monterey in accordance with Assembly Bill 691 and included sea level rise assessment and mapping, an estimate of financial costs of sea level rise, and a description of how the trustee proposes to protect and preserve resources and structures that would be impacted by SLR. On May 21, 2019, the City Council authorized the City Manager to submit the AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment to the State Lands Commission (Resolution No. 19-077 C.S.).
In 2016, a Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report was prepared to serve as a background report for the Draft Local Coastal Plan (LCP).
The Coastal Commission has accepted this 2016 report as a background report for the Draft LCP to:
1) Understand existing and projected climate-induced coastal hazards, such as sea level rise;
2) Identify existing and potential vulnerabilities to the urban uses, infrastructure and coastal resources; and
3) Draft the City’s initial policies and programs on sea level rise and adaptation.
An Updated Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Prepared Concurrently with the LCP
On October 7, 2023, the Governor signed into law SB 2723 requiring local governments to incorporate sea level rise plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal Programs. The City of Monterey and California Coastal Commission acknowledged that a more robust science and engineering-based sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan is needed to support the city in the development of more detailed policies and programs on sea level rise adaptation and resilience. The Local Assistance grant would fund the preparation of an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan that would be prepared concurrently with the Draft LCP. Once the LCP is certified, an LCP amendment will be needed to update the City’s LCP policies and programs related to sea level rise resilience and adaptation.
The study prepared under the LCP Local Assistance Grant would include two phases:
First, to include a variety of data gathering, technical and policy analysis, and public outreach and engagement to inform development of draft documents 2 AB-691 State Public Trust Lands, Sea Level Rise Assessment. https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/sealevel-rise-adaptation-plan 3 Senate Bill 272: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB272 Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 54 №10/24
Second, to include finalization of an adaptation plan, including an adaptation plan with actionable next steps, and development and adoption of an LCP amendment informed by the project.
The overall goal of this project is to identify strategies and solutions designed to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise and climate change. The project will help the City create a roadmap to allocate resources to the right projects and programs at the appropriate time based on observed conditions and to navigate the challenges posed by sea level rise and climate change. It will focus on preserving and enhancing coastal habitat, protecting coastal-dependent development and resources, as well as providing and enhancing lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities while ensuring public access for all. The work will also align with the Coastal Act goals of protecting coastal resources without creating new environmental burdens or exacerbating existing ones related to environmental justice.
More specifically, the proposed project includes the following tasks/deliverables:
Background Report – A variety of sea level rise studies and analyses have already been completed for the City and wider Monterey Bay area. The City/consultant will evaluate and synthesize existing studies and develop a background report that compiles information on sea level rise vulnerabilities, assets that have been evaluated, and adaptation strategies that have been proposed or considered. The report will also identify current data gaps or information that needs to be updated to reflect newer science and best practices. This information will inform subsequent tasks so that work is not duplicated but rather integrated and expanded upon.
Vulnerability Assessment – The City/consultant will complete a draft and final vulnerability assessment that considers risks that the City, its assets, and its coastal resources are likely to encounter as the impacts of sea level rise and coastal hazards worsen over time. The assessment will address relevant gaps identified in the background report and impacts of sea level rise on historically marginalized communities as well as be consistent with the 2024 State Sea Level Rise Guidance. The assessment will divide the City coastline into transects/subareas based on similarities in land uses and coastal form to provide a clear framework for assessing localized impacts within each defined area. Adaptation Plan – The City/consultant will develop an Adaptation Plan through a phased approach that includes:
o Potential Adaptation Responses – The team will consider a wide array of possible adaptation options, including those already assessed (included in the Background Report), examples from around California and abroad, and innovative options. Up to three responses will be developed for each subarea. Potential adaptation strategies will include near, mid, and long-term implementation projects for various adaptation strategies (accommodation, protection, retreat, hybrid), and it is assumed that strategies will differ for each of the City’s subareas. Strategies will be evaluated in terms of factors such as environmental impacts, recreational opportunities, flood reduction, habitat creation, and costs. Feasible alternatives will be further evaluated and refined.
o Economic Analysis – An economic analysis will be prepared for the identified adaptation strategies. This will include assessment of the benefits, impacts, and costs (including estimated capital and maintenance) for each adaptation type (i.e., accommodate, protect, hybrid, or retreat) along the entire City’s coastline, including Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 55 №10/24
the option of taking no action. This assessment will include a detailed evaluation of the status of all the City’s coastal assets, both protected and unprotected, as well as coastal resources, coastal habitats, public access, and recreational resources. o Final Adaptation Plan – Based on findings from the economic analysis and public feedback (discussed below) on the potential adaptation responses, a final adaptation plan will be developed. This will include a pathways approach that identifies nearterm (1-5 years) and mid-term (6-15 years) strategies along with triggers and thresholds for changing adaptation options. Long-term options will also be identified, though with less detail. The Plan will identify Implementation Actions, including, as feasible, conceptual design plans (10% design for the mid and long-term strategies, and 30% for near-term strategies) and cost estimates. The Plan will also evaluate and identify funding strategies and will include a monitoring and reporting plan. Public Outreach and Community Engagement – The City/consultant will develop a comprehensive community engagement strategy. To effectively engage the community, the team will identify a variety of participatory methods to ensure inclusive and equitable participation, actively involving community members in the planning process. Engagement strategies will prioritize marginalized communities and perspectives and will include stipends for EJ groups, focus group meetings, virtual reality storytelling, workshops, surveys, and pop-ups. This outreach will heavily inform the adaptation strategies and final adaptation plan as well as the subsequent LCP amendment.
LCP Amendment – Separate from the proposed project, the City of Monterey is currently working on fully certifying its LCP and expects to do so concurrently with the early phases of this project. As part of the proposed grant work, the City will develop what it expects to be an amendment to, at that point, the recently certified LCP to incorporate the project findings.
This will build on more general baseline sea level rise policies that are likely to be in the initial LCP certification, to more specifically address, allow for, and implement adaptation strategies identified in the Final Adaptation Plan.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to increase the FY25 revenue budget for the receipt of the $1.64 million LCP grant, appropriate the grant funds, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the Coastal Commission.
LH/cs
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Levi Hill, Planning Manager
Kim Cole, Community Development Director
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Andrew Easterling, Deputy Public Works Director
All Neighborhood and Business Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 56 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF COASTAL COMMISSION LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,640,000 ($1.64 MILLION) AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City is preparing the draft Local Coastal Plan (LCP) in preparation for California Coastal Commission and public review. In ultimately achieving certification of the LCP, the City will be required to comply with the Coastal Act; WHEREAS, the Coastal Act mandates the protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as providing priority visitor-serving and coastal dependent or coastal-related development while simultaneously minimizing risks from coastal hazards;
WHEREAS, multiple studies on sea level rise have been prepared for the City; however, the 2016 Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report was prepared to serve as a background report for the Draft LCP; WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission has accepted this 2016 report as a background report for the Draft LCP to 1) understand existing and projected climate-induced coastal hazards, such as sea level rise, and 2) identify existing and potential vulnerabilities to the urban uses, infrastructure and coastal resources; and 3) help draft the City’s initial policies and programs on sea level rise and adaptation in the Draft LCP; WHEREAS, the City and California Coastal Commission acknowledged that a more robust science and engineering-based sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan is needed to support the city in the development of more detailed policies and programs on sea level rise adaptation and resilience;
WHEREAS, the grant would fund the preparation of an updated Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan and Economic Analysis; LCP amendment; and associated public outreach and engagement that would be prepared as the Draft LCP is being finalized. Once the LCP is certified, an LCP amendment will be needed to update the City’s LCP policies and programs related to sea level rise resilience and adaptation; WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council directed staff to submit an LCP Local Assistance Grant to the Coastal Commission for an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan (Resolution No. 23-108 C.S.); WHEREAS, on October 9, 2024, the Coastal Commission approved an award of $1.64 million in LCP Local Assistance grant funds to the City of Monterey; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund activities, such as basic data collection, research, and resource Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 57 evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These would be strictly for information gathering purposes. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The activities would not cause a cumulative impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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 activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The activities would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The activities would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 58 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. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager to increase the FY25 budget account 101-400-4400- 3472 to accept the awarded funds from the Coastal Commission for LCP Local Assistance Grant in an amount not to exceed $1,640,000 and to appropriate the funds from the Planning Division’s Professional Services account 101-400-4400- 0000-4240; and
2. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with the California Coastal Commission for allocation of these funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 5th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 59 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kim Cole, AICP, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant Funds in the Amount of $2,305,450 and REAP Local Suballocation Grant Funds in the Amount of $169,380; Authorize Contract with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Authorize the Finance Director to increase the FY25 revenue budget for the receipt and appropriation of the funds, and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with AMBAG.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The REAP 2.0 grant will fund predevelopment costs related to development for the 100% affordable housing project at the City-owned 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street site, which would support the City’s ongoing housing efforts, including those intended to serve extremely low-, very low-, and low-income residents. Completing predevelopment studies and preliminary design is a necessary step to support the City’s efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City obtained a Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Regional Competitive grant from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to support predevelopment efforts associated with the Madison Street affordable housing project. Additionally, the City obtained a REAP Local Suballocation grant from AMBAG to support Housing Element implementation efforts. Due to the most recent State budget, AMBAG reduced the City’s grant to a maximum of $2,305,450 and $169,380, respectively.
During the FY 25 budget cycle, the City anticipated and included $1,300,000 in the grant revenue budget for the REAP grant. The City now needs to make an adjustment to reflect the actual amount awarded, and will increase the revenues by the $1,174,830 difference into account 101-400-4400-3472 and appropriate the full amount of the grants of $2,474,830 into account 101-400-4400-0000-4240.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 7.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 60 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund predevelopment activities, such as basic data collection, research, design, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These would be strictly for information gathering purposes.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The predevelopment activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The predevelopment activities would not cause a cumulative impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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 predevelopment activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The predevelopment activities would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The predevelopment activities would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 61 №10/24
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 predevelopment activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
An alternative would be to not authorize the appropriation of funds and forfeit the REAP 2.0 grant awards.
DISCUSSION:
Background
In January 2020, the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals to develop City-owned property for affordable housing. (Resolution 20-011.) In July 2020, the City issued a Request for Proposals to develop City-owned sites for affordable housing. The City received proposals for four development sites, and ultimately, the City Council selected the site directly behind City Hall to develop affordable housing.
On July 19, 2022, the City Council approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with MidPen Housing Corporation (“MidPen”) for the development of affordable housing.
This Agreement (Ag-11130) was effective August 15, 2022. The purpose of an ENA was to have a specific, limited period of time to negotiate mutually acceptable governing documents for the potential disposition of the Property and undertaking of the construction of the project on the property by MidPen Housing.
Per the ENA, MidPen had 240 days, with a one-year extension option, to complete a series of predevelopment studies and negotiate a development agreement with the City. The City granted three amendments. The first amendment increased the due date for the Updated Preliminary Development Package from 90 days after the effective to 210 days after the effective date.
Amendment 2 extended the term for one year to April 12, 2024, and increased the due date for the Preliminary Development Package from 210 days to 365 days after the effective date of August 15, 2023. Amendment 3 extended the negotiating period to April 12, 2025.
On October 15, 2024, the City Council approved the Affordable Housing and Property Disposition Agreement and a ground lease between the City and MidPen subsidiary, MP Madison Street Associates, L.P.
Regional Early Action Planning 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant In July of 2023, the City submitted an application for the REAP 2.0 grant to support predevelopment costs associated with the Madison Street affordable housing project and was subsequently awarded $2,305,450. Predevelopment activities include site investigations, design, and entitlements, such as architectural plans through building permit submittal (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, utility design, and landscaping); environmental phase I and II reports and investigations; historic and archaeological reports and investigations; geotechnical and soils reports; NEPA and CEQA environmental clearances; planning application; biotic studies; arborist report; land use attorney advice, appraisers, surveyors, and financial consulting.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 62 №10/24
Local Suballocation Grant Program
In August of 2023, the City submitted an application for the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation grant to support implementation efforts associated with the City’s adopted Housing Element. The City was awarded $169,380 in grant funds. On July 16, 2024, the City adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element and received State certification in October 2024. Housing Element implementation efforts include updates to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and associated environmental review of required Specific Plan updates and rezonings.
Table 1: Grant Award Summary
Grant Award
City of Monterey RCGP (Madison Housing) $2,305,450
City of Monterey LSGP (HE Implementation) $169,380
In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the receipt and appropriation of Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2.0 Regional Competitive grant funds in the amount of $2,305,450 and REAP Local Suballocation grant funds in the amount of $169,380 and authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with AMBAG.
KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Draft 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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 63 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (REAP) 2.0 REGIONAL COMPETITIVE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,305,450 AND REAP LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,380, AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY
AREA GOVERNMENTS
WHEREAS, in January 2020, the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals to develop City owned property for affordable housing. (Resolution 20-011.) In July 2020, the City issued a Request for Proposals to develop City-owned sites for affordable housing. The City received proposals for four development sites and ultimately the City Council selected the site directly behind City Hall to develop affordable housing.
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with MidPen Housing Corporation (“MidPen”) for the development of affordable housing. This Agreement (Ag-11130) was effective August 15, 2022. The purpose of an ENA was to have a specific, limited period of time to negotiate mutually acceptable governing documents for the potential disposition of the Property and undertaking of the construction of the project on the property by MidPen Housing.
Per the ENA, MidPen had 240 days, with a one-year extension option, to complete a series of predevelopment studies and negotiate a development agreement with the City. The City granted three amendments. The first amendment increased the due date for the Updated Preliminary Development Package from 90 days after the effective to 210 days after the effective date.
Amendment 2 extended the term for one year to April 12, 2024, and increased the due date for the Preliminary Development Package from 210 days to 365 days after the effective date of August 15, 2023. Amendment 3 extended the negotiating period to April 12, 2025.
On October 15, 2024, the City Council approved the Affordable Housing and Property Disposition Agreement and a ground lease between the City and MidPen subsidiary, MP Madison Street Associates, L.P.
WHEREAS, in July of 2023, the City submitted an application for the REAP 2.0 grant to support predevelopment cost associated with the Madison Street affordable housing project and was subsequently awarded $2,305,450. Predevelopment activities include site investigations, design, and entitlements, such as architectural plans through building permit submittal (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, utility design, and landscaping); environmental phase I and II reports and investigations; historic and archaeological reports and investigations; geotechnical and soils reports; NEPA and CEQA environmental clearances; planning application; biotic studies; arborist report; land use attorney advice, appraisers, surveyors, and financial consulting;
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 64 WHEREAS, in August of 2023, the City submitted an application for the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation grant to support implementation efforts associated with the City’s adopted Housing Element. The City was awarded $169,380 in grant funds.
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element and received State certification in October of 2024. Housing Element implementation efforts include updates to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and associated environmental review of required Specific Plan updates and rezonings; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund predevelopment activities, such as basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These would be strictly for information gathering purposes.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a cumulative impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
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 predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 65 involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The predevelopment activities and housing element implementation would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager to accept and appropriate the awarded funds from the REAP 2.0 Regional Competitive Grant not to exceed $2,305,450 and awarded funds from the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant not to exceed $169,380 from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. The funds are to be appropriated to the Planning Office Professional Services Account 101-400-4400-0000-4240.
FY25 grant revenues should be increased by $1,174,830, the difference between the final award amount and the initial amount of $1.3 million already included in the budget into account 101-400-4400-3472; and
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 66
2. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments for allocation of these funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 5th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Cheryl Kouretas, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize a New Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with the County of Monterey for the Monterey Fire Department to Provide Paramedic Services in the City of Pacific Grove, Amending the City’s Current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement to Acknowledge the Pacific Grove Agreement, and Amending the Fire Services Agreement with Pacific Grove to include Paramedic Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution to:
1. Rescind and supersede Resolution No. 24-127;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the County of Monterey for the Monterey Fire Department to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) Services in the City of Pacific Grove;
3. Authorize the City Manager to amend the City’s current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement (Ag-7039) to acknowledge the new agreement and exempt the Monterey Fire Department’s ALS services in Pacific Grove from Ag-7039’s prohibition on the Monterey Fire Department providing routine ALS care in other jurisdictions; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to amend the current fire services agreement with the City of Pacific Grove (Ag-8164) to increase Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to include Advanced Life Support (ALS) services upon the County of Monterey’s execution of a new agreement for the Monterey Fire Department to provide ALS services in Pacific Grove.
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:
In August 2024, the City of Monterey’s and the City of Pacific Grove’s City Councils both authorized the cities to amend the current fire services agreement for the Monterey Fire Department to provide ALS services in the City of Pacific Grove. Under the City of Monterey’s Resolution 24-127, the Monterey City Council also authorized the City Manager to amend the current Paramedic Service Provider agreement with the County of Monterey (Ag-7039) to specify that the ALS service area includes the City of Pacific Grove.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 8.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 №10/24
In 2018, the County of Monterey authorized the City of Monterey to provide ALS services within the City’s limits, the “primary service area” and outside of the City’s limits on automatic aid and mutual aid calls within the County of Monterey.
Per the County of Monterey’s direction, the City of Monterey must execute a separate Paramedic Service Provider agreement with the County of Monterey instead of only amending the current agreement (Ag-7039) to provide ALS services in Pacific Grove’s service area.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no costs associated with executing a new agreement with the County of Monterey to expand ALS services to the City of Pacific Grove or amending the current agreement with the County of Monterey. All costs to provide the additional ALS services will be paid for by the City of Pacific Grove through the fire services agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could decide not to authorize the listed recommendations for the Monterey Fire Department to provide ALS services in the City of Pacific Grove. This is not recommended as increasing emergency medical services to include ALS benefits the residents and visitors of the City of Pacific Grove to receive a higher level of care.
DISCUSSION:
In September 2018, the City of Monterey and Monterey County entered into an agreement for the Monterey Fire Department to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) services within the City of Monterey’s city limits, the ‘primary service area’ and outside of the City’s limits on automatic and mutual aid calls within the County of Monterey. In October 2018, Monterey’s first engine, Medic Engine 11, began providing ALS services, and the program has been expanding ever since its inception. In 2021, ALS service began on Medic Engine 13, and in 2023, ALS service began on Medic Engine 12.
The City of Pacific Grove recently requested to increase the level of service to the City of Pacific Grove’s service area to include ALS. The Monterey Fire Department (MFD) has sufficient resources to transition the Pacific Grove engine from Basic Life Support (BLS) to ALS. MFD’s Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 69 №10/24
Paramedic ALS program has a proven track record of improved outcomes and saved lives due to the higher level of care provided by paramedics.
This item previously went before Council in August of this year and staff received the Council’s direction to proceed with amending the current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement to expand the service area to include Pacific Grove. However, the County of Monterey subsequently directed that the City of Monterey must enter into a separate Paramedic Service Provider Agreement to provide ALS services within the City of Pacific Grove. Therefore, staff is returning for authorization to enter into a new agreement with the County for MFD to provide paramedic services within the jurisdiction of Pacific Grove. Relatedly, the City’s current agreement to provide paramedic services in its own jurisdiction includes a provision prohibiting the City from providing paramedic services in other jurisdictions. Accordingly, that agreement needs to be amended to allow for the new agreement with Pacific Grove.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution:
1. Rescinding and superseding Resolution 24-127;
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the County of Monterey for the Monterey Fire Department to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) Services in the City of Pacific Grove;
3. Authorizing the City Manager to amend the City’s current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement (Ag-7039) to acknowledge the new agreement and exempt the Monterey Fire Department’s ALS services in Pacific Grove from Ag-7039’s prohibition on the Monterey Fire Department providing routine ALS care in other jurisdictions; and
4. Authorizing the City Manager to amend the current fire services agreement with the City of Pacific Grove (Ag-8164) to increase Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to include Advanced Life Support (ALS) services upon the County of Monterey’s execution of a new agreement for the Monterey Fire Department to provide ALS services in Pacific Grove.
AM/ck
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING A NEW PARAMEDIC SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF MONTEREY FOR THE MONTEREY FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE PARAMEDIC SERVICES IN THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, AMENDING THE CITY’S
CURRENT PARAMEDIC SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING THE FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH PACIFIC GROVE TO INCLUDE PARAMEDIC SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has been providing fire services to the City of Pacific Grove since December 16, 2008; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the County of Monterey authorized the City of Monterey to provide Advance Life Support (ALS) services within the City’s limits, the “primary service area” and outside of the City’s limits on automatic aid and mutual aid calls within the County of Monterey; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove has requested to increase the level of service in the agreement from Basic Life Support (BLS) services to ALS Services; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Council authorized the City Manager to amend the current Paramedic Services Provider agreement (Ag-7039) under Resolution 24-127; WHEREAS, the County of Monterey requires a separate Paramedic Services Provider agreement to provide ALS services within the City of Pacific Grove; 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:
1. Rescinds Resolution No. 24-127, which is superseded in its entirety by this Resolution; Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 71
2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with the County of Monterey for the Monterey Fire Department to provide Paramedic Services in the City of Pacific Grove;
3. Authorizes the City Manager to amend the City’s current Paramedic Service Provider Agreement (Ag-7039) to acknowledge the new agreement and exempt the Monterey Fire Department’s paramedic services in Pacific Grove from Ag-7039’s prohibition on the Monterey Fire Department providing routine paramedic care in other jurisdictions; and
4. Authorizes the City Manager to amend the current fire services agreement with the City of Pacific Grove (Ag-8164) to increase Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to include Advanced Life Support (ALS) services upon the County of Monterey’s execution of a new agreement for the Monterey Fire Department to provide ALS services in Pacific Grove.
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, 11/5/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 72 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Karen Faurot, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Accept the 2024 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) Grant in the Amount of $250,000 to Hire Additional Police Officers (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution to accept the 2024 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program (CHP) grant in the amount of $250,000 to add two police officer positions, which would be added to the Position Control List pending final budget considerations and City Council approval in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget process.
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.
Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This action is consistent with prior Council direction regarding the acquisition of grant funding to supplement the cost of essential City programs, functions, and operations.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Monterey Police Department (MPD) was awarded $250,000 to partially fund the salary and benefits of (2) additional police officer positions. The grant requires that Monterey retain the DOJ-funded positions for a minimum of 12 months following the three years of funding for each position. The total costs for salary and benefits for one officer for the four-year period (before any incentive pay, overtime or anticipated increases in Benefits and PERS) is $672,268. For two officers, the total is $1,344.535. After receiving the $250,000 grant over the three-year period, the City’s matching portion will be $1,094,535.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 9.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 73 №10/24
The program costs are outlined below.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Base Salary 109,128.00 114,600.00 120,408.00 126,288.00 COLA 0% 4% 4% 4%
Total Salary 109,128.00 119,184.00 125,224.32 131,339.52 Benefits 32,072.00 32,072.22 32,072.00 32,072.00
PERS 14,776.00 14,776.00 14,776.00 14,776.00
Total Salary
and Benefits
155,976.00
166,032.00
172,072.32
178,187.52
$672,267.84
Officers 2 2 2 2
(2) Officers 311,952.00 332,064.00 344,144.64 356,375.04 $1,344,535.68 Grant (83,333.33) (83,333.34) (83,333.34) 0 ($250,000.00) Cost to City 228,618.67 248,730.67 260,811.30 356,375.04 $1,094,535.68 City Paid 73.29% 74.90% 75.79% 100.00%
Grant Paid 26.71% 25.10% 24.21% 0.00%
Program implementation will be determined by Council in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget cycle.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
Council could choose not to approve the recommendation outlined above. However, the grant acceptance window is only 45 days and not accepting the grant would negate the ability for the MPD to be subsidized $250,000 to add (2) police officer positions. The MPD was one of only 12 cities in California selected to receive this competitive grant funding. Accepting this grant award and adding (2) police officers to the MPD would assist in providing the level of public safety demanded by our community. The grant acceptance deadline is November 14, 2024.
DISCUSSION:
The COPS Hiring Program (CHP) provides funding to law enforcement agencies to hire additional career law enforcement officers in an effort to increase their community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts. The Monterey Police Department (MPD) received a Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 74 №10/24
$250,000 grant award to add (2) police officer positions to the Community Action Team (CAT) who will focus on improving response and interaction with persons in crisis and include efforts focused on the education, prevention and interventions related to the abuse of opioids and other substances in our community.
The MPD currently has (53) authorized sworn positions. This grant would increase sworn staffing to (55) positions. The (2) additional positions would be added to the CAT, enhancing the department’s capacity to address homelessness and community issues. These new CAT members will receive specialized training in community policing, allowing them to engage with homeless individuals, connect them with services, and collaborate with local providers. Officers receive training in cultural competency, conflict resolution, and collaborative problem-solving, ensuring they are well-equipped for community-oriented policing. This improves public safety, strengthens community relationships, addresses quality of life issues, and provides essential services.
The responsibilities of the MPD are numerous, and the need to address social responsibilities and provide essential services is increasing. For example, police are primarily responsible for the unhoused who are suffering from mental illness, substance addiction, or both, and are often times “service resistant.” CAT actively addresses the unhoused crisis in Monterey, coordinating services like mental health and drug treatment programs and long-term housing solutions. As part of the Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT), CAT officers coordinate services that have led to successful outcomes.
The MPD responds to approximately 50,000 service calls per year. This is more than any other public safety agency on the Monterey Peninsula. Additionally, the MPD handles approximately 30 days of special events, which must be covered using overtime hours because officers staffing special events are mandated to come back to work during non-working hours, so they do not affect staffing the patrol structure that is answering 911 calls. Adding two entry-level officers to the MPD and transferring two qualified officers to the CAT provides opportunities to assign trained officers to high-need areas for longer durations. These officers will enhance community policing efforts, strengthen partnerships, and ensure a sustained and positive police presence in key areas.
DJH/kf
Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 75 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
ACCEPTING THE 2024 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES (COPS) HIRING PROGRAM (CHP) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 TO HIRE ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS
WHEREAS, the Monterey Police Department was awarded $250,000 from the 2024 U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program (CHP) grant to add two police officer positions and increase sworn staffing from (53) positions to (55). The (2) additional positions would be added to the Community Action Team (CAT) during the fiscal year 2026 budget process and will focus on improving response and interaction with persons in crisis and include efforts focused on education, prevention and interventions related to the abuse of opioids and other substances in our community; and WHEREAS, the grant funding is provided over a three-year period, and the grant requires the City to retain the DOJ-funded positions for a minimum of twelve months following the three years of funding for each position; 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 adopts a resolution authorizing acceptance of the $250,000.00 U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program grant to hire additional police officers and authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into any agreements that may be required to accept the grant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 76 ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 77 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Authorize an Agreement with Infor Public Sector, Inc. and Appropriate $499,668.81 for the Purchase of Infor Public Sector Suite (Hansen) Multi-Year Support Agreement (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize an agreement and appropriate funds in the amount of $499,668.81 for the purchase of Infor Public Sector Suite (Hansen) multi-year software support services.
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.
Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The choice of Infor as the solution vendor is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive, quality, and cost-effective information technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The software support services from Infor Public Sector, Inc. is considered a sole source purchase because they are the only provider of support services for their products; as such, no formal competitive process for this purchase was necessary.
The pending purchase will total $499,668.81, including sales tax and delivery. For FY24-25, the contract amount of $159,808.67 will be paid from the existing budget appropriation from the Information Services Fund 710, service contracts account [710-030-0340-0000-4238] in the amount of $133,592.08, which has $511,831.95 available as of October 16, 2024, and the Contractual Services Account [710-030-0340-0000-4220] in the amount of $26,216.59, which has $1,443,990.94 available as of October 15, 2024. For FY25-26 and FY26-27, funds will need to be appropriated from the Information Services Fund 710 for the proposed scheduled payments of $166,463.14 and $173,397.00, respectively.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 10.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 78 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
An alternative is to continue to honor the existing support and services agreement to pay increases up to 6% and 7% yearly and not take advantage of $20,109.38 in savings over the next three years.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Monterey originally purchased Hansen software, now called Infor Public Sector Suite, in 1997 to manage and track work orders and services in the Public Works Department.
Infor tracks and manages assets and resources, providing an automated solution for costing, inventory, maintenance, investigations, and inspections for fleet, street, wastewater, parks, urban forestry, cemetery, plant and facilities, sewer, and roadways. Infor has been instrumental in providing the underlying reporting, inventory tracking, work management capacity, etc., for the City’s base operations contracts with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey.
On August 19, 2014, Council authorized the acquisition and awarded contracts for services to Infor Public Sector, Inc. and TruePoint Solutions to upgrade the Public Works Department’s Hansen/Infor Asset Management Software and to add the Community Development Department’s work management software solutions. Infor Public Sector Suite tracks and manages all land use and community development activities, including permits, building safety, building inspections, investigations, reviews, zoning, project plans, and code enforcement.
In March 2023, the City hired a third-party vendor to assist in the development of a strategic plan for Infor. This plan identified areas to prioritize resources, improve efficiencies, enhance communication, and ensure work processes were agile and responsive to meet the changing needs of the City. Staff are in the process of configuring the Infor system to accept online payments and facilitate online permitting. Examples of building permits include mechanical, electrical, re-roof, plumbing, grading, and solar. These permits are planned for first quarter 2025 to coincide with online payment ability with City's banking partner, Wells Fargo. In addition, in the first quarter of 2025, residents and businesses will be able to report and track concerns such as potholes, graffiti, and other issues through the City’s website and mobile apps. This new tool, which is being integrated with Infor, will manage and track work orders, staff assignments, time and money spent on issues, and provide a more customer service-oriented experience.
Infor’s services and support plan provides software upgrades, updates, system patches, and unlimited support. Per the City’s existing agreement, the cost for Infor Hansen services and Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 79 №10/24
support will increase 6% or more each year and the cost for Infor’s online services portal, Rhythm for Civics, will increase 7% or more each year.
Staff negotiated a new service and support agreement that will save $20,109.38 over three years, if the agreement is approved November 5, 2024. The discounted term is from November 2024 to November 2027. Support would automatically renew for successive twelve-month periods unless either party provides written notice to the other party of non-renewal at least 90 days prior to the commencement of the renewal period. The discounted annual increases of 4% and 5% are included in the annual payment amounts. Following the support term, the yearly increase would be 6% and 7% respectively or the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, whichever is greater.
NR/ab
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 80 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH INFOR PUBLIC SECTOR, INC. AND APPROPRIATING $499,668.81 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN INFOR PUBLIC SECTOR
SUITE (HANSEN) MULTI-YEAR SUPPORT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, negotiating lower-cost service agreements for technology aligns with Value Drivers to “serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships” and also to “Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce”; WHEREAS, the software support services from Infor Public Sector, Inc. are considered a sole source purchase because they are the only provider of support services for their products; as such, no formal competitive process for this purchase was necessary; WHEREAS, staff has negotiated a new service and support agreement that will save $20,109.38 over three years if the agreement is approved by November 5, 2024; WHEREAS, the pending purchase will total $499,668.81, including sales tax and delivery. For FY24-25, the contract amount of $159,808.67 will be paid from the existing budget appropriation from the Information Services Fund 710, service contracts account [710-030- 0340-0000-4238] in the amount of $133,592.08 and the Contractual Services Account [710-030- 0340-0000-4220] in the amount of $26,216.59. For FY25-26 and FY26-27, funds will need to be appropriated from the Information Services Fund 710 for the proposed scheduled payments of $166,463.14 and $173,397.00, respectively; 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Approves the purchase of Infor Public Sector, Inc. and Appropriate $499,668.81 for Purchase of an Infor Public Sector Suite (Hansen) Multi-year Support Agreement; Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 81
2. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an agreement in the amount of $499,668.81 for the purchase of Infor Public Sector Suite multi-year software support services; and
3. Authorizes the appropriation of funds from the Information Services Service Contract fund account [710-030-0340-0000-4238] in the amount of in the amount of $133,592.08, and the Contractual Services Account [710-030-0340-0000-4220] in the amount of $26,216.59. For FY25-26 and FY26-27, funds will be appropriated from the Information Services Fund 710 for the proposed scheduled payments of $166,463.14 and $173,397.00, respectively.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 5th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 82 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Authorize the Purchase of 165 Lenovo Laptops and Extended Service Warranty in the Amount of $192,804.56 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the purchase of 165 Lenovo laptops and an Extended Service Warranty in the amount of $192,804.56.
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.
Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Standardizing on Lenovo laptops is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive, quality, and cost-effective information technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Monterey City Code section 28-15 allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from GovConnection, Inc. by utilizing the GOVMVMT agreement #4400012308. The Finance Director or her designee approved the piggyback request on October 15, 2024.
The pending purchase will total $192,804.56 including sales tax and delivery. Funding for this purchase is available in the Information Services Technology Project Fund [30C1603], which is $4,661,735.15 as of October 16, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 11.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 83 №10/24
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 choose not to purchase new laptops and desktop computers. This action is not recommended due to security risks associated with using unsupported hardware, loss of functionality with outdated hardware, and non-compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI), and Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
City employees need quick, reliable, secure, and ready access to City information both during business hours and emergencies. Reliable and modern technology is a critical tool for employees to be able to work effectively and efficiently. The City plans to replace over 400 laptops and desktop computers due to their age and the requirement to upgrade to Windows 11 before October 2025.
The funding requested will allow the City to replace 165 end-of-support laptops and desktop computers. In addition, an extended warranty is being purchased to allow for a total of three (3) years of support for parts and labor on these devices.
Leveraging the GOVMVMT cooperative purchasing contract, staff secured an additional bulk purchase discount, resulting in savings of $305,085, or 63% off MSRP, provided the purchase can be made by November 13, 2024.
The Lenovo laptops were chosen because they are known for their durable build, upgradeability, comfortable keyboards, and reliable performance. These features, along with energy efficiency, touchscreens, enhanced data protection, backlit keyboard, and extra-long battery life (9+ hours), allow our employees to have complete mobility with less downtime.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the purchase of 165 Lenovo laptops and extended service warranty for $192,804.56.
NR/ab
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 84 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 165 LENOVO LAPTOPS AND EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY FROM GOVCONNECTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $192,804.56 WHEREAS, negotiating lower-cost service agreements for technology aligns with Value Driver to “serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships”; WHEREAS, the pending purchase for 165 Lenovo laptops with an extended service warranty will total $192,804.56, including tax and delivery; WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a contract with GovConnection, Inc. leveraging the GOVMVMT contract #4400012308 saving the City $305,085, provided the purchase is made by November 13, 2024;
WHEREAS, the City evaluated the procurement process utilized by GOVMVMT and determined it to be an acceptable “piggyback” purchasing option allowing the City to utilize multi-agency contract pricing. The Finance Department approved the “piggyback” request on October 15, 2024;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has funds appropriated in the Information Services Technology Project Fund 30C1603 to purchase the laptops; 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.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 85
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves the purchase of 165 Lenovo laptops from GovConnection, Inc. in the amount of $192,804.56.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 5th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 86 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, LLC for a Not to Exceed Amount of $50,000 annually to Provide Loan Administration Services for Affordable Housing Programs (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, LLC for a Not to Exceed Amount of $50,000 annually to provide Loan Administration Services.
VALUE DRIVERS:
In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment. Utilizing a professional services consultant for this purpose also supports the value driver to “provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.” POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Awarding professional services agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Monterey budgets for Housing Services on an annual basis to provide technical assistance as needed. The proposed fee schedule includes a basic fee of $1,000 per month ($12,000 total). This $12,000 fee will cover the majority of the City’s service needs.
Amerinat offers additional services that the City could use if unable to complete in-house.
Examples include:
Forbearance Plans: $395 per loan
Loan Modification Analysis
Preliminary screening and Application Review $200
Analysis and Recommendation plus outside costs $195
Subsequent Analysis and Recommendation $165
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 12.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 87 №10/24
Loan Document Preparation plus outside costs $350
Document redraws $165
Loan Foreclosure $455
Bankruptcy Administration Services
Account Modification Fee $70 per occurrence
Proof of Claim Filing Fee $475 for Chapter 7
$1,350 for Chapter 13
Reaffirmation Agreement Filing Fee $350 per occurrence
Monitoring and Repayment Fee $20 per loan per month
Motion for Relief Filing Fee $280
Subordination Processing $465 per loan
Income re-verifications $455 per file
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could decide that professional services for loan administration services are not required at this time. The City would need to service loans in house and insure the loans, which is not a core capability of a City.
DISCUSSION:
On Thursday, August 29, 2024, staff circulated the RFP for Loan Administrative Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and on the City’s website. Two responses were received by the September 16, 2024 deadline from two firms:
AmeriNational Community Services, LLC. from Albert Lea, MN Applied Business Software from Huntington Beach, CA
The firm selected is AmeriNational Community Services, LLC (AmeriNat). from Albert Lea, MN.
AmeriNat has experience providing loan administration services in California and throughout the United States, is familiar with Monterey, and have been providing loan servicing to the City of Monterey for the past 27 years.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 88 №10/24
AmeriNat received the highest scores based on the rating and ranking criteria that prioritized the following: ability to design an approach and work plan to meet the project requirements, ability of the proposer to carry out and manage the proposed project, staff, familiarity with locality, and willingness to comply with the proposed agreement terms.
The agreement is structured to cover a period of five years with the option for four additional one (1) year extensions in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually.
KC/AW
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Summary Score Sheet Example
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 89 RESOLUTION NO. __ - ___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AMERINATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $50,000 TO
PROVIDE LOAN ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, the Housing Division needs to augment its staff resources for administration and servicing of loans for the City’s housing loan portfolio consisting of Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Loans, Non-Profit project loans, Down Payment Assistance Loans, and Private Project Loans.
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2024, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s new eProcurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2024, responses were received from two firms; a selection committee consisting of housing and planning staff reviewed and scored the responses;
WHEREAS, the respondents have experience providing a range of services and are familiar with Monterey. AmeriNational Community Services, LLC received the highest scores based on the rating and ranking criteria that prioritized the following: responsiveness/willingness to comply with agreement terms, ability to manage the project requirements, staff and organizational approach, familiarity with Monterey, and reputation and stability; WHEREAS, the agreement is structured to cover a period of five years with an option of four additional one (1) year extensions in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually; 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY 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.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 90
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, LLC to provide professional loan administration services and technical assistance for a not to exceed annual amount of $50,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 5th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 91 Project Name:
Service Area:
Rater’s Name:
Criteria Max Points
1. Ability to Design an Approach
and Work Plan to Meet the Project
Requirements.
2. Ability of the Proposer to Carry
Out and Manage the Proposed
Project.
3. Staff.
4. Familiarity with Locality.
5. Willingness to Comply with the
Proposed Agreement Terms.
6. Reputation.
Total Points: 0 0 0
Consultant Selection Evaluation Scorecard
THE CITY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS LOAN SERVICING
Capital Projects Division
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 92 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Brian Nelson, Harbormaster
SUBJECT: Authorize an Agreement with the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways to Accept Grant Funds for the Surrendered & Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24) and Authorize an Increase of FY25 Revenue and Appropriation of $42,000 in Grant Reimbursement Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve a resolution:
1. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to enter into an agreement with the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways to receive a grant for the Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24); and,
2. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to increase FY25 revenue and appropriate $42,000 from State Grant reimbursement funds (600-310-3310-3472) to the Vessel Abatement expense account (600-310-3310-0000-4268).
VALUE DRIVERS:
Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City.
Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions. Protect the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and our environmental assets from pollution.
Identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library, museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This action is consistent with City Council policies to approve agreements with outside agencies. Also, budget appropriation adjustments are to be approved by the City Council.
This recommendation is also consistent with City policy, including existing City ordinances prohibiting unseaworthy and derelict vessels.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 13.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 93 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City was awarded grant funds in the amount of $42,000 from the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24). A local match of 10% is required for the SAVE-24 program, which will be funded from the Harbor Administration Vessel Abatement expense account (600-310-3310-0000-4268).
Expenditures that qualify for local match contributions include in-kind services, such as labor, towing of abandoned vessels, waived administrative fees, and customer reimbursements.
Boaters participating in the Vessel Turn-In Program (VTIP) are required to reimburse the City 10% of the estimated abatement cost. If the customer reimbursement cannot be collected, Staff use in-kind services to cover the 10% local match, and the full abatement cost is reimbursed through the SAVE-24 grant program. There is no additional cost to the City, other than staff time to administer the grant.
The grant substantially helps the City in addressing costs associated with vessels that have been abandoned or may be voluntarily turned in due to financial hardship. The City seeks cost recovery from vessel owners to offset Marina Funds spent to remove derelict vessels.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could choose not to adopt the attached resolution. However, this is not recommended as State grant funds would not be available, along with the incentive for recreational boaters to turn in their vessels instead of abandoning them.
DISCUSSION:
Monterey City Code section 17-7, Inoperable Vessels, became effective in May 2024. This code section addresses inoperable vessels and facilitates the process of removing derelict vessels, including through the use of the State-sponsored program, Vessel Turn-In Program, VTIP.
The City of Monterey has utilized the previous iterations of the State’s Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant Program since its inception in 2010. These funds have greatly encouraged recreational boaters to lawfully abate derelict or otherwise worthless vessels, rather than abandon them. Expenditures that qualify for local match contributions include in-kind services, such as labor, towing of abandoned vessels, waived administrative fees, and customer reimbursements. Boaters participating in the Vessel Turn-In Program (VTIP) Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 94 №10/24
are required to reimburse the City 10% of the estimated abatement cost. If the customer reimbursement cannot be collected, Staff uses in-kind services to cover the 10% local match, and the full abatement cost is reimbursed through the SAVE-24 grant program. There is no additional cost to the City other than staff time to administer the grant.
Harbor Division staff have efficiently enforced this ordinance, quickly addressing abandoned or unwanted vessels.
Without this grant resource, abandoned vessels would be unsightly for the public, could constitute safety or navigation issues, and cause the City to lose revenue as they occupy otherwise rentable spaces.
AR/bn
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Stella Sandoval, Asst. Finance Director
Lisa Cox, Risk Manager
c: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways Attn: Gina Disney
4940 Lang Ave., Dock H
Administration, Floor 12
McClellan, CA 95652
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 95 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS DIVISION OF
BOATING & WATERWAYS TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FOR THE SURRENDERED & ABANDONED VESSEL EXCHANGE PROGRAM (SAVE-24) AND AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE OF FY25 REVENUE AND APPROPRIATION OF $42,000 IN GRANT
REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS
WHEREAS, it is City policy to eliminate abandoned, derelict vessels, and vessels with no value from Monterey Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey was awarded grant funds in the amount of $42,000 from the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24);
WHEREAS, the City has utilized State grant funds since the program’s inception in 2010, allowing recreational boaters to voluntarily surrender their vessels that have no value; WHEREAS, a budget appropriation adjustment of $42,000 is needed to utilize the grant funds and will be fully funded by grant reimbursements; 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:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to enter into an agreement with the California State Parks Division of Boating & Waterways to receive grant allocations for the Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Program (SAVE-24); and, Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 96
2. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to increase FY25 revenue and appropriate $42,000 from State Grant reimbursement funds (600-310-3310-3472) to the Vessel Abatement expense account (600-310-3310-0000-4268).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 97 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $210,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Ending Balance Account to the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) ***NCIP*** RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $210,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Ending Balance Account (31nunap) to the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project account (ncp2446).
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.
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.
Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The determination of the projects, priorities and expenditures shall be within the sound discretion of the City Council. (City Charter Section 6.6(e).) The recommended actions are consistent with Council policy to approve all budget recommendations and with established policy and procedures for amending NCIP project budgets. (NCIP Policies and Procedures Manual, September 7, 2021).
On August 22, 2023, the Planning Commission confirmed the proposed project to be consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plans, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.
On September 13, 2023, the Parks and Recreation Commission found the proposed project to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 14.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 98 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
As of October 14, 2024, the NCIP Ending Balance Account (31nunap) balance is $1,259,756.
Appropriating $210,000 from this account to fund Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NCIP Cut-Off Project 46 (45b) in the amount of $210,000 will reduce the NCIP Ending Balance Account (31nunap) to $1,049,756. There is sufficient funding available for this recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the installation of replacement playground at the El Estero Park Center.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves the replacement of existing playground equipment.
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.
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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 99 №10/24
replacement playground equipment will be installed in the same location as the existing playground equipment, which was installed over a filled swimming pool. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on historical or archeological resources.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council could choose not to approve the requested appropriation; however, this is not recommended. The funding is needed to replace the existing playground equipment at El Estero Park Center.
DISCUSSION:
On June 1, 2023, the NCIP Committee voted to rank NCIP projects for FY 2024. The El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade was ranked 46 with 60 votes. On October 17, 2023, the City Council adopted and approved the funding for the FY 2023/24 NCIP, Resolution 23-122, including the recommended Cut-Off Projects. The El Estero Playground Equipment Upgrade project was one of the four identified Cut-Off Projects. It was tied with number 45 with 60 votes with the Old Salinas Highway Pedestrian Signage and Lighting project. These projects were the first and second of four cut-off projects that year, respectively.
City staff request that the City Council approve the funding request for the replacement of playground equipment at El Estero Park Center. The existing playground equipment is beyond its recommended operational life, and the equipment, as well as the playground surface, needs to be replaced. This is the oldest playground equipment currently used in the City (approximately 28 years old). Upgraded play equipment will benefit the El Estero Park Center Preschool program, which operates daily. The area is used by children ages three to five years of age, and youth camps and programs are offered year-round.
The City is well served with robust and a well-designed system of parks and recreation facilities.
This project is consistent with the goals of the 2016 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and is supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation Department staff. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Goal 3.1 Maintain and Enhance Existing Parks and Facilities states “The City’s primary priority should be to serve community needs through maintenance and enhancement of existing parks and facilities rather than investment in the development of new parks.”
City staff requests that the City Council not approve funding for the Old Salinas Highway Pedestrian Signage and Lighting project at this time. That project would involve the installation of new facilities, which would create additional maintenance. City staff recommends focusing on maintaining existing facilities such as the El Estero Playground. Additionally, it is important to take into consideration that new facilities will also require a funding source for maintenance and replacement.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the funding request for the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade at the cost of $210,000.
AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 100 №10/24
e: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director
Louie Marcuzzo, Park Operations Manager
Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Chinyere Ogbonna, NCIP Committee Chair
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 101 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE $210,000 FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ENDING BALANCE
ACCOUNT TO THE EL ESTERO PARK CENTER PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT UPGRADE PROJECT ***NCIP***
WHEREAS, on the 17th day of October 2023, City Council adopted and approved the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) (Resolution 23-122 C.S.);
WHEREAS, El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade was an approved Cut-Off Project recommended by the NCIP Committee and approved by City Council (Resolution 23-122 C.S.);
WHEREAS, as of the 14th day of October 2024 the balance of the NCIP Unappropriated Funds (Ending Balance) Account (31nunap) is $1,259,756; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the installation of replacement playground at the El Estero Park Center. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves the replacement of existing playground equipment.
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements’ limited scope and distinct locations.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 102 negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.
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 replacement playground equipment will be installed in the same location as the existing playground equipment, which was installed over a filled swimming pool. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on historical or archeological resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $210,000 from the NCIP Ending Balance Account (31nunap) to the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project Account (ncp2446).
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, 11/5/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 103 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Bowen, Engineering Project Manager
SUBJECT: Accept Army Project Awards, Authorize Budget Appropriations in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund in the Amount of $1,871,140.75, and Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate Project Budgets, Not Exceeding $350,000 per Project, for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects Through June 30, 2025 ***IGSA***(NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1))) RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:
1. Appropriating $1,871,140.75 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 9 - POM account [650-310-3199-9001-5027] for the Presidio of Monterey building 617 (POM B617) Install Solar and Battery System Project & POM Multi Location Repair and Paint Exterior Walls Project;
2. Increasing the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $1,871,140.75; and,
3. Authorizing and directing the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may exceed $350,000 each, when the Department of Defense executes and issues Project Work Order (“PWO”) awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects during the fiscal period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be off-set by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund.
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.
In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This action is consistent with the City’s policy to approve all budget adjustments and support the mission of providing project services to the Department of Defense through the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (“IGSA”).
Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 15.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 104 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City has received Project Work Order awards and funding under the City’s master IGSA for the purpose of installing solar and battery system at POM B617 and to repair and paint the exterior walls of Buildings 204, 205, 206, 207, 214, 215, and 216 at the Presidio of Monterey in the amounts of $1,396,700.00 and $474,440.75, respectively. The requested appropriation of funds is fully funded by the Department of Defense through the collection of Special Project Reimbursement Fees.
As in prior years, it has been efficient for the Council to authorize the Finance Director, or their designee, to make IGSA budget appropriations for unscheduled maintenance projects.. If an individual project budget or modification exceeds $350,000, that project or modification is brought before the City Council for its review and approval. The past practice has proven to be effective in allowing projects to begin on a timely basis. This preauthorization is affirmed annually, and staff asks that the Council again approve for the fiscal period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
All Department of Defense project services provided by IGSA require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).
CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a)). CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects (Pub. Resources Code, §21080, subd. (b)(1)). There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects.
The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.
Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s projects’ design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.
In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could choose not to appropriate the funds; however, this alternative is not recommended. The City has a contractual agreement to provide project services to the Department of Defense under the 2023 Intergovernmental Support Agreement. By approving the performance of these project services, the success of the City’s partnership with the Department of Defense is strengthened.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 105 №10/24
DISCUSSION:
The City of Monterey provides project management and public works services to the Department of Defense on the Presidio of Monterey, Ord Military Community, and U.S. Army Signal Activity – Camp Roberts under an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA). These costs are fully reimbursed by the Department of Defense and support the City’s ongoing partnership with the Federal government. Throughout the year, the Department of Defense modifies its allocation of funding for the IGSA depending on the availability of funds and needs analysis.
The Army has executed and awarded Project Work Orders (“PWO”) under the IGSA for POM B617 Install Solar and Battery System Project & POM Multi Location Repair and Paint Exterior Walls Project.
The primary objective of the POM B617 Install Solar and Battery System Project is to install and commission solar and battery electrical systems on and behind Building 617. This will allow the building to use minimal grid power during solar available hours and peak pricing times. Adding solar and a battery system will reduce the overall demand on the circuit and decrease the electrical utility costs.
The primary objective of the POM Multi-Location Repair and Paint Exterior Walls Project is to perform the replacement of rotten, damaged wooden structures and repainting of exterior walls of Buildings 204, 205, 206, 207, 214, 215, and 216. The buildings are historic, and repainting and repairs of exterior faces are needed to improve the life cycle of the structures. Painting shall include the body of the building, door exterior, door frame exterior, window frame exterior, crawl space wooden exterior, basement wooden exterior, stairs, handrails, gutters, and downspouts.
The recommended appropriation of funds will be used for the execution and delivery of the projects within the City’s Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This new project expenditure budget total of $1,871,140.75 will be fully offset by an increase in Special Project Reimbursement Fees collected by the City from the Department of Defense.
It is further recommended that the City Council preauthorize the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary IGSA administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, up to $350,000 per project, when the Department of Defense executes and issues additional PWO awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects. The preauthorization will expire June 30, 2025. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be offset by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund. This preauthorization enhances the ability of the Finance and Public Works Departments to coordinate and execute projects on a timely basis. The Council’s authorization is approved annually and has been working smoothly for the past seven years.
AR/sb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Gene Messina, Acting IGSA Manager
Christopher Dwight, General Services Superintendent
Wendy Davies, Finance Manager
Mike Lewis, Senior Administrative Analyst
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 106 №10/24
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 107 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
ACCEPTING ARMY PROJECT AWARDS, AUTHORIZE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS IN
THE PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY PUBLIC WORKS FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,871,140.75, AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE PROJECT BUDGETS, NOT EXCEEDING $350,000 PER PROJECT, FOR UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE PROJECTS THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025 ***IGSA***
WHEREAS, a 2024-2025 budget adjustment is needed to authorize the payment of the following Army project costs in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund: (1) $1,396,700.00 for Presidio of Monterey (POM) building 617 (B617) Install Solar and Battery System Project, and (2) $474,440.75 for POM Multi Location Repair and Paint Exterior Walls Project; WHEREAS, this appropriation adjustment is fully funded by an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (“IGSA”) Project Work Order (PWO) award issued by the Department of Defense; and
WHEREAS, all Department of Defense project services provided by the City require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation rather than California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation. Under NEPA, the action to appropriate funds does not require a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC).
CEQA applies to discretionary projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a)). CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects (Pub. Resources Code, §21080, subd. (b)(1)). There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects.
The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.
Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s projects’ design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.
In some cases, these subsequent discretionary projects may also require environmental determination in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
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.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 108
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Appropriates $1,871,140.75 in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Authority Fund to the Presidio of Monterey Unscheduled Maintenance Projects, Option Year 9 - POM account [650-310-3199-9001-5027] for the POM B617 Install Solar and Battery System Project & POM Multi Location Repair and Paint Exterior Walls Project; and
2. Increases the Special Project Reimbursement Fees revenue account [650-310-3199- 3658] in the amount of $1,871,140.75;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it also authorizes and directs the Finance Director, or their designee, to make the necessary administrative budget appropriations and/or transfers, none of which may individually exceed $350,000 when the Department of Defense executes and issues Project Work Order awards and/or cost modifications for Unscheduled Maintenance Projects during the fiscal period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. All expenditure appropriation adjustments will be off-set by an equal adjustment to revenue in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund.
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, 11/5/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 109 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Mayor’s and Vice Mayor’s Recommendations and Appoint Recommended Applicants to the Appeals Hearing Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Council receive recommendations from Mayor Williamson and Vice Mayor Barber and make appointments to the Appeals Hearing Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission, as outlined in the “Discussion” section of this report.
VALUE DRIVER:
Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This recommendation conforms to Monterey City Code, the City Council Governance Policy, and the California Maddy Act.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities 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: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 16.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 110 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The Council could take no action or could make alternate appointments.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Vacancies on numerous City boards, committees, and commissions were duly advertised by the City Clerk’s Office pursuant to the California Maddy Act and the Council’s appointments policy, seeking qualified applications from Monterey residents, with priority review for those applications received by noon on Friday, July 12, 2024.
Qualified applications were received from the following residents and are attached to this packet (Attachment 1). One applicant withdrew after application and is not included in this list. The City Clerk’s Office confirmed applicants’ residency requirements and Council districts using the property assessment GIS database.
Appeals Hearing Board – One (1) Alternate
Justin Cheng (Council District 4)
Monique Kaldy (Council District 2)
Adam Maddox (Council District 4)
Building and Housing Appeals Board – One (1) Regular Member, One (1) Alternate No applicants
Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee Aguajito Oaks – One (1) Alternate
Dean Bobrowski (Council District 2)
Monterey Vista – One (1) Alternate
Debra Machado (Council District 3)
Gina Sessions (Council District 2)
Naval Support Activity Monterey – One (1) Representative, One (1) Alternate Evens Lanot (Council District 2)
Adam Maddox (Council District 4)
Parks and Recreation Commission – One (1) Member
Cindy Brodsky (Council District 2)
Justin Cheng (Council District 4)
Eric Ebell (Council District 3)
Evens Lanot (Council District 2)
Monique Kaldy (Council District 2)
Amy Reed (Council District 2)
Interviews and Recommendations
Because Monique Kaldy is running for Mayor in the current election and Mayor Williamson is running for reelection, Vice Mayor Barber conducted interviews for the positions for which Ms.
Kaldy had applied, pursuant to the Council’s Governance Policy which provides that “the appointed Vice-Mayor will serve as an alternate in the instance of any conflict that does not Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 111 №10/24
allow the Mayor to perform the interviews.” Mayor Williamson conducted interviews for the positions for which Ms. Kaldy had not applied.
Through this process both Mayor Williamson and Vice Mayor Barber spent many hours reviewing the applications and conducting interviews, giving appropriate attention and time to the process that resulted in the following recommendations. They are grateful that so many residents applied.
Mayor Williamson recommends that the Council make appointments as follows, with each term ending June 30, 2029:
Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee Aguajito Oaks
Dean Bobrowski – Alternate
Monterey Vista
Gina Sessions – Alternate
Naval Support Activity Monterey
Evens Lanot – Representative
Adam Maddox – Alternate
Vice Mayor Barber recommends that the Council make appointments as follows, with each term ending June 30, 2029:
Appeals Hearing Board
Justin Cheng – Alternate
Parks and Recreation Commission
Amy Reed – Member
Next Steps
Even after appointments are made to fill these vacancies, seats remain vacant for one representative and one alternate to the Building and Housing Appeals Board, and for representative and alternate to the Presidio of Monterey on the NCIP Committee. Applications will continue to be received on an ongoing basis for these roles until the vacancies are filled.
Monterey residents are encouraged to learn more and apply for these volunteer positions.
Monterey residents interested in receiving notice of board and commission vacancies are encouraged to subscribe to the City’s “Boards and Commissions Interest List.” CBK
Attachment: 1. Applications and Related Correspondence
2. Current District Composition of Boards, Commissions, and Committees e: Applicants
Staff liaisons to boards, commissions, and committees
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 112 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 113 Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
Docusign Envelope ID: 2480B90F-3D1B-46EC-9190-360DA13E5AED Bobrowski
Dean
X
X
I am a retired technology executive and the president of the Aguajito Oaks Community Association. I am active in the community and eager to help our neighborhood be its best.
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 114 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 115 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 7, Packet Page 116
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E76A3495-272B-4011-AED9-78AEF9E94278 X
While I have no specific education or volunteer experience relating to parks and recreation, I spend a lot of time outdoors, including time at parks throughout Monterey. I raised my two children in Monterey, and we frequented many of the City of Monterey parks, as well as participated in a number of the recreation programs over the years. Since my children are now older, I have a bit more time and I have an interest in supporting and developing our city parks and recreation program.
Cindy
Brodsky
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 8, Packet Page 117 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 9, Packet Page 118 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 10, Packet Page 119
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
Docusign Envelope ID: 5A1C7AE4-0B86-41CC-80B0-B1FD3831EBD6 Cheng
Justin
B.A. Economics UC Berkeley 2002
J.D. Santa Clara University 2012
Current Measure P & S Oversight
Former AHB Alternate
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 11, Packet Page 120 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 12, Packet Page 121 Reapplication for Parks and Recreation Commission Position Eric Ebell
Fri 6/21/2024 4:37 PM
To:Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]>
Hi Clementine,
Thank you for the clarification regarding the new Parks and Recreation Commission position.
I am interested in the newly posted position and would like to have my recent application and interview considered for this new position.
Please advise if any additional information is needed.
Thank you,
Eric Ebell
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 13, Packet Page 122 (CONTINUED)
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE Name:
Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Cell Phone Number: Home Phone Number:
Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:
Employer/Occupation:
Business Address: Business Phone:
* Monterey residence is required
How did you first learn about this opportunity?
City outreach: email from City Clerk Word of mouth: City staff member Council member newsletter event website board/commission/committee member social media physical posting person not associated with the City ad in: _____________________ organization not associated with the City Other: _________________________________
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. More information is available at monterey.gov/bcc. Appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.
APPEALS HEARING BOARD (meets as needed)
conducts hearings and appeals relating to administrative orders, denials, and suspensions; revocations of massage establishment permits; bidder responsibility determinations; fees, penalties, and other sums of money owed to the City; administrative abatement actions; and authorizes the imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Three plus one alternate.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (meets 1st and 3rd Wed. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips) reviews projects to ensure orderly development and harmonious design; implements the General Plan and neighborhood plans; preserves and promotes the visual character of the City; and reviews and oversees architectural review submittal requirements. Members: Seven, with at least one architect or person professionally competent in a field related to architecture.
BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES (meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) manages the library’s collections; makes and enforces bylaws, rules and regulations for the library’s administration; appoints and removes the Library Director; performs additional duties as prescribed; and requests expenditures from the library trust fund. Members: Five.
BUILDING AND HOUSING APPEALS BOARD (meets as needed)
hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to building, fire, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes, and authorizes imposition of liens, special assessments, and other collection processes.
Members: Three plus one alternate, with experience and training relating to building construction, building trades, code enforcement, or building inspection.
DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD (meets as needed)
hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to disabled access, and authorizes imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Five, three with experience and training relating to building construction and/or disabled access regulations, and two of whom who are physically disabled.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7597E3FF-A6AD-4219-9825-BC79F8C0EBFA Consultant
X
N/A
N/A
Ebell Eric
N/A
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 14, Packet Page 123 Name:
2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips) acts and makes recommendations on matters relating to promotion, restoration, preservation, and protection of Monterey’s historic buildings, sites, artifacts, and features; and adopts minimum submittal requirements for historic preservation review. Members: Seven, meeting specific professional requirements.
MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly)
reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove – Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
(CONTINUED)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7597E3FF-A6AD-4219-9825-BC79F8C0EBFA Throughout the 27 years I’ve been working in the field of public education, my singular goal has been to serve children and their families. I now find myself wanting to expand my repertoire of service to the greater Monterey community. I find the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission to be a natural extension of my life-long career in public education. The programs and facilities of Parks and Recreation provide opportunities for children and their families to learn, play, engage with... and to enjoy many of the natural resources and public spaces that are available in our community. What excites me most about the prospect of working with Parks and Recreation is the holistic benefit to children and their families when they have access to all of the rich culture, history, and geography Monterey has to offer.
The skills and experience I will bring to the role are rich and diverse. However, none are greater than my ability to communicate and work productively with others. I place a high value on listening and ensuring others feel heard, as well as encouraging inquiry and discourse. I believe my verbal skills are particularly well-suited for community outreach opportunities. My experience and formal training in communication serves me in connecting with a variety of audiences. Whether meeting with one person or hundreds, I'm able to calibrate and effectively convey any messaging enthusiastically.
My rich career experience, broad skill set, and decades-long passion to serve, make me well-suited for a position with Parks and Recreation Commission.
Eric
X
Ebell
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 15, Packet Page 124 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 16, Packet Page 125 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 17, Packet Page 126 Phone: Email: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ericebell
Eric E. Ebell
Summary Leader, consultant, coach, advisor, and provider of high-quality professional learning experiences, for individuals and teams.
Professional
Experience
Educational Consultant/Contractor Santa Clara County Office of Education (2020-Present)
Leading and Project Management: Currently advising and collaborating with leadership to develop and implement a high-quality coaching and certification program for new teachers and administrators; constructing innovative learning experiences for new teachers and interns; conducting a research study to identify the impact of coaching on teacher practice.
Project Manager/Instructional Coach Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2018-2022) Leading: Developed strategic plans with district leaders for implementation of products and associated services; consulted with teams to develop long-range schedule for training and coaching days; supervising colleagues’ growth through further development of skills. Served on teams to develop or identify resources to further support customers.
Coaching and Project Management: Delivered 130+ personalized professional learning experiences for teachers and administrators per year, in a face-to-face and web-based format; Mediated individual and team growth for the implementation of purchased products; customized for clients a scope and sequence of learning days for on-going training and coaching services, spanning multiple years; analyzed data, generated goals, initiated plans, and monitored growth with teachers, through learning-focused discussions.
Program Advisor Cupertino Union School District (2006-2018) Leading: Used data and stakeholder input, monitored and upgraded the newly re-developed, coaching centered, teacher induction program, ensured compliance with and reporting of state requirements for recommending clearing of teacher credentials; report regularly to the CUSD Induction Steering Committee, an advisory team of stakeholders.
Coaching and Project Management: Maintained learning-focused supervisory coaching role with new teachers; facilitated, monitored and documented measurable growth toward mastery of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession; ensured completion of program requirements, with defensible evidence that supports recommendation for the Clear Credentials; developed and implemented a coaching-based intervention system for Peer Assistance & Review ( PAR) to support struggling teachers, through comprehensive case management, goal setting, data analysis, and reflection.
Classroom Teacher Cupertino Union School District (1996-2006) Planned instruction, assessed learning, identified and developed supplements to district provided curriculum in grades 2-5; piloted new language arts curriculum, served as school representative on Language Arts Lead Teacher Network, charter member of Site Leadership Team.
Highlights 25 years teaching experience
17 years coaching/project management
1000 + teachers coached and/or trained
Teacher of the Year 1999
Recipient PCDay2 Technology Grant
Leadership Scholarship National University
Education Bachelors Degree
Teaching Credential
California State University, Fresno
UC Davis/National University
June 1990
January 1996
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7597E3FF-A6AD-4219-9825-BC79F8C0EBFA ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 18, Packet Page 127 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 19, Packet Page 128
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE24788A-3585-4900-84A5-795736F9DA13 X
X
Kaldy
I bring extensive experience in real estate and legal fields, marked by significant accomplishments in real estate transactions, litigation, and management roles. I have consistently demonstrated leadership, expertise in case management, and a dedication to community service through involvement with the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and previously with Boy Scouts of America.
Please see attached condensed resume.
NOTE: My son, , is a City employee. He works at the Monterey Sports Center.
My step-daughter, , is also a City employee. She works with the Monterey Sports Center, though she is currently attending college and not actively working.
X
Monique
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 20, Packet Page 129 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 21, Packet Page 130 Monique A. Kaldy
Address: ., Monterey, CA 93940
Phone:
Email:
Education
Chamberlain Real Estate School
California Real Estate Sales, September 2021
Key Realty School
Nevada Broker-Salesperson, June 2016
Nevada Salesperson, March 2016
California State University Fullerton
B.A. in Sociology, 1995
Cerritos Community College
A.A. in Paralegal Studies (ABA approved), 1992
A.A. in Spanish, 1993
Skills
Residential and Commercial Real Estate Sales & Leasing Litigation Support
Trial Preparation
Client Relationship Management
Contract Negotiation
Legal Documentation
Professional Experience
Coldwell Banker Realty, Monterey, CA
Sales Professional REALTOR and Commercial Associate
Branch Manager: Todd Porteous
Period: 2021 – Present
License: CA DRE: 0216707
Specialize in commercial and residential purchases, leases, sales, and exchanges. Focus on small business owners and investors.
Awards: Coldwell Banker Realty International Diamond Society Member.
Coldwell Banker Premier Realty, Las Vegas, NV
Broker Salesperson REALTOR and Commercial Associate
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE24788A-3585-4900-84A5-795736F9DA13 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 22, Packet Page 131 Broker: Robert Hamrick
Period: 2017 – Present
License: NV DRE: BS.0144964.LLC
Expertise in commercial and residential transactions. Target market includes small business owners and investors. Awards: Sky Rocket Award, Top 35 Associates, Quarterly Best.
Morris//Anderson nka Bighorn Law, Multiple Locations in Nevada, Arizona and Utah Production and Compliance Manager
Period: 2016 – 2020
Managed a law firm across three states with over 50 employees. Supervised 16 case managers, reviewed litigation cases, and prepared for complex trials. Achievements: Increased productivity and income by 33%.
Law Office of William Kerry Skaggs, Las Vegas, NV
Litigation Paralegal
Period: 2014 – 2015
Personal Injury
Drafted discovery documents, managed evidence, and prepared for mediations and hearings.
Benson Bertoldo Baker & Carter Chtd., Las Vegas, NV
Litigation Paralegal assigned to Senior Partners
Period: 2004 – 2014
Personal injury (Mass torts, premises liability, and auto) Managed trial preparations, drafted legal documents, and handled day-to-day litigation cases.
Highlights: Secured a $7.8m bench verdict, resolved complex litigation cases.
Law Office of Cliff W. Marcek, Las Vegas, NV
Litigation Paralegal
Period: 2000 – 2003
General Practice
Managed trial preparations, client intake, and litigation for a solo practitioner’s office.
Stumpf Falgout Craddock & Massey, San Antonio, TX
Legal Assistant
Period: 1997 – 1999
Supported commercial, securities, bankruptcy adversary proceedings and receiverships, and telecommunications litigation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE24788A-3585-4900-84A5-795736F9DA13 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 23, Packet Page 132 Licensing & Memberships
California Association of REALTORS
Monterey County Association of REALTORS
Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce (Ambassador & Member) National Association of REALTORS
Nevada Association of REALTORS
Las Vegas REALTORS
Specializations & Accreditations
Certified Luxury Property Specialist (2022)
Accredited Buyer’s Representative (2024)
Volunteer Experience:
Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Ambassador
Boy Scouts of America
Assistant Advisor, Venture Crew 700 (2018-2021)
Spring Mountain Assistant District Commissioner (2016 - 2019) Unit Commissioner (2014 – 2016)
Committee Chair (2012 – 2014)
100+ hours annually
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE24788A-3585-4900-84A5-795736F9DA13 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 24, Packet Page 133 July 10, 2024
To Whom it May Concern:
I am pleased to be writing to recommend Monique Kaldy for a number of open Board and Committee Positions for the City of Monterey. Her strong career background as a Real Estate Professional and Litigation Paralegal, as well as her personal career as a mother and Scout leader, make her an ideal candidate for a number of open Board and Committee Positions.
Monique relocated to the Monterey area a handful of years ago and I had the pleasure of meeting her shortly after she moved. When I met Monique, I quickly noticed that she is friendly, confident, highly competent, and is not afraid to put in the work to get things done. These traits will undoubtably serve the community well should Monique be selected to serve on any Boards or Commissions. Monique’s professional, volunteer, and family experience lend themselves well to several of the vacant positions:
- Architectural Review Committee / Building and Housing Appeals Board- Monique is a Real Estate Professional of both commercial and residential properties. This work requires her to closely observed public sentiment and trends regarding architectural styles, development, and construction.
- Appeals Board/ Building and Housing Appeals Board Prior to becoming a Real Estate Professional, Monique was a litigation Paralegal for about 20 years. Her ability to analyze complex documents, synthesize complex information, and problem solve will undoubtedly allow her to contribute well in either role.
- Parks and Recreation Committee – Monique held several leadership positions within the Scouting organization, ranging in rank from Unit to District positions. She was also a Scout Coleader. In her role as a Real Estate Professional, Monique regularly Shepards others’ money responsibly; ability to manage money responsibly is an important trait for anyone who will contribute to spending conversations on behalf of the City.
Monique is committed to contributing to her community. I am confident her skill set will serve the community well through a City of Monterey Board or Commission position.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Avila
Monterey City Resident
Please note that although I am well acquainted with Monique in my professional career as well as through volunteer work with local business organizations, I am writing this letter from my perspective as an individual.
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 25, Packet Page 134 ATTACHMENT 1 Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 26, Packet Page 135 June 26, 2024
The Honorable Tyller Williamson, Mayor
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Letter of Recommendation of Monique Kaldy
Your Honor:
I am writing to recommend the appointment of Monique Kaldy to any position for which she has applied. However, I can specifically speak about her appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission. As the vacating commission member of 11 years, I sincerely respect your consideration of my recommendation.
Monique Kaldy has been my neighbor since 2021. She has taken a keen interest in our community, is an active member of the Monterey Sports Center, and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. I have found her to be friendly, considerate, energetic, and whip smart with an eye for detail. As the city considers the future of our excellent recreation programs and beautiful parks, I can see Monique being an asset who would listen to the community, provide insight and feedback to staff, and advocate when necessary with the NCIP and City Council.
Monique has three grown children, one being an Eagle Scout. She knows the inherent value of public open spaces and programs and I am confident that she will be a successful commissioner.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me directly at 831-601-4748.
Sincerely,
Lacy Spangler
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 27, Packet Page 136 1 Linda Tulett
From: Alexander Miller < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:50 AM
To: Tyller Williamson
Cc: City Clerk's Office Team; Linda Tulett; Clementine Bonner Klein Subject: Recommendation for commission appointment- Monique Kaldy Attachments: Letter of recommendation- Monique.pdf
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hi Tyller,
I hope this e-mail finds you well. I’m writing to recommend Monique Kaldy to a city commission in your city.
Before I joined the Seaside City Council, I was a city commissioner for years so I’m familiar with what it takes to be successful as a commissioner. I know that Monique will be successful. Please see attached letter.
Hope to get coffee with you soon.
Truly,
Alex Miller
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 28, Packet Page 137 July 16, 2024
City of Monterey
580 Pacific St.
Monterey, CA 95064
Recommenda)on for appointment- Monique Kaldy
Dear Honorable Mayor Tyller Williamson:
I am wriIng to wholeheartedly recommend Monique A. Kaldy for consideraIon for appointment to one of the City Commissions that she has applied for. I have had the privilege of knowing Monique professionally and personally, and her extensive qualificaIons, dedicaIon to community service, and excepIonal leadership skills make her an outstanding candidate to be a city commissioner.
Monique's career exemplifies a strong commitment to both real estate and law, reflecting her deep understanding of community dynamics and legal frameworks essential for effective city governance. As a licensed real estate professional, Monique brings a unique blend of expertise in commercial and residential transactions, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of property rights and urban development issues crucial to the cities mission.
Beyond her professional achievements, Monique has actively contributed to our community through various volunteer roles, including her involvement with the Boy Scouts of America in Las Vegas and her ambassadorship with the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce. Her dedication to these roles underscores her commitment to fostering positive growth and development within your city.
Throughout her career, Monique has consistently demonstrated exemplary leadership, evidenced by her roles at Coldwell Banker Realty and as a key figure in managing complex litigation cases across multiple states. Her ability to manage diverse teams and navigate intricate legal matters highlights her proficiency in fostering consensus and driving impactful outcomes.
Monique A. Kaldy's extensive professional background, unwavering commitment to community service, and proven leadership make her an ideal candidate for a City Commission position. I have no doubt that her strategic vision and dedication to public service will greatly benefit your city and its residents.
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 29, Packet Page 138 I am confident that Monique will bring valuable insights and expertise to the commission, and I unconditionally endorse her application. Please feel free to contact me at or [email protected] if you require any further information.
Thank you for considering Monique A. Kaldy for this important position.
Very truly,
Alex Miller, J.D.
City of Seaside, Council Member
[email protected]
City Hall Office- 831-899-6707 CellATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 30, Packet Page 139 Re: NCIP application for City of Monterey
Evens Lanot
Tue 7/23/2024 4:53 PM
To:Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]>
Good afternoon CLementine,
Thank you for your email. Yes, I would like to be considered for the NCIP Committee.
I look forward to hearing from you for any necessary follow-ups.
Best,
Evens
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:30PM Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
Good a�ernoon Evens,
Thank you for your applica�on in a few months back for Monterey boards and commissions, including the NCIP Commi�ee. At the �me we did not have a posi�on for the military neighborhoods of Monterey for which you could be considered, but those NCIP neighborhoods have now been created and the vacancies adver�sed. Would you like your applica�on from May to be considered in the upcoming appointment process? Please let me know so I can let the Mayor know either way.
Thank you,
Clemen�ne
Clementine Bonner Klein, MMC (she/her)
City of Monterey City Clerk · [email protected]
Office: Web · [email protected] · (831) 646-3935
Mail: 580 Pacific St., Monterey, CA 93940
Apply Today for Seats on Boards, Commissions, and Committees! City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon Instagram icon www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 31, Packet Page 140 (CONTINUED)
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON A BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE Name:
Last Name First Name Middle Initial (optional)
Cell Phone Number: Home Phone Number:
Residential Address: Monterey, CA 93940*
Email Address:
Employer/Occupation:
Business Address: Business Phone:
* Monterey residence is required
How did you first learn about this opportunity?
City outreach: email from City Clerk Word of mouth: City staff member Council member newsletter event website board/commission/committee member social media physical posting person not associated with the City ad in: _____________________ organization not associated with the City Other: _________________________________
Check the box next to all body(s) on which you are interested in serving. More information is available at monterey.gov/bcc. Appointments are not limited to body(s) checked.
APPEALS HEARING BOARD (meets as needed)
conducts hearings and appeals relating to administrative orders, denials, and suspensions; revocations of massage establishment permits; bidder responsibility determinations; fees, penalties, and other sums of money owed to the City; administrative abatement actions; and authorizes the imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Three plus one alternate.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (meets 1st and 3rd Wed. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips) reviews projects to ensure orderly development and harmonious design; implements the General Plan and neighborhood plans; preserves and promotes the visual character of the City; and reviews and oversees architectural review submittal requirements. Members: Seven, with at least one architect or person professionally competent in a field related to architecture.
BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES (meets 4th Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) manages the library’s collections; makes and enforces bylaws, rules and regulations for the library’s administration; appoints and removes the Library Director; performs additional duties as prescribed; and requests expenditures from the library trust fund. Members: Five.
BUILDING AND HOUSING APPEALS BOARD (meets as needed)
hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to building, fire, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes, and authorizes imposition of liens, special assessments, and other collection processes.
Members: Three plus one alternate, with experience and training relating to building construction, building trades, code enforcement, or building inspection.
DISABLED ACCESS APPEALS BOARD (meets as needed)
hears appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations relating to disabled access, and authorizes imposition of liens, assessments, and other collection processes. Members: Five, three with experience and training relating to building construction and/or disabled access regulations, and two of whom who are physically disabled.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AAD6BE-0D2C-4A31-902D-C52A60243850 X
Program Manager (Self-Employed)
Monterey, CA 93940
Lanot Evens S.
N/A
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 32, Packet Page 141 Name:
2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m., plus field trips) acts and makes recommendations on matters relating to promotion, restoration, preservation, and protection of Monterey’s historic buildings, sites, artifacts, and features; and adopts minimum submittal requirements for historic preservation review. Members: Seven, meeting specific professional requirements.
MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly)
reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove – Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
(CONTINUED)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 36AAD6BE-0D2C-4A31-902D-C52A60243850 As a dedicated resident of Monterey with a robust background in technology, program management, and community development, I am eager to contribute to our city's growth and prosperity by serving on [specific board, commission, or committee, e.g., the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee]. My professional journey as a workforce development professional and tech divide activist has equipped me with unique insights and skills that align with the goals of enhancing our community's access to sustainable resources and inclusive opportunities.
Education: Master’s degree in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies from Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS), with a focus on global security and technological impacts on society.
Work Experience: Extensive experience in leading initiatives that bridge the tech divide, specifically creating accessible technology solutions for underrepresented communities.
Developed and managed programs that established computer labs in K-12 schools in Haiti, demonstrating my capability to handle projects that require strategic planning and execution.
Volunteer Experience:
Actively involved in local nonprofits focused on bridging the digital divide, where I have not only designed educational programs but also engaged in hands-on teaching and training.
Volunteered as a translator and mentor, using my multilingual skills to enhance communication an X
Evens
X
X
Lanot
X
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 33, Packet Page 142 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 34, Packet Page 143 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 35, Packet Page 144 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 36, Packet Page 145 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 37, Packet Page 146
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6ADAEAA-3496-4D36-BC84-BAB38C9723FB Debra
X
Machado
X
Gateway Center of Monterey County Inc. 2020 to Present
People Operations Officer 2020-Present
Maintain human resources regulatory compliance with local, state, and federal laws. Develop and execute HR policies and programs, workforce and job development, recruitment and hiring, compensation and benefits, and employee and labor relations to build staff-focused human resources office culture. Perform administrative and customer service functions by responding to general employee inquiries, addressing employee relations issues, and scheduling meetings.Devise and deploy new company policies for all departments of the organization. Engage in multiple human resource programs, such as managing all compensation, benefits, and leave, disciplinary matters, disputes and investigations, performance and talent management, productivity, recognition, and morale, occupational health and safety, and training and development. • Ensure compliance with all regulatory and policies and procedures manual. • Supervise Program Managers including QIDPs, Day Program Director, ILS Coordinator and Rein dollar Manager
• Ensure that the health, wellbeing and safety of each resident, client and student is being held to the highest standards at all times.
• Maintain a positive relationship with SARC and other regulatory and funding agencies. • Develop a ‘people’ strategy that includes recruitment, onboarding, orientation, training, a successful first 90 days, and evaluation.
• Employee Engagement and Retention: focused on maximizing the value of employees and focusing on the current workforce to lessen turnover. Empower employees to do their best work consistently and support managers in creating the right environment for their teams Debra Machado Page | 2
• Develop low-cost ways to recognize staff
• Constant review and analysis of staff schedules and overtime. • Ensure compliance with all program policies and procedures • Participate in assigned meetings and committees
• Maintain and review client activities
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 38, Packet Page 147 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 39, Packet Page 148 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 40, Packet Page 149 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 41, Packet Page 150 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 42, Packet Page 151 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 43, Packet Page 152
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6591FA3B-F008-4055-8AD6-F713B55C449A Please see attached resume
X
Adam
Maddox
X
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 44, Packet Page 153 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 45, Packet Page 154 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 46, Packet Page 155 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY – Washington, D.C.
FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK (FinCEN)
BANK SECRECY ACT (BSA) REGULATORY POLICY ADVISOR (Contract Position) October 2017 - April 2019
● Team leader for four-person team of contractors provided to FinCEN by General Dynamics IT ● Primary contractor for Paperwork Reduction Act and Federal Register Notices ● Developed and drafted guidance for application of the BSA regulations to operations of covered financial institutions
● Prepared recommendation for FinCEN senior leadership to address the Inspector General report requiring greater cooperation between FinCEN and OFAC; coordinated FinCEN-OFAC communications
● Prepared FAQs for FinCEN guidance requiring Cybersecurity reporting in Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) by financial institutions
● Lead administrator for “Innovation Hours” program of FinCEN’s Innovation Initiative, scheduling interaction between innovative private sector companies and FinCEN senior leadership UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY – Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL (OFAC)
SANCTIONS INVESTIGATOR (GS-1801-12)
September 2015 – October 2017
● Sanctions Investigator at OFAC’s Office of Global Targeting (“OGT”), member of Cybercrime / Transnational Criminal Organization Team
● Utilized commercial and classified government databases to access information and reports about criminal organizations and criminal actors
● Gathered information and prepared designation packages categorizing criminal organizations and other groups as Specially Designated Nationals (“SDNs”) ● Trained investigator; attended Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (“FLETC”) Glynco for “Introduction to Criminal Investigative Procedures Training” UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY – Washington, D.C.
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL (OFAC)
SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE OFFICER (GS-1801-12)
January 2013 - September 2015
● Fielded approximately 10,000 phone calls from Financial Institutions, other businesses, the general public, and other government agencies
● Advised on applicability of regulations to customers of varying complexity, from private citizens to large financial institutions
● Presented to over 7,000 credit unions on joint OFAC / FinCEN compliance issues with FinCEN leadership via teleconference
● Represented OFAC at multiple conferences to private industry ● Drafted recommendations to OFAC leadership on appropriate administrative actions, ranging from “no action” letter to civil penalties
● Performed database queries using Sequential Query Language (“SQL”); prepared Litigation Products (responses to litigants pursuing damages under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act) Docusign Envelope ID: 6591FA3B-F008-4055-8AD6-F713B55C449A ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 47, Packet Page 156
STUDENT
August 2006 – August 2012
• Full-time student; see “Education” section of resume for academic degrees U.S. AIR FORCE – Offutt AB, NE, and Kadena AB, Japan
AIRCREW CRYPTOGRAPHIC LINGUIST
May 2000 – May 2006
● Aircrew member on 24 combat missions over Afghanistan & Iraq ● Completed 90-day deployment to support Operation Iraqi Freedom & Operation Enduring Freedom ● As Staff Sergeant (E-5), was a supervisor and trainer ● Trained junior Cryptographic Linguists on Ground Based Simulation System for mission duties U.S. AIR FORCE – Offutt AB, NE
AIRCREW STANDARDS & EVALUATION LIAISON OFFICER
August 2002 – October 2003
● Answered flight regulatory inquiries and processed aircrews for deployment readiness; provided regulatory interpretation and administered exams
● Awarded Air Force Achievement Medal for performance as Standard & Evaluation Liaison Officer U.S. AIR FORCE – Various Locations
ADDITIONAL TRAINING
● Attended intensive Mandarin Chinese Language Course at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA; earned 45 credit hours over 63 weeks in immersive environment with other military members and native speaker instructors
● Completed Rigorous Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (“SERE”) training for aircrew members at Fairchild AFB, WA; course included instruction on interrogation techniques and resistance, survival in woodland environment, and the psychology of stress
● Completed Airman Leadership School for management duties of Non-Commissioned Officers at Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan
Docusign Envelope ID: 6591FA3B-F008-4055-8AD6-F713B55C449A ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 48, Packet Page 157
EDUCATION
● Master Of Laws (LL.M.) – International Tax, University of Florida ● Juris Doctor (J.D.) – Stetson University
● B.A. Economics – Indiana University, Bloomington
● A.A. Mandarin Chinese – Defense Language Institute
LANGUAGES
● Mandarin Chinese - Intermediate Reading & Writing Ability for Daily Communication ● Portuguese (Brazilian) - 3/3 On Defense Language Proficiency Test, Fall 2016 ● Japanese – Basic Communication
LICENSE & MEMBERSHIP
● New Jersey Bar; Member 2013 – 2021 (Resigned Without Prejudice) ● Association Of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (“ACAMS”); September 2014 – 2015 (Currently Inactive)
I.T. CERTIFICATIONS
● CompTIA Linux+ / LPIC-1 (active)
● I previously held several other certifications while working on the cybercrime portfolio at OFAC; these certifications have since expired
Docusign Envelope ID: 6591FA3B-F008-4055-8AD6-F713B55C449A ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 49, Packet Page 158 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 50, Packet Page 159
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
Docusign Envelope ID: D4D65998-51FE-48B0-9FC8-7B4398AC2404 I have lived in Monterey for 55 years. I attended Monte Vista Elementary School, Walter Colton Middle School, and Monterey High School (as did my mom, and both of my kids).
When I was 7 years old, I attended Camp Quien Sabe. I was hooked and attended every summer until I got a job when I was 15 years old. After being on staff for several years I began to direct Camp until 2019. I am currently a board member for the Monterey Public Library Friends and Foundation.
Recreation has always held a special place in my heart. I believe a strong Recreation department is extremely important for any community, especially Monterey. I am interested in keeping the integrity of the Recreation department. With our diverse community, there needs to be a variety of programs that appeal to everyone (which I think is done well).
I believe my long time residence in Monterey and my work with the Recreation Department qualifies me to give good insight and ideas on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Thank-you for your consideration.
X
Reed
Amy
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 51, Packet Page 160 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 52, Packet Page 161 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 53, Packet Page 162
Name:
2 MEASURES P AND S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (meets quarterly) reviews revenues generated by Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, and expenditures of those revenues, and reports to the City Council. Members: Five.
MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (meets 1st Thurs. of ea. month at 4 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters relating to the City’s museums, Monterey history, and cultural arts.
Members: Seven, representing a variety of history and cultural arts-related disciplines and activities.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Members: One representative and one alternate representing each of the following neighborhoods (check one; you must reside within the jurisdiction, see map):
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova-Oak Knoll Deer Flats Del Monte Beach Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande Downtown Fisherman Flats Glenwood Monterey Vista Naval Support Activity Monterey New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Presidio of Monterey Skyline Villa Del Monte
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (meets 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m.) advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Members: Seven.
PLANNING COMMISSION (meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips) implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on matters of development, zoning, and architectural review; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc. Members:
Seven.
Please list in the following space your relevant education, work experience, public service and/or volunteer experience, and/or other experiences that would enhance your service and effectiveness on the body(s) for which you are applying. If the body(s) for which you are applying has qualification requirements, list your specific qualifications. Feel free to attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to fully describe your qualifications and interest.
Docusign Envelope ID: 7D3D797C-4D32-4000-B836-F4E114B104C4 Sessions
X
X
Greetings.
I am currently retired as of early 2024.
Prior to my retirement I had a long history of work that involved collaborative work with multiple stakeholders to improve services and supports for communities and individuals with special needs.
The majority of my professional work experience was in Santa Clara County.
I have worked in non-profit organizations and government organizations in direct services, mid-management and executive management positions. So, I am familiar with the various perspectives that need to be considered in the assessment, design and implementation of projects and service plans.
In non-profit CBO organizations I regularly collaborated with other CBO staff and leadership as well as government employees to design and implement service programs as well and broader systems of services that involved multiple organizations and agency cooperation.
In government, I served primarily in and executive staff position in the Social Services Agency in a role that included contracts management, policy, and emergency planning. I did extensive work across disciplines and organizations to design and implement community resources and new integrated programing for our clients.
Following my retirement from Santa Clara County, I work for approximately 4 years part time with a consulting firm doing business process improvement/redesign for governmental clients.
All of these have provided the opportunity for me to develop the ability to understand complex systems, design approaches to implementation, and develop good collaborative skills. I have also gained a strong belief in the importance of collaboration, dialogue and patience in building strong solutions to shared problems.
Thank you for consideration of application.
Gina
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 54, Packet Page 163 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 55, Packet Page 164 ATTACHMENT 2
Current Council District Composition
Appeals Hearing Board (Total Seats: 3 Members, 1 Alternate) Council District 1 – 2 members
Council District 4 – 1 member
NCIP Committee
Aguajito Oaks (Total Seats: 1 Representative, 1 Alternate) Council District 1 – 1 member
Monterey Vista (Total Seats: 1 Representative, 1 Alternate) Council District 3 – 1 member
Parks and Recreation Commission (Total Seats: 7 Members) Council District 1 – 1 member
Council District 3 – 3 members
Council District 4 – 2 members
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 16., Item Page 56, Packet Page 165 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Consider Employee Richard Castellon’s Request for Military Leave Additional Supplemental Salary Beyond 330 Days (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider Military Leave Additional Supplemental Salary Beyond 330 days for Employee Richard Castellon. The City Council has the discretion to grant or to deny the request. Approval requires a 4/5ths vote.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high-quality city workforce.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Monterey City Code Section 25-12.07, Military Leave, provides guidance on military leave in accordance with the provisions of the State Military and Veterans Code.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City has paid supplemental pay in the amount of $65,508 based on requested submitted Military Leave orders from April 2023 through the last completed payroll cycle ending October 15, 2024. The cost to continue supplemental pay for employee Richard Castellon after the prior approval of supplemental extension from 181 days to 330 days, from October 29, 2024 to January 8, 2025 will be approximately $15,405.
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 Date: 11/5/2024
Item No.: 17.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 166 №10/24
be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
There are no alternatives to having the City Council consider the request from employee Richard Castellon to extend his supplemental pay for Military Leave beyond 330 days, as this is set in the Monterey City Code Section 25-12.07.
DISCUSSION:
Richard Castellon is a Police Officer with the City of Monterey. Mr. Castellon began his employment with City on July 16, 2022. Mr. Castellon has submitted the following Military Leave orders:
April 9, 2023 – April 29, 2023
June 5, 2023 – July 31, 2023
August 1, 2023 – August 25, 2023
November 3, 2023 – November 4, 2023
December 6, 2023 – December 15, 2023
January 7, 2024 – January 7, 2025
The City of Monterey is in compliance with the California Military and Veterans Code in that we allow for any public employee who is on temporary military leave of absence for military duty to receive the time off and receive the first 30 calendar days (per fiscal year) of an active-duty order with full pay. The City exceeds the State’s legal requirement in that the City offers supplemental pay. Such supplemental pay is determined by subtracting the employee’s full military wages from the employee’s normal base City salary in a similar pay period.
MCC Sec. 25-12.07 allows for an employee to receive this supplemental pay for 180 calendar days within a continuous 24-month period. The City Manager may authorize additional supplemental salary from 181 days up to a maximum of 330 days. Mr. Castellon requested these additional days, and the City Manager approved the request on September 4, 2024.
Any supplemental salary beyond 330 days authorized by the City Manager requires additional Council approval. As such, this request is brought before the City Council to consider further supplementing the employee’s salary beyond 330 days, from October 29, 2024 to January 8, 2025. The City Council has the discretion to grant or deny this request for supplemental salary.
A 4/5ths vote is required to grant the request pursuant to the City’s Charter.
BN
Attachment: 1. Monterey City Code Sec. 25-12.07
e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 167 Sec. 25-12.07. Military Leave.
Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the State Military and Veterans Code. An employee requesting leave for this purpose shall provide the department head with a copy of the military orders specifying the dates, site and purpose of the activity or mission as soon as possible and prior to the actual taking of leave, when possible. Within the limits of such orders, the department head may determine when the leave is to be taken and may modify the employee’s work schedule to accommodate the request for leave. a. Any eligible City employee who is a military reservist (or member of the National Guard) who is on an active duty short-term military leave (six months or less) or active duty long term military leave (over six months), shall receive supplemental salary for 180 calendar days within a continuous 24 month period. Supplemental salary shall be in addition to the first 30 calendar days of full City salary which is already provided once per fiscal year for each short-term military leave and long term military leave as required by State law. The City Manager may authorize additional supplemental salary from 181 days up to a maximum of 330 days within a continuous 24-month period if needed. Any supplemental salary beyond 330 days will require additional Council approval. Such supplemental salary shall be determined by subtracting the employee’s full military wages from the employee’s normal base City salary as further detailed below, in a similar pay period. Housing stipends provided by the military shall not be considered as military wages if the employee is required to maintain a second residence necessitated by the call to active duty.
An eligible employee, for purposes of receiving supplemental pay under this policy, shall be defined as an executive manager, regular full time or regular part-time City employee who completed one year of satisfactory service for the City prior to being called to active duty.
Base City salary, for purposes of this policy, shall be defined as base wages plus any of the following pay that the employee was receiving from the City at the time the employee was called to active duty:
- Education Incentive Pay
- Continuing Education Incentive Pay
- Premium Pay for the Position of Assistant Engineering Surveyor - Premium Pay for the position of Associate Engineering Surveyor - Management Incentive Pay
- Longevity Pay
- Special Assignment Differential Pay (as described in the Monterey Police Association Memorandum Of Understanding, Section 12)
- Bi-Lingual Pay
Ch. 25, Art. 12 Leave of Absence Provisions | Monterey City Code Page 1 of 2 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3685, passed June 18, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 168 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3685, passed June 18, 2024.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s office has the official version of the Monterey City Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: monterey.gov
Hosted by General Code.
- Deferred compensation matching funds
In order for an employee to collect under this supplemental salary, the employee must submit paystubs from the military as proof of compensation as soon as possible, but in no event later than 45 days after activation.
Employees may submit written estimates of military pay, as generated by the military initially, but the City must receive proof of pay within 45 days of activation, or the City will cease payment until receipt of such proof. (Ord. 3408, 2008; Ord. 3329, 2003)
Ch. 25, Art. 12 Leave of Absence Provisions | Monterey City Code Page 2 of 2 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3685, passed June 18, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 17., Item Page 4, Packet Page 169 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Receive Presentation by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) on the 2024-2025 Water Allocation Process and Authorize a Letter Supporting the Proposed MPWMD Water Allocation for the City of Monterey (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Receive a presentation by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) on the 2024-2025 Water Allocation Process; and
2. Authorize sending a letter of support accepting the proposed MPWMD water allocation for the City of Monterey.
VALUE DRIVERS:
The City Council approved Value Drivers include:
SECURE WATER SOURCES – Champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.
The Council recognizes that access to a dependable supply of fresh water is a significant gating factor that impacts the City’s ability to provide affordable housing and promote economic vitality consistent with the goals described in the City’s General Plan.
Continue to advocate and lobby on behalf of the City of Monterey’s interests on regional water issues, with an emphasis on securing water for affordable housing projects.
The proposed water allocation furthers the City’s goal to build affordable housing.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Monterey General Plan anticipates future housing and economic growth. The proposed water allocation helps fulfill this vision. Specifically, Housing Element Program 2-K:
Program 2-K Addressing Water Supply Constraints. The primary constraint to development on the Monterey Peninsula is water supply. While new sources of water supply are anticipated to become available during the planning period, the City does not currently have access to sufficient water to support development of its full RHNA allocation. Therefore, the City will continue to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to optimize the use of available supply in the shortDate: 11/5/2024 Item No.: 18.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 170 №10/24
terms and to augment the existing water supply in the mid- to long-term with the following actions: …
Support efforts by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), the California American Water Company (Cal-AM), and the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) to expand the water supply, including but not limited to future supply from the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant, anticipated to become available by 2030.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Inadequate water supply is the primary constraint to housing and commercial construction. The MPWMD water allocation will enable new building construction where adequate water meters exist. New businesses will be able to open in existing commercial spaces and new homes can be constructed. Future development will help grow the City’s tax base and provide the necessary housing to support workers resulting in long-term economic growth for the City and region. Ultimately, new development will result in increased property and sales tax revenue and employment opportunities.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed City Council action is to send a letter to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District supporting a water allocation to the City of Monterey. The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could suggest amendments to the proposed letter.
DISCUSSION:
The Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project (PWM) is nearing completion and will supply water to jurisdictions within the Monterey Peninsula Water District (MPWMD) service area. MPWMD anticipates that construction of the PWM will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2025, and there will be 2,250 new acre feet (afy) of water. Some of this water will be allocated to the cities for distribution, and some will be held in reserve to be distributed later.
The purpose of this agenda report is to authorize the City to send a letter to the MPWMD supporting its proposed methodology to distribute water to the various government agencies.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 171 №10/24
Background
Pure Water Monterey is an advanced water recycling project, jointly developed by two public agencies – Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and Monterey One Water (M1W).
The Pure Water Monterey project provides a clean, safe and sustainable source of water for Monterey County. It emphasizes advanced water recycling technology, replenishment of the groundwater supply and protection of the environment.
Pure Water Monterey provides both purified potable water for domestic use, as well as a supply for irrigating agricultural areas in the Salinas Valley. The project is the first of its kind to utilize not just wastewater, but stormwater, food industry processing water, and impaired surface waters of the State. It is an environmentally sustainable solution for our area’s water supply problem.
At its August 2023 meeting, the MPWMD reviewed a schedule of activities leading to the allocation of water to the jurisdictions. The MPWMD staff convened a Technical Advisory meeting of the jurisdictions’ City Managers and Community Development Directors on September 12, 2024 to provide a detailed overview of the District’s methodology and process for allocation of the new supplies.
The September 12th meeting reviewed a number of issues including:
Existing water demand;
Future water demand by jurisdiction (methodology);
Alternate methodology for determining demands for the Airport District and Navy, Presidio, and Coast Guard;
Impact of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); How much shall be allocated and how much retained in District Reserve; and How to incorporate existing unused jurisdictional allocations.
For context, it is important to understand current water supply and use within the MPWMD jurisdiction. The MPWMD water supply is currently derived from multiple sources as reflected in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Water Supply
Source of Water Supply Amount Available
(Acre Feet)
Carmel River 3,376
Seaside Basin 1,474
Pure Water Monterey (Base) 3,500
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 2,250*
Aquifer Storage & Recover (ASR) 1,210
Sand City Desal 200
Seaside Basin Wheeled from Others 20
Malpaso LLC 86
Total 12,116
Source: MPWMD, September 2024
*Note: New water supply to be available in 2025.
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 172 №10/24
The MPWMD closely monitors water consumption. Figure 2 shows water consumption over three different time periods (3 years, 5 years and 10 years). Water consumption has varied from 9,440 to 9,819 afy.
Figure 2: Current Water Demand
Supply to Meet Customer
Demand
Amount (Acre Feet)
Last 3 Years 9,440
Last 5 Years 9,557
Last Ten Years 9,819
Source: MPWMD, September 2024
Water use by jurisdiction varies based on the amount and type of development. The City of Monterey water needs have been recorded as 3,186 afy (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Current Supply by Jurisdiction and Type of Use (Based on Recent 5 year Production)
Carmel Del Rey
Oaks
Monterey Pacific
Grove
Sand
City
Seaside Uninc. Total
Residential 420 91 1,663 877 21 998 2,215 6,284
NonResidential216 22 1,506 308 63 332 827 3,273
Total 636 113 3,168* 1,185 84 1,330 3,041* 9,557
Source: MPWMD, September 2024
*Note: There appears to be a rounding issue with the City of Monterey and unincorporated Monterey County totals. These numbers add to 3,169 and 3,042; however, it matches the chart provided by MPWMD.
MPWMD is proposing that Monterey receive 141 acre feet (af) of water (Figure 4) from the Pure Monterey Expansion project. Staff recommends that the City Council support the proposed allocation.
Figure 4: Future Water Supply Need Based on AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast Jurisdiction 25 Year
Water Need
Draft
Proposed
Allocation
Existing
Allocation
7/31/2024
Draft Total
Allocation
Carmel 43 14 2.661 16.661
Del Rey Oaks 8 4 0 4.0000
Monterey 422 141 2.920 143.920
Pacific Grove 97 32 0.016 32.016
Sand City 43 14 23.163 37.163
Seaside 64 21 30.760 51.760
Unincorporated 215 72 12.121 84.121
Airport 88 44 5.197 49.197
Defense 54 27 0 27.000
369 445.838
Source: MPWMD, September 2024
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 4, Packet Page 173 №10/24
The proposed MPWMD allocation is based on the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Regional Growth Forecast. As staff has previously shared with the AMBAG Board of Directors, City staff continues to have substantial technical concerns with AMBAG’s estimates for Monterey. MPWMD’s proposed allocation does not solve the technical issues with the AMBAG forecast or provide enough water to fully build the City’s RHNA. In addition, City staff continues to concerned about drought conditions where supplies may be drastically reduced for periods of time. Despite these cautionary statements, staff recommends the City Council send a letter of support to the MPWMD about the proposed water allocation.
Staff will continue to work with AMBAG to resolve the forecast issues and obtain a transparent data source.
It is also important to note that the Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO) will remain outstanding until the State Water Resources Control Board lifts the order. This means that there continues to be a moratorium on new water meters. The inability to set new water meters significantly constrains the City in meeting its General Plan goals. The MPWMD staff indicates that they plan to initiate discussions with the State Board on this matter in January. This will be an important issue to follow and provide support to MPWMD.
In summary, staff recommends the City Council send a letter of support accepting the proposed allocation for the City of Monterey located within the district’s boundary and served by the California American (Cal-Am) Main Water System.
KC
Attachments:
1. Draft Letter
2. Water Allocation Workshop Presentation, September 2024 e: All Business and Neighborhood Associations
David Stoldt, MPWMD
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 5, Packet Page 174 ATTACHMENT 1
October 16, 2024
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
P.O. Box 85
Monterey, CA 93942-0085
Dear Board of Directors,
The City of Monterey supports the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s water allocation. The allocation will provide the City with 141-acre feet of water to support new construction. This will be a tremendous step forward for the City and region.
It is, however, important to recognize that additional water supply is ultimately needed beyond the 141 afy. The 141 afy only provides a portion of the water needed to develop the required 3,654 housing units as designated through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and to support further job growth. Furthermore, MPWMD and the cities also need to continue to work with the State Water Resources Control Board to lift the Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO).
Without release of the CDO, developers will be constrained to only build on sites with existing water meters.
Thank you for reaching out to the City of Monterey; the City supports the 141-acre foot allocation. For any additional allocation beyond the 141-acre feet, the City recommends that an equitable allocation process be adopted so all agencies obtain some water and enough adequate water supply is retained so every jurisdiction can meet its RHNA obligations.
Sincerely,
Tyller Williamson
Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 6, Packet Page 175 2024-25 Water Allocation
Process Workshop
David J. Stoldt
General Manager
September 12, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 7, Packet Page 176 Allocation and the Permit Process
2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 8, Packet Page 177 District History of Water Allocation
3 Photo of a poster from the 1980s:
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 9, Packet Page 178 Why Do We Allocate Water?
4 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 10, Packet Page 179 How is an Allocation Like a Bank Account?
5 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 11, Packet Page 180 How Does an Allocation Affect the Permit Cycle?
6 Developer draws plans;
Counts water needed
Developer obtains “Water
Release Form” from Jurisdiction
Obtain “Water Permit” from
District; Debit Allocation
Final inspection by District upon
completion – Adjust as necessary
Developer obtains “Building
Permit”
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 12, Packet Page 181
WATER PERMIT PROCESS FOR REMODELS/ADDITIONS/TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION – ELECTRONIC REVIEW ONLY
July 1, 2022
The MPWMD office is open between the hours of 9 and 4 weekdays. We are also available by phone and by email to answer your questions and to receive and process Water Permit Applications electronically. Please follow the instructions below to have your project reviewed by staff.
Electronic Submittal Requirements: ALL APPLICATIONS MUST BE TRANSMITTED BY EMAIL OR A DOCUMENT SHARING APPLICATION.
1) Application: Complete a Residential or Non-Residential Water Permit Application and Water Release Form for your project and have the bottom box signed by the Jurisdiction’s authorized signer. Unsigned applications will be rejected.
2) Plans: Submit the full set of complete construction plans electronically to [email protected]. We should be able to accommodate up to 40 mb through email.
Larger files may need to be transferred through a file sharing service. 3) Application Fee Payment: Payment may be made by credit card over the phone (preferred), payment at the office, or by email. You will be called to collect the payment over the phone. The initial fee for residential applications is $225 (Residential) or $450 (Non-Residential).
How do I get a Water Permit for new construction or a remodel? Who do I need to contact?
1. Remodels/New Construction/Tenant Improvements: Plans must be drawn by an architect or builder for your project (contact Jurisdiction for requirements). For new construction & landscape remodels, you must include a Landscape Package (see MPWMD Rule 142.1).
2. Submit plans to the Jurisdiction where the property is located.
3. Obtain a “Water Release Form and Water Permit Application” signed by the authorized representative of the Jurisdiction. The form can be found at https://www.mpwmd.net/resources/forms-and-applications/
4. Submit the Water Release Form and the complete set of construction drawings (no concept drawings) to [email protected].
5. You will be contacted to make payment by credit card. Processing fees must be paid before the application will be reviewed.
6. If the property is held by a Limited Liability Corporation, corporation or partnership, you must provide a copy of the operating agreement.
7. Deed restrictions and the Water Permit will be prepared. Deed restriction(s) will be emailed to the applicant. The deed restriction(s) require property owner signatures to be notarized and returned to the Water District for recordation at the Monterey County Recorder’s office.
8. Once the documents have been recorded, the applicant will be notified of the final permit fees and payment must be made before the Water Permit is released.
9. An electronic signature is required on the Water Permit to validate it.
10. When the project is completed, a final inspection by the Water District is required f in addition to the final inspection required by the building department.
For more information, please contact the Permit Office at 831-658-5601 or email [email protected] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 13, Packet Page 182 What Brings Us to Allocation of New Water?
7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 14, Packet Page 183 Tentative Schedule
8 Item
September 12 Technical Advisory Committee meeting
Oct/Nov Visit City Councils
October 21 Update to Board
November 18 Follow-Up to Board
December 16 First Reading of Ordinance
January 27 Second Reading of Ordinance
30 Days Later Ordinance Becomes Effective
Q4 2025 PWM Expansion Online
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 15, Packet Page 184 Allocations Will Not Solve Everything
9 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 16, Packet Page 185 How Much Water is There to Allocate?
10 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 17, Packet Page 186 How Much Water is There?
11 Source of Supply Amount
Available
Carmel River 3,376 AF
Seaside Basin 1,474 AF
Pure Water Monterey (Base) 3,500 AF
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 2,250 AF
Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) 1,210 AF
Sand City Desal 200 AF
Seaside Basin Wheeled from Others 20 AF
Malpaso LLC 86 AF
Total 12,116 AF
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 18, Packet Page 187 How Much Supply is Needed to Meet Current Demand?
12 Supply to Meet Customer Demand Amount
Last 3-Years 9,440 AF
Last 5-Years 9,557 AF
Last 10-Years 9,819 AF
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 19, Packet Page 188 How Much Supply is “Excess” Today?
13 Amount
Total Supplies Available 12,116 AF
Minus Current Demand (9,557 AF)
Available 2,559 AF
Less Initial “Factor of Safety” (1,000 AF)
Net Available 1,559 AF
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 20, Packet Page 189 How Much Water do Jurisdictions Need?
14 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 21, Packet Page 190 Water Demand Forecasting – 3 Simple Questions
1 How Much Do
I Use Today?
How Fast Will
We be
Growing?
How Much
Will We Need
in the Future?
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 22, Packet Page 191 The Tools to Answer Those Questions
16 Establish Today's Water Demand
Use actual Cal-Am data by
residential & nonresidential, by political
jurisdiction. A 5-year
average is appropriate.
Future Residential Need
Use AMBAG Regional
Growth Forecast for each
jurisdiction’s population as
growth in residential water
demand. Assume happens
over a 25-year forecast
period. Adjust for
population served by
others.
Future Commerical Need
Use AMBAG Regional
Growth Forecast of job
growth to estimate future
non-residential water need.
Project over 25-year
forecast period. Use survey
results for Airport and
Military.
Add Future Residential,
Non-Residential,
Airport, and Military
Needs to Most Recent
5-Year Average
Demand
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 23, Packet Page 192 Water Demand – Last 20 Years
17 8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
20042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Monterey
Peninsula
Demand
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 24, Packet Page 193
CITY TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
CODE CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION CUSTOMERS CONSUMPTION (100 GAL)
CONSUMPTION
(AF)
CITY
1 Monterey 8,094 2,523,885 608 2,152,628 1,821 2,796,235 0 0 316 1,105,489 77 68,349 0 0 10,916 8,646,586 2,653.54 2 Pacific Grove 5,929 1,784,732 391 529,640 593 575,851 1 19,042 67 163,412 40 20,688 0 0 7,021 3,093,365 949.32 3 Carmel 2,871 1,054,074 154 94,122 435 546,197 0 0 49 30,330 12 -32 0 0 3,521 1,724,691 529.29 4 Seaside 5,613 2,205,817 298 586,284 661 854,846 0 0 57 122,857 22 83,024 2 174 6,652 3,853,001 1,182.44 5 Del Rey Oaks 734 255,362 4 2,903 94 60,413 0 0 4 475 6 253 0 0 842 319,407 98.02 7 Sand City 102 32,244 25 24,394 270 150,677 0 0 3 1,436 9 6,929 0 0 408 215,680 66.19 CITY TOTAL 23,342 7,856,114.31 1,480 3,389,971.29 3,872 4,984,218.37 1 19,041.80 496 1,424,000.21 166 179,210.05 2 173.50 29,359 17,852,730 5,478.80 COUNTY
6 Mtry Co. CV 1,394 707,489 103 132,483 149 227,577 0 0 4 104,499 12 1,245 2 7,531 1,663 1,180,824 362.38 8 In Crml San. Dist 2,716 1,219,570 83 165,639 211 260,404 0 0 17 34,346 8 8,628 0 0 3,036 1,688,587 518.21 9 Out Crml San. Dist 1,917 959,921 104 178,841 219 443,426 0 0 20 105,539 13 13,255 0 0 2,273 1,700,983 522.01 A Mtry Co. Monterey 278 133,219 11 12,573 5 3,518 1 294,057 6 49,425 0 0 0 0 301 492,792 151.23 C MPCC DMF 2,107 860,252 11 5,302 66 130,290 1 365 4 3,645 2 1,494 1 0 2,192 1,001,348 307.30 D Mtry Co. PB 788 699,214 20 26,105 73 305,978 1 213 2 1,883 11 26,215 0 0 895 1,059,608 325.18 G Rancho Fiesta 23 20,847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 20,847 6.40 H Rancho Del Monte 422 252,786 16 10,260 3 2,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 441 265,896 81.60 J PB - LCP 22 20,236 0 0 1211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 20,447 6.27 COUNTY TOTAL 9,666 4,873,534.43 348 531,202.47 728 1,374,254.56 3 294,634.72 53 299,337.18 45 50,837.48 3 7,530.78 10,846 7,431,332 2,280.59 OTHER
F Well Irrigation CV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1293 111 2304 0.09 OTHER TOTAL 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 293.00 1 11.00 2 304 0.09 CV-SS-SCD TOTAL 33,008 12,729,648.74 1,828 3,921,173.76 4,600 6,358,472.93 4 313,676.52 549 1,723,337.39 212 230,340.53 6 7,715.28 40,207 25,284,365 7,759.49 E Ryan Ranch 1 40 0 0 226 123,843 0 0 8 2,304 11 4,096 0 0 247 130,283 39.98 I Hidden Hills 453 265,153 0 0 10 958 0 0 0 0 3 3,716 0 0 466 269,827 82.81 L Bishop 353 230,451 0 0 56 84,536 0 0 0 0 15 3,800 0 0 424 318,787 97.83 RR-HH-Bishop Total 807 495,643.91 0 0.00 293 209,336.59 0 0.00 8 2,304.26 30 11,611.74 0 0.00 1,137 718,897 220.62 The number of Customers includes Fire Services All Jurisdictions = 41,344 26,003,262 7,980.11
NON REVENUE
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER
MONTEREY DISTRICT
CUSTOMERS & CONSUMPTION BY POLITICAL JURISDICTION
100 Gallons
Oct 2022 to Sep 2023
JURISDICTION
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-RES COMM/ IND GOLF COURSE PUB AUTHORITY OTHER 11/30/2023Customers and Consumption by Political Jurisdiction WY 22-23 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 25, Packet Page 194 Proportionate Water Demand Today
1 Non-Residential Use
Carmel
Del Rey Oaks
Pacific Grove
Sand City
Seaside
County Monterey
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 26, Packet Page 195 Usage by Jurisdiction – Which Years?
18 Year Type
2024 Incomplete
2023 Extremely Wet
2022 Dry
2021 Dry / COVID
2020 Normal / COVID
2019 Extremely Wet
2018 Below Normal
2017 Extremely Wet
2016 Normal
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 27, Packet Page 196 Carmel Del Rey Oaks Monterey Pacific Grove Sand City Seaside Unincorporated Total Residential
2023 1,148,196 258,265 4,676,553 2,314,372 56,638 2,792,101 5,900,341 17,146,466 2022 1,328,672 272,932 4,921,834 2,525,372 62,628 2,876,525 6,874,796 18,862,759 2019 1,205,127 242,685 4,820,102 2,633,781 58,993 2,753,441 6,299,879 18,014,008 2018 1,275,969 280,102 4,936,604 2,727,736 66,107 3,036,095 6,788,586 19,111,199 2016 1,240,055 283,487 5,169,948 2,738,336 62,121 3,258,336 6,800,802 19,553,085 AVG 1,239,604 267,494 4,905,008 2,587,919 61,297 2,943,300 6,532,881 18,537,503 AVG as % of Total 4.40% 0.95% 17.40% 9.18% 0.22% 10.44% 23.17% 65.75% Non-Residential
2023 576,495 61,142 4,100,316 778,993 159,042 1,060,900 2,119,605 8,856,493 2022 600,892 73,920 4,294,198 831,667 181,947 900,208 2,471,909 9,354,741 2019 672,879 67,172 4,504,050 845,824 182,816 920,331 2,513,110 9,706,182 2018 664,836 64,162 4,641,675 962,016 202,581 1,025,888 2,623,656 10,184,814 2016 664,095 64,069 4,666,393 1,121,591 200,287 993,459 2,466,231 10,176,125 AVG 635,839 66,093 4,441,326 908,018 185,335 980,157 2,438,902 9,655,671 AVG as % of Total 2.26% 0.23% 15.75% 3.22% 0.66% 3.48% 8.65% 34.25% Total
2023 1,724,691 319,407 8,776,869 3,093,365 215,680 3,853,001 8,019,946 26,002,959 2022 1,929,564 346,852 9,216,032 3,357,039 244,575 3,776,733 9,346,705 28,217,500 2019 1,878,006 309,857 9,324,152 3,479,605 241,809 3,673,772 8,812,989 27,720,190 2018 1,940,805 344,264 9,578,279 3,689,752 268,688 4,061,983 9,412,242 29,296,013 2016 1,904,150 347,556 9,836,341 3,859,927 262,408 4,251,795 9,267,033 29,729,210 AVG 1,875,443 333,587 9,346,335 3,495,938 246,632 3,923,457 8,971,783 28,193,174 AVG as % of Total 6.65% 1.18% 33.15% 12.40% 0.87% 13.92% 31.82% 100.00% Carmel Del Rey Oaks Monterey Pacific Grove Sand City Seaside Unincorporated Total Residential 420 91 1,663 877 21 998 2,215 6,284
Non-Residential 216 22 1,506 308 63 332 827 3,273
Total 636 113 3,168 1,185 84 1,330 3,041 9,557
Assuming current 5-year average production in AFY: 9,557 Current Supply by Political Jurisdiction
and by Type of Use
(Based on Recent 5-Year Average Production)
Consumption Data by Political Jurisdiction
and by Type of Use
(units = 100 Gallons)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 28, Packet Page 197 Water Demand Forecasting – 3 Simple Questions
2 How Much Do
I Use Today?
How Fast Will
We be
Growing?
How Much
Will We Need
in the Future?
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 29, Packet Page 198 2022 Regional
Technical Documentation
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Scheduled for Adoption June 2022
Growth Forecast
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-3
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 30, Packet Page 199 Executive Summary
As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Association of Monterey Bay Area of Governments (AMBAG) carries out many planning functions for the tri-county area including development and maintenance of the regional travel demand model (RTDM), long range transportation planning and programming and acting as a regional forum for dialogue on issues facing the region. Most of AMBAG's projects are carried out in support of these major functions, including but not limited to the regional growth forecast. AMBAG develops the forecast with a horizon year that matches the planning timeline of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the model years for the Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). In addition to informing regional planning processes, the forecast is used by local jurisdictions and special districts to inform local and subregional planning.
The last regional growth forecast was adopted in 2018. AMBAG staff began the process of developing a new forecast in spring 2019. This new forecast is referred to as the 2022 Regional Growth Forecast (2022 RGF).
In preparation for this forecast, AMBAG staff conducted a review of recently completed population, housing and employment forecasts. The results of this review indicated that most of the other MPOs in California are using a methodology that emphasizes employment growth as the primary driver of longterm population change at the regional scale. The traditional approach to forecasting population uses a cohort-component approach that considers three factors: births, deaths and migration. While birth and death data are readily available and trends are relatively predictable over time, migration tends to be much more difficult to track and forecast as it is heavily influenced by political and economic climates.
For the development of the new forecast, AMBAG chose to progress towards a more contemporary approach that places a greater emphasis on employment. The assumption is that the economy is a reliable predictor of population growth.
AMBAG implemented an employment-driven forecast model for the first time in the 2014 forecast and contracted with the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) to test and apply the model again for the 2018 RGF and the 2022 RGF. To ensure the reliability of the population projections, PRB compared the employment-driven model results with results from a cohort-component forecast, a growth trend forecast, and the most recent forecast published by the California Department of Finance (DOF). All four models resulted in similar population growth trends. As a result of these reliability tests, AMBAG and PRB chose to implement the employment-driven model again for the 2022 RGF.
To disaggregate the forecast for each jurisdiction, AMBAG and PRB used the most current data available to update a series of shift-share models and replicate the methodology used in the prior forecast.
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-7
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 31, Packet Page 200 This technical document provides a description of the methodology for the development of the regional growth forecast figures in addition to the methodology for disaggregation of those figures.
The regional and subregional forecast figures for population, jobs and housing were accepted by the AMBAG Board of Directors at the November 18, 2020 meeting.
Summary of the Forecast
The 2022 RGF projects that the region will add 65,500 jobs between 2015 and 2045, for a total of just over 442,800 jobs by 2045. The regional growth rate is slightly slower than nation- and state-level forecasts, reflecting historical growth rates that have tended to be slightly slower than either the state or nation. Furthermore, job growth is expected across most employment sectors. The fastest-growing industries include Site-Based Skilled Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Other Services.
Conversely, Retail is expected to be the slowest-growing industry. Notably, while many models for the U.S. predict declines in agricultural job growth, the AMBAG region is experiencing steady agricultural job growth.
This forecast projects that the region’s population will grow by approximately 107,500 people between 2015 and 2045, for a total population of just under 869,800 in 2045. This is slightly lower than prior forecasts and follows the slowing growth rates seen at both the state and national level. This revised growth trend also reflects the most current population estimate for the region. As a result of declining fertility, stalled improvements in life expectancy, and falling international migration, the 2020 population estimate was more than 16,000 lower than prior forecasts predicted. In addition to slower growth, the new forecast predicts an older age distribution, with a larger proportion of the population age 65 and older.
An aging population affects the household and housing unit forecasts. While population growth will slow, which reduces future housing demand, older people are more likely to live alone or in small households. This shift offsets the lower population forecast with a slight upward effect on housing demand. The net result is that the region is expected to build just over 42,200 housing units by 2045, for a total of approximately 304,900 units.
Section 1: Process for Forecast Completion
Following the preparation of the regional forecast figures, AMBAG staff began the process of disaggregating the figures to each of the jurisdictions using historical data to develop a baseline disaggregated forecast. The initial results were a purely quantitative application of the methodology.
These preliminary draft disaggregated numbers were presented for discussion purposes at one-on-one meetings held by AMBAG staff with each of the jurisdictions, the Local Agency Formation Commissions, Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-8
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 32, Packet Page 201 the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, the University of California, Santa Cruz and the California State University, Monterey Bay. AMBAG staff also provided materials for these meetings that outlining the data sources and methodology for the regional forecast figures as well as the preliminary draft disaggregated forecast figures. The intent of the first round of meetings was to gather information and data that was then used to make adjustments to the forecast. (See Attachment 1 for a list of meeting dates, times and attendees.)
These preliminary draft disaggregated numbers were adjusted based on information and feedback provided by each jurisdiction. In addition, new data became available. The release of vintage 2020 estimates from the California Department of Finance showed 2019 population approximately 7,000 lower than in the preliminary estimate, although housing estimates were relatively stable. These updates necessitated minor revisions to the regional forecast.
Staff updated the regional growth forecast to reflect the most current information. The entire revised forecast, regional and subregional, was re-circulated for a second round of comments. After the second round of comments were received, AMBAG staff incorporated additional input and prepared a revised draft of the disaggregated forecast figures. Staff circulated the revised population, employment and housing forecast which incorporated additional comments from the Board of Directors. The final draft was accepted for planning purposes only by the AMBAG Board of Directors at its meeting on November 18, 2020. The final growth forecast is scheduled for adoption along with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities in June 2022.
Section 2: Development of the Regional Growth Forecast
In spring 2019, AMBAG asked PRB to prepare regional employment, population and housing projections to 2045. This section documents the findings of the work by PRB and includes a summary of the methodology, a description of the projections and an explanation of past, current and projected job growth in the region.
Summary of the 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
The 2022 RGF projects that the region will add 65,500 jobs between 2015 and 2045, for a total of just over 442,800 jobs by 2045. (See Table 1) The regional growth rate is similar to national forecasts but slightly slower than state-level forecasts. Furthermore, job growth is expected across most employment sectors. The fastest-growing industries include Site-Based Skilled Trade, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Other Services. Conversely, Retail is expected to be the slowest-growing industry. Notably, while many models for the U.S. predict declines in agricultural job growth, the AMBAG region is experiencing steady agricultural job growth.
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-9
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 33, Packet Page 202 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
Table 7: Subregional Employment Forecast
Change 2015-2045
Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Numeric %
AMBAG Region 377,335 406,280 410,017 418,132 425,845 434,147 442,824 65,489 17% Monterey County 225,268 243,015 245,054 249,613 253,918 258,553 263,437 38,169 17% Carmel-By-The-Sea 3,353 3,566 3,593 3,674 3,752 3,833 3,915 562 17% Del Rey Oaks 705 748 753 774 794 815 834 129 18%
Gonzales 5,764 6,326 6,382 6,533 6,660 6,788 6,920 1,156 20% Greenfield 7,227 7,882 7,948 8,061 8,177 8,298 8,423 1,196 17% King City 7,573 8,195 8,248 8,371 8,511 8,669 8,832 1,259 17% Marina 6,107 6,548 6,621 6,765 6,899 7,055 7,217 1,110 18% Monterey 38,133 40,989 41,527 42,506 43,452 44,465 45,509 7,376 19% Pacific Grove 7,470 8,016 8,061 8,152 8,244 8,343 8,445 975 13% Salinas 73,009 78,874 79,577 81,079 82,505 84,044 85,683 12,674 17% Sand City 1,966 2,092 2,102 2,151 2,188 2,224 2,259 293 15% Seaside 9,667 10,476 10,589 10,833 11,062 11,290 11,543 1,876 19% Soledad 8,532 9,010 9,079 9,161 9,235 9,333 9,462 930 11% Unincorporated 55,762 60,293 60,574 61,553 62,439 63,396 64,395 8,633 15% San Benito County 21,631 23,263 23,572 24,203 24,802 25,475 26,126 4,495 21% Hollister 14,428 15,492 15,728 16,207 16,655 17,121 17,613 3,185 22% San Juan Bautista 515 557 569 580 588 603 612 97 19%
Unincorporated 6,688 7,214 7,275 7,416 7,559 7,751 7,901 1213 18% Santa Cruz County 130,436 140,002 141,391 144,316 147,125 150,119 153,261 22,825 17% Capitola 11,666 12,250 12,376 12,633 12,902 13,181 13,454 1,788 15% Santa Cruz 40,840 43,865 44,317 45,594 46,863 48,203 49,636 8,796 22% Scotts Valley 9,458 10,109 10,185 10,345 10,489 10,637 10,797 1339 14% Watsonville 26,403 28,514 28,765 29,156 29,505 29,896 30,303 3,900 15% Unincorporated 42,069 45,264 45,748 46,588 47,366 48,202 49,071 7,002 17% Sources: Data for 2015 from InfoUSA and the California Employment Development Department.
Forecast years were prepared by AMBAG and PRB.
Step 2: Population
This forecast projects that the region’s population will grow by approximately 107,500 people between 2015 and 2045, for a total population of just under 869,800 in 2045. Of that growth, 57 percent (approximately 61,100 people) is expected to be in Monterey County, 23 percent (approximately 25,200 people) is expected to be in San Benito County and 20 percent (approximately 21,200 people) is expected to be in Santa Cruz County.
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-32
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 34, Packet Page 203 Table 8: Subregional Population Forecast
Change 2015-2045
Numeric
107,535 1
61,133 1
130
987 5
7,270 8
3,261 1
3,328 2
8,987 4
4,200 2
4,787 46
1,553
2,123
-570 -1
357
19,069 1
837 23
4,501 1
5,046 2
-1080 -2
535 1
4,536 1
4,724 2
-188 -
6,317
6,317
0 25,228 4
8,285 2
491 2
16,452 8
21,174
902
15,311 2
4,587 1
10,724 6
64 3,934
963
%
4%
4%
3%
9%
6%
9%
4%
3%
1%
9%
6%
9%
4%
2%
2%
2%
3%
0%
6%
4%
8%
9%
2%
6%
6%
0%
3%
2%
5%
7%
8%
9%
4%
0%
2%
1%
8%
1%
e
Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AMBAG Region 762,241 774,729 800,726 824,992 842,189 857,828 869,776 Monterey County 430,310 441,143 452,761 467,068 476,028 483,884 491,443 Carmel-By-The-Sea 3,854 3,949 3,946 3,954 3,964 3,974 3,984 Del Rey Oaks 1,663 1,662 1,693 1,734 1,859 2,330 2,650
Gonzales 8,441 8,506 9,650 13,492 14,630 15,398 15,711
Greenfield 17,172 18,284 19,342 19,734 19,961 20,202 20,433 King City 13,736 14,797 15,376 16,101 16,689 16,881 17,064 Marina 21,057 22,321 23,723 25,126 26,713 28,433 30,044 Marina balance 20,037 21,371 22,293 22,841 23,238 23,768 24,237 CSUMB (portion) 1,020 950 1,430 2,285 3,475 4,665 5,807 Monterey 28,086 28,170 28,044 28,650 29,032 29,342 29,639 Monterey balance 24,095 24,749 24,623 25,229 25,611 25,921 26,218 DLI & Naval Postgrad 3,991 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 3,421 Pacific Grove 15,460 15,265 15,290 15,395 15,530 15,676 15,817 Salinas 158,059 162,222 166,226 170,459 173,393 175,358 177,128 Sand City 361 385 430 516 756 1,012 1,198
Seaside 33,815 33,537 34,497 35,107 35,634 36,582 38,316 Seaside balance 25,835 26,345 27,285 27,850 28,317 29,205 30,881 Fort Ord (portion) 4,163 3,083 3,083 3,083 3,083 3,083 3,083 CSUMB (portion) 3,817 4,109 4,129 4,174 4,234 4,294 4,352 Soledad 24,597 25,301 26,112 26,824 27,697 28,419 29,133 Soledad balance 16,298 17,190 18,001 18,713 19,586 20,308 21,022 SVSP & CTF 8,299 8,111 8,111 8,111 8,111 8,111 8,111
Unincorporated 104,009 106,744 108,432 109,976 110,170 110,277 110,326 Unincorp balance 101,468 104,203 105,891 107,435 107,629 107,736 107,785 CSUMB 2,541 2,541 2,541 2,541 2,541 2,541 2,541
San Benito County 58,138 62,353 69,324 73,778 77,638 80,788 83,366 Hollister 37,314 40,646 42,604 43,327 44,421 45,345 45,599 San Juan Bautista 1,945 2,112 2,269 2,315 2,374 2,410 2,436 Unincorporated 18,879 19,595 24,451 28,136 30,843 33,033 35,331 Santa Cruz County 273,793 271,233 278,641 284,146 288,523 293,156 294,967 Capitola 10,224 10,108 10,485 10,794 10,957 11,049 11,126 Santa Cruz 64,223 64,424 68,845 72,218 75,257 78,828 79,534 Santa Cruz balance 46,947 45,324 47,845 49,118 49,957 50,828 51,534 UCSC 17,276 19,100 21,000 23,100 25,300 28,000 28,000
Scotts Valley 11,946 11,693 11,718 11,837 11,867 11,868 12,010 Watsonville 52,410 51,515 52,918 54,270 55,138 55,786 56,344 Unincorporated 134,990 133,493 134,675 135,027 135,304 135,625 135,953 Sources: Data for 2015-2020 are from the California Department of Finance. Forecast years wer prepared by AMBAG and PRB.
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-34
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 35, Packet Page 204 Attachment 1: List of Meetings & Attendees
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-51
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 36, Packet Page 205
Agency Meeting
Date
Meeting
Time
Location AMBAG Attendees* Other Attendees*
City of Gonzales 9/3/2019 1:30 PM 147 Fourth Street,
Gonzales, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Matthew Sundt
City of Hollister 9/10/2019 1:30 PM 375 Fifth Street,
Hollister, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Abraham Prado and Jamila Saqqa
City of Marina 8/21/2019 11:00 AM 209 Cypress Avenue,
Marina, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Fred Aegerter, Christy Hopper and Matt
Mogensen
City of Salinas 8/28/2019 1:30 PM 65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Megan Hunter and Adam Garrett
City of Santa Cruz 8/23/2019 1:00 PM 809 Center Street, Room 107, Santa
Cruz, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Lee Butler
City of Seaside 9/10/2019 11:00 AM 656 Broadway
Avenue, Seaside, CA
93955
Heather Adamson and
Paul Hierling
Rick Medina
County of Monterey 8/7/2019 4:00 PM 1441 Schilling Pl, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Brandon Swanson and John Dugan
County of Monterey 8/12/2019 3:15 PM 168 West Alisal, 3rd Floor, Salinas, CA
Paul Hierling Darby Marshall and Anastacia Wyatt
County of San Benito 9/4/2019 1:00 PM 2301 Technology
Parkway, Hollister,
CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Harry Mavrogenes, Taven Kinison
Brown and Jamila Saqqa
County of Santa Cruz 8/23/2019 3:00 PM 701 Ocean Street, Room 400, Santa
Cruz, CA
Maura Twomey, Heather
Adamson and Paul
Hierling
Kathy Molloy and Stephanie Hansen
*All attendees were at the meeting in
person unless otherwise noted.
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-52
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 37, Packet Page 206
Agency Meeting Date Time Location AMBAG Attendees* Jurisdiction Attendees* City of Capitola 2/3/2020 9:30 AM 420 Capitola Ave., Capitola, CA Heather Adamson Katie Herlihy City of Carmel‐By‐The‐Sea 2/5/2020 9:30 AM AMBAG Office Maura Twomey, Gina Schmidt, Miranda Taylor
Marnie Waffle
City of Del Rey Oaks 2/13/2020 11:00 AM 650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd, Del Rey Oaks, CA Heather Adamson and Miranda Taylor
Dino Pick and Denise Duffy
City of Gonzales 2/7/2020 2:00 PM City of Gonzales, 147 Fourth Street, Gonzales, CA
Heather Adamson Matthew Sundt
City of Greenfield 3/3/2020 9:00 AM Greenfield City Hall, 599 El Camino Real, Greenfield, CA
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey and
Miranda Taylor
Paul Mugan
City of Hollister 3/10/2020 2:00 PM City of Hollister, Development Services, 375 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
Heather Adamson Abraham Prado, Jamila
Saqqa, Eva Kelly and Ambur
Cameron
City of King City 3/10/2020 11:00 AM City of King City Hall, 212 South Vanderhurst Avenue, King City, CA 93930
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey and
Miranda Taylor
Doreen Liberto‐Blanck and
Maricruz Aguilar‐Navarro
City of Marina 2/26/2020 2:30 PM City of Marina, Community Depevelopment Dept, 209 Cypress
Avenue, Marina, CA
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey and
Miranda Taylor
Christy Hopper and Lisa
Berkley
City of Monterey 2/4/2020 1:00 PM City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey,
Miranda Taylor
Kim Cole
City of Pacific Grove 2/5/2020 11:30 AM City of Pacific Grove, 300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Maura Twomey, Gina
Schmidt, Miranda Taylor
Anastazia Aziz and Alyson
Hunter
City of Salinas 3/2/2020 10:00 AM City of Salinas, 65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA
Heather Adamson and
Miranda Taylor
Megan Hunter and Tara
Hullingers
City of San Juan Bautista 2/24/2020 9:00 AM San Juan Bautista City Hall, 311 2nd Street, San Juan Bautista, CA
Heather Adamson Don Reynolds and Mary
Gilbert (SBtCOG)
City of Sand City 2/11/2020 3:00 PM Sand City, City Hall, 1 Pendergrass Way, Sand City, CA
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey,
Miranda Taylor
Chuck Pooler and Aaron
Blair
City of Santa Cruz 3/9/2020 11:00 AM City of Santa Cruz, 809 Center Street, Room 107, Santa Cruz, CA
Heather Adamson Lee Butler, Katherine
Donovan and Eric Marlatt
City of Scotts Valley 2/3/2020 11:30 AM 1 Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, CA Heather Adamson Taylor Bateman City of Seaside 3/3/2020 2:00 PM 656 Broadway Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955 Heather Adamson, Maura Twomey, Paul
Hierling and Miranda
Taylor
Kurt Overmeyer, Gloria
Stearns and Sharon Mikesell
City of Soledad 2/24/2020 1:30 PM City of Soledad, City Hall, 248 Main Street, Soledad, CA
Heather Adamson and
Miranda Taylor
Brent Slama
City of Watsonville 2/21/2020 10:00 AM Community Development Dept., 250 Main Street, Watsonville, CA 95076
Heather Adamson Suzi Merriam and Justin
Meek
2/21/2020 10:00 AM Community Development Dept., 250 Main Street, Watsonville, CA 95076
Heather Adamson Suzi Merriam and Justin
Meek
County of Monterey 3/17/2020 2:30 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson and Paul Hierling
Brandon Swanson
County of San Benito 3/4/2020 3:00 PM San Benito County ‐ RMA, 2301 Technology Parkway, Hollister, CA
Heather Adamson and
Maura Twomey
Harry Mavrogenes and
Taven Kinison Brown
County of Santa Cruz 3/9/2020 3:00 PM County of Santa Cruz, 701 Ocean Street, Room 400, Santa Cruz, CA
Heather Adamson Kathy Molloy, Paia Levine,
Barbara Mason, Stephanie
Hansen and Anais Schenk
CSU Monterey Bay 2/5/2020 3:00 PM 2061 Intergarrison Road, Suite 84‐A, Seaside, CA
Maura Twomey, Gina
Schmidt, Miranda Taylor
Anya Spear and Matt
McCluney
Monterey County LAFCO 2/11/2020 1:00 PM LAFCO Monterey Co., 132 W. Gabilan Street, Suite 102, Salinas, CA 93901
Heather Adamson,
Maura Twomey,
Miranda Taylor
Kate McKenna
Santa Cruz County LAFCO 2/21/2020 1:00 PM LAFCO, 701 Ocean Street, Room 318‐D, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Heather Adamson Joe Serrano
UC Santa Cruz 2/25/2020 10:30 AM UC Santa Cruz, 1156 High St, Barn G, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Heather Adamson Jolie Kerns and Oxo Slayer
*All attendees were at the meeting in person unless otherwise noted Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-53
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 38, Packet Page 207
Agency Meeting
Date
Meeting
Time
Location AMBAG Attendees Jurisdiction Attendees
City of Capitola 5/19/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Katie Herlihy
City of Carmel‐By‐The‐Sea 5/26/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Marnie Waffle
City of Del Rey Oaks 6/17/2020 4:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Dino Pick and Denise Duffy
City of Gonzales 5/26/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling, and Miranda
Taylor
Matthew Sundt
City of Greenfield 6/11/2020 11:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, and Miranda
Taylor
Paul Mugan
City of Hollister 5/29/2020 10:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Abraham Prado, Jamila Saqqa, Eva Kelly
and Ambur Cameron from Hollister;
Mary Gilbert from SBtCOG. Additionally,
various consulants for the Hollister
General Plan attended this meeting.
City of King City 6/2/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson and Miranda Taylor
Doreen Liberto‐Blanck and Maricruz
Aguilar‐Navarro
City of Marina 5/28/2020 10:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Christy Hopper and Fred Aegerter
City of Monterey 5/29/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Kimberly Cole
City of Pacific Grove 5/19/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Anastazia Aziz, Alyson Hunter and Terri
Schaeffer
City of Salinas 6/8/2020 2:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Megan Hunter, Tara Hullinger, and
Jonathan Moore
City of San Juan Bautista 6/1/2020 1:30 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Don Reynolds and Mary Gilbert from
SBtCOG
City of Sand City 6/17/2020 9:00 AM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling, and Miranda
Taylor
Chuck Pooler and Aaron Blair
City of Santa Cruz 5/18/2020 9:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Lee Butler, Katherine Donovan, Bonnie
Lipscomb, Eric Marlatt and Matt
Vanhua
City of Scotts Valley 6/3/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, HPaul Hierling, and Miranda
Taylor
Taylor Bateman
City of Seaside 6/11/2020 4:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Kurt Overmeyer and Gloria Stearns
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-54
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 39, Packet Page 208
Agency Meeting
Date
Meeting
Time
Location AMBAG Attendees Jurisdiction Attendees
City of Soledad 6/16/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Brent Slama
City of Watsonville 6/2/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Suzi Merriam and Justin Meek
County of Monterey 6/3/2020 9:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Paul Hierling, and Miranda
Taylor
Brandon Swanson, John Dugan and
Anastacia Wyatt
County of Monterey 6/29/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Paul Hierling, Miranda Taylor
and Beth Jarosz
(consultant)
Brandon Swanson, John Dugan, Craig
Spencer and Anastacia Wyatt
County of San Benito 6/1/2020 9:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Harry Mavrogenes, Taven Kinison
Brown and Mary Gilbert from SBtCOG
County of Santa Cruz 5/18/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
and Miranda Taylor
Paia Levine, Barbara Mason, Anais
Schenk, Kathy Molloy, Stephanie
Hansen
CSU Monterey Bay 6/16/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
Anya Spear, Matt McCluney, and
Kathleen Ventimiglia
CSU Monterey Bay 7/10/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson and Beth Jarosz (consultant)
Matt McCluney and Kathleen
Ventimiglia
UC Santa Cruz 6/15/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson, Paul Hierling,
Oxo Slayer
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-55
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 40, Packet Page 209
Agency Meeting
Date
Meeting
Time
Location AMBAG Attendees Jurisdiction Attendees
City of Del Rey Oaks 8/25/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson Dino Pick and Denise Duffy (consultant) City of Greenfield 9/4/2020 2:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Rob Mullane (consultant) and Paul
Mugan
City of Hollister 8/20/2020 11:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Abraham Prado, Jamila Saqqa, Bryan
Swanson, Eva Kelly, Ambur Cameron,
Areli Perez and Marian Mendez from
Hollister; Mary Gilbert from SBtCOG
City of Hollister 9/4/2020 3:30 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Carol Lenoir
City of King City 8/24/2020 11:00 AM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey and Heather Adamson
Doreen Liberto‐Blanck and Maricruz
Aguilar‐Navarro
City of Marina 8/7/2020 3:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Christy Hopper, Fred Aegerter, Layne
Long and Lisa Berkeley
City of Monterey GoTo Meeting
City of Pacific Grove 8/7/2020 1:30 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Anastazia Aziz and Terri Schaeffer
City of Salinas 9/8/2020 2:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Megan Hunter and Jonathan Moore
County of Monterey 8/13/2020 3:30 PM GoTo Meeting Heather Adamson and Beth Jarosz (consultant)
Brandon Swanson and John Dugan
County of San Benito 8/10/2020 1:00 PM GoTo Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Harry Mavrogenes, Taven Kinison
Brown, Jamila Saqqa, Gary Black
(Hexagon), Ollie Zhou (Hexagon), Stan
Ketchum (contract planner) and Mary
Gilbert from SBtCOG
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-56
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 41, Packet Page 210
Agency Meeting Date Meeting
Time
Location AMBAG Attendees Jurisdiction Attendees
City of San Juan Bautista 10/30/2020 9:00 AM Go To Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
John Freeman, Don Reynolds, and Mary
Gilbert from SBtCOG
County of San Benito 10/29/2020 3:00 PM Go To Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Anthony Botelho, Mark Medina, Taven
Kinison Brown, Benny Young, Stan Stan
Ketchums, and Mary Gilbert from
SBtCOG
County of San Benito 11/2/2020 2:00 PM Go To Meeting Maura Twomey, Heather Adamson and Beth
Jarosz (consultant)
Benny Young, Taven Kinison Brown, and
Mary Gilbert from SBtCOG
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-57
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 42, Packet Page 211 Carmel Del Rey Oaks Monterey Pacific Grove Sand City Seaside Unincorporated Total Population
2020 Base Year 3,949 1,662 28,170 15,265 385 33,537 8,916 91,884 (see note 1) 2045 Future Year 3,984 2,650 29,639 15,817 1,198 38,316 9,381 100,985 25-Year Population Growth - Persons 35 988 1,469 552 813 4,779 465 9,101 AMBAG 25-Year Population Growth 0.89% 59.45% 5.21% 3.62% 211.17% 14.25% 5.21% 9.90% (see note 2)
Jobs Growth
2020 Base Year 3,566 748 40,989 8,016 2,092 10,476 n/a
2045 Future Year 3,915 834 45,509 8,445 2,259 11,543 n/a 25-Year Jobs Growth - Jobs 349 86 4,520 429 167 1,067 n/a AMBAG 25-Years Jobs Growth Rate 9.79% 11.50% 11.03% 5.35% 7.98% 10.19% 11.03% (see note 3)
Residential Water Demand (AF)
2020 Base Year 420 91 1,663 877 21 998 2,215 6,284
AMBAG Population Growth Rate 0.89% 59.45% 5.21% 3.62% 211.17% 14.25% 5.21% 2045 Residential Water Demand 424 145 1,749 909 65 1,140 2,330 2045 Adjusted for Water Served by Others 424 99 1,749 909 65 1,041 2,313 6,600 315
Non-Residential Water Demand (AF)
2020 Base Year 216 22 1,506 308 63 332 827 3,273
AMBAG Jobs Growth Rate 9.79% 11.50% 11.03% 5.35% 7.98% 10.19% 11.03% 2045 Non-Residential Water Demand 237 25 1,672 324 68 366 918 3,609 336
Total Water Demand (AF)
2020 Base Year 636 113 3,168 1,185 84 1,330 3,041 9,557 2045 Future Year 661 124 3,421 1,233 133 1,406 3,230 10,209 Incremental 25-Year Demand 25 11 253 48 49 76 189 652
Average Water Demand per Year 0.99 0.43 10.11 1.93 1.97 3.06 7.57 26.06 Notes:
1) Cal-Am monthly population reporting to State Water Board. 2) Assumes unincorporated population grows at City of Monterey rate; Overestimate 3) Assumes unincorporated jobs grow at City of Monterey rate; Overestimate AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast
Population and Job Growth Rates
and Conversion to Future Water Demand
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 43, Packet Page 212 Future Need Based on AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast
1 Jurisdiction 25-Year
Water
Need
Carmel 25 AF
Del Rey Oaks 11 AF
Monterey 253 AF
Pacific Grove 48 AF
Sand City 49 AF
Seaside 76 AF
Unincorporated 189 AF
Airport 88 AF
Defense 54 AF
TOTAL 793 AF
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 44, Packet Page 213 AMBAG Documents & Data Intend to be Consistent
21 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038
RGF
MTP
RHNA
RGF
MTP
RHNA
RGF
MTP
RHNA
RGF
MTP
RGF
MTP
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 45, Packet Page 214 Final
June 2022
Metropolitan Transportation Plan / 2045 Sustainable Communities Strategy ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 46, Packet Page 215 1–8 Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Table 1-2: Population
Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Compound
Annual
Growth Rate
Change
Over
Forecast
Period
AMBAG Region 762,241 774,729 800,726 824,992 842,189 857,828 869,776 0.46% 12.27% Monterey County 430,310 441,143 452,761 467,068 476,028 483,884 491,443 0.43% 11.40% Carmel-By-The-Sea 3,854 3,949 3,946 3,954 3,964 3,974 3,984 0.04% 0.89% Del Rey Oaks 1,663 1,662 1,693 1,734 1,859 2,330 2,650 1.88% 59.45% Gonzales 8,441 8,506 9,650 13,492 14,630 15,398 15,711 2.48% 84.70% Greenfield 17,172 18,284 19,342 19,734 19,961 20,202 20,433 0.45% 11.75% King City 13,736 14,797 15,376 16,101 16,689 16,881 17,064 0.57% 15.32% Marina 21,057 22,321 23,723 25,126 26,713 28,433 30,044 1.20% 34.60% Monterey 28,086 28,170 28,044 28,650 29,032 29,342 29,639 0.20% 5.21% Pacific Grove 15,460 15,265 15,290 15,395 15,530 15,676 15,817 0.14% 3.62% Salinas 158,059 162,222 166,226 170,459 173,393 175,358 177,128 0.35% 9.19% Sand City 361 385 430 516 756 1,012 1,198 4.65% 211.17% Seaside 33,815 33,537 34,497 35,107 35,634 36,582 38,316 0.53% 14.25% Soledad 24,597 25,301 26,112 26,824 27,697 28,419 29,133 0.57% 15.15% Balance of County 104,009 106,744 108,432 109,976 110,170 110,277 110,326 0.13% 3.36% San Benito County 58,138 62,353 69,324 73,778 77,638 80,788 83,366 1.17% 33.70% Hollister 37,314 40,646 42,604 43,327 44,421 45,345 45,599 0.46% 12.19% San Juan Baustista 1,945 2,112 2,269 2,315 2,374 2,410 2,436 0.57% 15.34% Balance of County 18,879 19,595 24,451 28,136 30,843 33,033 35,331 2.39% 80.31% Santa Cruz County 273,793 271,233 278,641 284,146 288,523 293,156 294,967 0.34% 8.75% Capitola 10,224 10,108 10,485 10,794 10,957 11,049 11,126 0.38% 10.07% Santa Cruz 64,223 64,424 68,845 72,218 75,257 78,828 79,534 0.85% 23.45% Scotts Valley 11,496 11,693 11,718 11,837 11,867 11,868 12,010 0.11% 2.71% Watsonville 52,410 51,515 52,918 54,270 55,138 55,786 56,344 0.36% 9.37% Balance of County 134,990 133,493 134,675 135,027 135,304 135,625 135,953 0.07% 1.84% Source: AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 47, Packet Page 216 4–38 Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
development process faster and easier. The State of California offers grants to accelerate the production of housing and approves legislation that allows for more types of homes, like accessory dwelling units to be built statewide. Regionally, government agencies are considering how to better align housing policies with transportation initiatives because both contribute substantially to the region’s cost of living.
The SCS land use pattern accommodates the more than 42,000 new households that will be needed over the next 25 years to serve a projected growth of nearly 108,000 additional people.
The SCS land use pattern addresses the needs of all economic segments of the population. Based on the capacity for planned housing development the region will be able to accommodate the projected housing needs for residents of all income levels.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
California Housing Element law requires that every eight years, AMBAG shall develop a methodology for distributing projected housing need in four income categories – very low, low, moderate and above moderate – to local jurisdictions in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties and sets forth a process, objectives and factors to use for that methodology. The Council of San Benito County Governments (SBtCOG) performs this function for San Benito County. This process, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is coordinated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The 2045 MTP/SCS includes an updated RHNA.
The 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) from HCD to AMBAG is 33,274 units. SBtCOG’s 6th Cycle RHND is 5,005 units.
In the past, the RHNA was conducted separately from the MTP process. SB 375 now links the RHNA and MTP/SCS processes to better integrate housing, land use, and transportation planning. Integrating processes helps ensure that the state’s housing goals are met. The RHNA occurs before each housing element cycle, which SB 375 changed from a five-year to an eight-year cycle.
The AMBAG region received its RHNA Determination (for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties) from HCD for the housing element cycle (2023-2031). The AMBAG RHNA Plan allocates the RHNA Determination by jurisdiction. (For the San Benito RHNA, refer to SBtCOG’s RHNA Plan.) Based on the RHNA Plan each jurisdiction will need to ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 48, Packet Page 217 Sustainable Communities Strategy 4–39
identify adequate sites to address its RHNA allocations in the four income categories when updating its housing element.
Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties have enough housing capacity to accommodate the RHNA allocations.
San Benito County also has the housing capacity to accommodate the RHNA as described in the San Benito RHNA Plan. The allocations do not exceed forecasted growth and can be accommodated through infill and redevelopment. The AMBAG and SBtCOG RHNA Plans are under development and are expected to be consistent with the 2045 MTP/SCS. The 2045 MTP/SCS will be adopted within 18 months of the RHNA planning period and 6th Cycle Housing Element deadline as documented by HCD. This schedule follows the required statutory deadlines.
Meeting GHG Targets
In 2018, CARB set updated targets for lowering GHG in the Monterey Bay region. They call for a three percent reduction, in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2020 (compared with 2005); and a six percent per capita reduction by 2035 through land use and transportation planning.
The 2045 MTP/SCS demonstrates that the Monterey Bay region will meet these targets by focusing housing and employment growth in urbanized areas; protecting sensitive habitat and open space; and investing in a transportation system that provides residents, workers and visitors with transportation options that are more effective and diverse.
In addition, the 2045 MTP/SCS includes economic development strategies to encourage job growth in communities that are currently job poor as well as planning for new housing in communities that are currently job rich help to address the jobs/housing imbalance in the region and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The process to develop the MTP/SCS was based upon modeling these forecasted land use patterns and future transportation networks, along with the use of sustainable development principles that have been standard planning practice in the region for some time, and an extensive public outreach process.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Streamlining Provisions in SB 375 include opportunities for streamlining the CEQA process, when certain conditions are met, as an incentive for implementing projects that are consistent with this SCS. Generally, there are two types of projects for which CEQA requirements can be streamlined, once the MPO adopts an MTP/SCS that meet the greenhouse gas targets established by CARB:
• Transit priority projects streamlining
• Residential/mixed use projects streamlining
SB 375 includes specific requirements for the CEQA streamlining. The discussion below provides a general outline of the requirements.
Transit Priority Projects
A Transit Priority Project (TPP) is a project within an Opportunity Area and is eligible for CEQA streamlining if it is:
• Consistent with the SCS;
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 49, Packet Page 218 2022 Regional
Technical Documentation
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Scheduled for Adoption June 2022
Growth Forecast
Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045
Appendix A: Regional Growth Forecast
A-3
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 50, Packet Page 219 Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Plan
2023-2031
October 2022
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 51, Packet Page 220 Executive Summary
In August 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Regional Housing Need Determination to the AMBAG region for the 6th Cycle planning period of June 30, 2023 to December 15, 2031 and determined that the region must zone to accommodate a minimum of 33,274 housing units during this period. California housing law (Government Code § 65580 et seq.) requires AMBAG, acting in the capacity of Council of Governments (COG), to develop a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan to allocate existing and projected housing needs to local jurisdictions within Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties.
Based on the final RHNA Plan, each city and county must update its housing element to demonstrate how the jurisdiction will meet the expected growth in housing need over this period of time. The table below shows the final regional housing need allocation for each jurisdiction in the AMBAG region, broken into four income categories.
Table 1 – RHNA for the AMBAG Region, June 30, 2023 to December 15, 2031 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 52, Packet Page 221 Timeline
The RHNA Plan is adopted by the AMBAG Board of Directors in Fall 2022. Based on state statutory timelines prescribed in Government Code §65584.04, below are the key milestones dates for the RHNA:
• February 2021 to December 2021 – The Planning Directors Forum, comprised of the planning directors and local government planners for all of the cities and counties in the region, met seven times over eleven months to discuss RHNA and to develop and evaluate draft RHNA methodologies. The AMBAG Board of Directors were informed regularly on the development of the different draft methodologies. As meetings open to the public, these meetings also served as opportunities for the public and advocacy groups to provide comments on the process.
• June 2021 to January 2022 – The Board of Directors met seven times over eight months to review progress on the RHNA methodologies, take input from the Planning Directors Forum, and provide feedback on the process. As meetings open to the public, these meetings also served as opportunities for the public and advocacy groups to provide comments on the process.
• January 12, 2022 – The AMBAG Board of Directors adopted the draft RHNA methodology.
• January – March 2022 – HCD reviews and approves draft methodology. • April 13, 2022 – Approval of the final RHNA methodology by the AMBAG Board • April 22, 2022 – Draft RHNA plan released with RHNA allocations by jurisdictions • April 22 to June 6, 2022 – Local jurisdictions and HCD appeal RHNA allocation within 45 days of release of the draft RHNA plan/allocations
• May 2022 – AMBAG released the final 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) accommodating RHNA • June 7 to July 22, 2022 - Local jurisdictions and HCD comment on appeals within 45 days of the close of the appeal period
• June 15, 2022 – Adoption of Final 2045 MTP/SCS by AMBAG Board • August 10, 2022 – AMBAG held public hearing on appeals • September 14, 2022 – AMBAG made final determination that rejects appeals and directed staff to issue final allocation plan
• September 23, 2022 – AMBAG released Final 2023-31 RHNA Plan • October 12, 2022 - Adoption of Final 2023-31 RHNA Plan with RHNA allocations by AMBAG Board (scheduled)
• December 15, 2023 - Jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle Housing Elements are due to HCD ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 53, Packet Page 222 Problem: AMBAG Creates Confusion
22 Jurisdiction 25-Year
Population
Growth
6th Cycle
Housing
Units
Carmel 35 349
Del Rey Oaks 988 184
Monterey 1,469 3,654
Pacific Grove 552 1,125
Sand City 813 260
Seaside 4,536 616
Unincorporated 839 * 1,314 *
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 54, Packet Page 223 Residential Water Need – What Do Housing Types Use?
The District has a long-established residential fixture unit count methodology that is captured in its Rules and Regulations, Rule 24. The data is statistically based on engineering, design, and plumbing standards for residential housing units, and is updated to current standards regularly.
The methodology examines architectural floor plans and determines (“counts”) the number of fixtures in the proposed structure or dwelling unit and, based on the installed fixtures, determines the capacity of the dwelling unit to use water.
For purposes of forecasting future needs, the District has applied its fixture unit counts to determine the following for typical or standard capacity for water use, in acre-feet per unit:
AcreFeet
Required
Multi-Family:
1 to 2 Bedroom
1 Bathroom
Multi-Family:
2 to 3 Bedroom
2 Bathroom
Single-Family:
1 Master Bath
1 Standard Bath
1 Half-Bath
Standard Bathroom(s) 0.043 0.043 0.086 0.043
Half Bathroom 0.023 0.023
Master Bathroom 0.053 0.053
Kitchen 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
Clothes Washer 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
Landscaping & Other1 Varies 0.000 0.000 0.036
Total per Unit 0.068 0.111 0.180
How do these Capacity Factors Apply to RHNA Categories? RHNA requirements are allocated to four categories of housing based on affordability, but each category may be a mix of housing types. Therefore, the District assumes a mixture of housing types for each category.
RHNA Housing Type Category
Assumption of
Housing Mix
Resulting Water
Use Factor
(AF)
Very Low Income 50% 1-Bath &
50% 2-Bath
(100% Multi-Family)
0.0895 AF
Low Income 50% 1-Bath &
50% 2-Bath
(100% Multi-Family)
0.0895 AF
Moderate Income 50% Single-Family &
50% Multi-Family
0.1348 AF
Above Moderate 67% Single-Family &
33% Multi-Family
0.1498 AF
(9/9/24)
1 “Other” may include other fixtures such as utility sink, bar sink, vegetable sink, bidet, custom tub or showers.
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 55, Packet Page 224 9/6/2024
Very Low
Income Low Income
Total
Allocation
100%
Multifamily
100%
Multifamily
50%
Multifamily
50%
Singlefamily
33%
Multifamily
67%
Singlefamily
Total
Allocation
# Units 113 74 22 22 39 79 349
Served by Others 0000000
Net # Units 113 74 22 22 39 79 349
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 10.11 6.62 1.97 3.96 3.49 14.22 40.38 # Units 60 38 12 12 20 42 184
Served by Others (89.1%) 54 28 10 12 18 42 164
Net # Units (note 1) 6 10 2 0 2 020
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 0.54 0.90 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.79
# Units 1,180 772 137 136 476 953 3,654
Served by Others (note 2) 0000000
Net # Units 1,180 772 137 136 476 953 3,654
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 105.61 69.09 12.26 24.48 42.63 171.48 425.56 # Units 362 237 71 71 127 257 1,125
Served by Others 0000000
Net # Units 362 237 71 71 127 257 1,125
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 32.40 21.21 6.35 12.78 11.37 46.26 130.37 # Units 59 39 24 25 37 76 260
Served by Others 0000000
Net # Units 59 39 24 25 37 76 260
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 5.28 3.49 2.15 4.50 3.31 13.68 32.41 # Units 86 55 78 78 105 214 616
Served by Others (71.1%) 29 32 33 75 55 214 438
Net # Units (note 3) 57 23 45 3 50 0 178
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 5.10 2.06 4.03 0.54 4.48 0.00 16.20 # Units 405 254 115 116 216 433 1,539
Served by Others (note 4) 0 0 34 13 0 178 225
Net # Units 405 254 81 103 216 255 1,314
Water per Unit (AF) 0.0895 0.0895 0.0895 0.1800 0.0895 0.1800 Water Required (AF) 36.25 22.73 7.25 18.54 19.33 45.90 150.00 Total Water Req'd (AF) 195.29 126.11 34.19 64.80 84.79 291.54 796.71 Unincorporated County
Water Required for 2022 RHNA Units
by Jurisdiction
Moderate Above Moderate
Carmel
Del Rey Oaks
Monterey
Pacific Grove
Sand City
Seaside
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 56, Packet Page 225 (1) Assumes 20 ADUs located in Cal-Am service area; Remaining units located on Lots 1, 1a, K1, and K2 on former Fort Ord served by MCWD.
Also assumes 86 units from 4th and 5th Cycle shortfall will be served by others.
(2) Per Table 3-4 of City of Monterey 2023-31 Housing Element public review Hearing Draft, June 2024. Reviewed at July 16, 2024 City Council meeting. Shows RHNA allocation can be met within urban boundary, and old Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch is considered "Buffer" or surplus only.
Local density bonus reduced to achieve 3,654 total units. (3) Assumes already approved units at The Enclave, Parker Flats, and Campus Town result in only 66 new units (47 very low, 13 low, and 6 moderate) plus 112 ADU units (in all categories, but at 0.0895 AF/unit) are required to meet the RHNA goal. For this analysis, all 178 remaining units are assumed to be located within Cal-Am water service.
(4) Based on 2023-2031 Housing Element, DRAFT - August 2024.
Includes sites 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60; Assumes 14.6% to be served by others:
September Ranch - 22 affordable, 73 above moderate
Rancho Canada Villages - 118 residential lots and 12 condominiums, (25 units of affordable housing at moderate income level) per County.
Footnotes
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 57, Packet Page 226 Water Demand Forecasting – 3 Simple Questions
3 How Much Do
I Use Today?
How Fast Will
We be
Growing?
How Much
Will We Need
in the Future?
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 58, Packet Page 227 Carmel Del Rey Oaks Monterey Pacific Grove Sand City Seaside Unincorporated Total AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast 2045
AMBAG Forecasted New Population 35.0 988.0 1,469.0 552.0 813.0 4,779.0 839.2 9,475.2 Water Demand Based on Net New Population 3.7 8.1 86.7 31.7 44.4 42.7 98.1 315.4 AMBAG RHNA Forecast thru 2031
AMBAG Forecasted New Housing Units 349.0 184.0 3,654.0 1,125.0 260.0 616.0 1,314.0 7,502.0 Water Demand Based on New Housing Units 40.4 1.8 425.6 130.4 32.4 16.2 150.0 796.8 Combined Forecast
AMBAG RGF + RHNA Dived by 2 22.1 5.0 256.2 81.1 38.4 29.5 124.0 556.1 AMBAG New Non-Residential Forecast 3.0 21.0 166.0 16.0 5.0 34.0 91.0 336.0 TOTAL Water Requirement 43.1 8.0 422.2 97.1 43.4 63.5 215.0 892.1 Water Required for AMBAG Regional Growth Forecast - Residential Population versus AMBAG RHNA Housing Forecast
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 59, Packet Page 228 EXHIBIT 20-A
MONTHLY ALLOCATION REPORT
Reported in Acre-Feet
For the month of July 2024
* Does not include 15.280 Acre-Feet from the District Reserve prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 73.
U:\staff\Boardpacket\2024\08192024\Informational Items\20\Item-20-Exh-20-A.docx Jurisdiction Paralta
Allocation*
Changes Remaining PREParalta
Water
Changes Remaining Public
Credits
Changes Remaining Total
Available
Airport District 8.100 0.000 5.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.197 Carmel-by-the-Sea 19.410 0.000 1.398 1.081 0.000 1.081 0.910 0.000 0.182 2.661 Del Rey Oaks 8.100 0.000 0.000 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Monterey 76.320 0.000 0.298 50.659 0.000 0.181 38.121 0.000 2.451 2.920 Monterey County 87.710 0.000 10.578 13.080 0.000 0.352 7.827 0.000 1.181 12.121 Pacific Grove 25.770 0.000 0.000 1.410 0.000 0.014 15.874 0.000 0.002 0.016 Sand City 51.860 0.000 0.000 0.838 0.000 0.000 24.717 0.000 23.163 23.163 Seaside 65.450 0.000 0.743 34.438 0.000 28.873 2.693 0.000 1.144 30.760 District Reserve 9.000 0.000 8.607 N/A N/A 8.607
TOTALS 342.720 0.000 26.821 101.946 0.000 30.501 90.142 0.000 28.123 85.445 Allocation Holder Water Available Changes this Month Total Demand from Water Permits Issued
Remaining Water
Available
Quail Meadows 33.000 0.000 32.320 0.680
Water West 12.760 0.000 10.092 2.668
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 60, Packet Page 229 Summary of Proposed Allocations
2 Jurisdiction 25-Year
Water
Need
DRAFT
Proposed
Allocation
Existing
Allocation
7/31/24 *
DRAFT
Total
Allocation
Carmel 43 AF 14 AF 2.661 AF 16.661 AF
Del Rey Oaks 8 AF 4 AF 0 AF 4.000 AF
Monterey 422 AF 141 AF 2.920 AF 143.920 AF
Pacific Grove 97 AF 32 AF 0.016 AF 32.016 AF
Sand City 43 AF 14 AF 23.163 AF 37.163 AF
Seaside 64 AF 21 AF 30.760 AF 51.760 AF
Unincorporated 215 AF 72 AF 12.121 AF 84.121 AF
Airport 88 AF 44 AF 5.197 AF 49.197 AF
Defense 54 AF 27 AF 0 AF 27.000 AF
369 AF 445.838
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 61, Packet Page 230 24 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/5/2024, Item No. 18., Item Page 62, Packet Page 231