Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 15, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ,NIGHJ ' BREEDING NON-BREEDING ·~
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
Begin Time:__'J_ f'--""/;...L_
1_____ End Time:__...,2:j ......._Y ..._S=-----
Cloud cover: ,
I ) .(1 ° / ) Precipitation:___/\....,,,.)_r....,.___L_· ________ { ~o J Air Temperature:____- _.;..____ \Vater Temperature:________ Wind Speed:__~------------- Visibility Conditions: (\ I r Cl~ Moon phase:___ '·\· I '\ I ....,__________ Humidity: ;:tJ: ¼ Description of weather conditions: ------,------::¼ ""+.,._,, ........, _ __,, ________ ,\( o yK ( f¥ -r t= u9 ' } ,
Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _ e-. _~--='----------- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: /~ ,/' e..
25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 354, Packet Page 508 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPIDBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
'
,, I yV- ( v )fi I I\ \ ,1 «
'-.-)
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 355, Packet Page 509 _______ _
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by_____--::--::----,-------_- ---------------- (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Survey Biologist: __J a _ ___.. b.... M..._-::::, ..._<.i ... n_.__.,./¾-'--'~J-'-...::;~ ,_!.. ._1 .____ (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: ___.tfe ___....__,.____, ·_ i, __kJ ......_ ______tr......_ e_4.,_./--+01/1 ~-- (Last name) (firsefame) Site Location: Fl G5feco
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY MG-BJ) NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): ] 2 5 6 7 8
fA ' - ~ / "\ ', S Begin Time: :J:2'~ <..,; .,1
Cloud cover: __/ _0_~....%_o______
, .,,ou...;.- Air Temperature:__\.J/ L___
Wind Speed: ___~---------
Moon phase: _____V'i __• _ _ C) Y-''----
?l.A- "I , ' C -, ,:.._ End Time: ,cL o' 1...,.1 - \,/
Precipitation:_____.;. \__._/ _.)'"',----' _-c..____./___ Water Temperature:---------
Visibility Conditions: __._ -L__()_' _,__
,-:i,.-:) d:/~ Humidity:____-_.,_t _-_1 ______
C n. "...-..<... Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: ___v_v• __________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? c: ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: -----"-.,#-"'- ~ .__-1.- -'""...._____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 356, Packet Page 510 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Beard (H) Identification
,PJv 11 fr,1c:.,,.
, I 0 14Jv(t !f?J ¼
u
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 357, Packet Page 511 -----------
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by_________________________
(FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Date of Survey:
~
C)L./.hvh/6 Survey Biologist: _)._u;;..h-....;._...C£-'"""""""''-'---"'""(U....;._...11.fllf4:eCJ.. . ~-'---- (Last name) ?: ~rst.name)
Survey Biologist: __._t:(2_,;..;.~~k"""~... v:..;..l-__ __,_~_'Cr_.__M-'--'-1<___ - _ (Last name) (first name) Site Location:_.../-n_t't_/Y_,_~------------------------ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features. and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~
Survey number (circle one): 1 2
Begin Time: Q,--d3t>6"
Cloud cover: (!,.,,u,tr
Air Temperat ure:_~.....,;;;......ao~,:;.._ ,/7\./ 0
....c.... £_____
Wind Speed: __,._~_,t,,t__,.,P_~----
Moon phase: t/41~ 6:fJl1
~ NON-BREEDING
3 c:::V 5 6 7 8
End Time: ..2-32~
Precipitation:__..Af......_~________
Water Temperature: 58· 0 F
Visibility Conditions:_tJl.~f-~~----
Humidity: ____7_7__t7__1..._)______
Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: ---'S=.;.~.... vt,_'-.;;.;C.-,__________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @ S-- NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ____-_.-_~_-~_-:e_____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 358, Packet Page 512 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
'1t'll--~L .J..\-- ~V\ l-r
0 (> tl-,n 1\ I /.s.rl/(( e..
f-tAl\~ \ 0 A)vd+- Q
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: _______________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 359, Packet Page 513 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by__________----·-------------- (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: ~~ Survey Biologist: ----'j=-b-~..;..i.t....1t:,..,dl..,---:.__,.Jtt,=-=•/b..;..~~;..._-- (in/d)m) (Las1 name) -,(9rst name) Survey Biologist: --+/<..a.L.r1r~b.,.....1tc'""i...,f.-c1-------,""'WM-n"'--'-..i...:.''.aaC'----- <Las1 name) '(f1rstname) Site Location:_0.........,__/..,5__i>_"1________________________ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A lVlAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: ___________________
Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 Q:, 5 6 7 8
Begin Time:___.Z'-"-'Z~C£;;;;_______ End Time: 2Z-IJJ5
Cloud cover:_Cl._._.... e__t:t......C'-------- Precipitation:,--,IAu.L.;h;.;.w________ 0 ~,,or Air Temperature: 6'--f•] f Water Temperature:_...~~r__.L.______ Wind Speed: )- ll'f P~ Visibility Conditions:_(,,..;;;...;..{-ev-r.;.;.._ _____ Moon phase: ~ (f tw;>'v\, Humidity:_7:::.....;..7~~-0_______ Description of weather conditions: __,U&==-+f,_e.-___;;{f_v_r________________ I Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: __ S"""""'o.,;v ~-·-=-------- L - Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @P NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _____S~ (i.,VI,..;_..;; ~ :;.... _____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 360, Packet Page 514 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
Iv ~~+vt,q 2 dH hdul+ X
<J
'TIW!. h-vc,t. >sv ,
() w~e.
0 --r-OAJ )1£ (') ½v~e
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: _______________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 361, Packet Page 515 __ _______ ------------
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by_________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: otf/o!e:, Survey Biologist: _J_o_~ ____O_l---1 _______ /f,,(____.~ .........'--""""""""'"-- (m dd. yyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: ........ 4 ____t:.__ w........_k __~ _____,/Nr....__. .........r....·c _ __ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: L~✓ ~tkle.
-(c-""ou'""n'""ty"",....G-e-n..J,er"""a"'t&w+-ca&ti""'.o.... nan'""a-m-e,-U-T_M_C_o_o_rd_i_na_t_es_o_r_L_a-t.-/L-o_n_g_.o_r_T__-R--S-)-.---- **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): I 2 3 cf:)' 5 6 7 8
Begin Time:,._!fl ,_S- _ End Time: 25{,!()
Cloud cover:_e;/4__._~-e.....e;__C..________ Precipitation:_M_~--------- Air Temperature:___~...._/_b _ _.._F ___ _ TI/ n ater T emperature:_~C~E ____ 2._____!_____ Wind Speed:_Z___V11--+-f'-~......______ Visibility Conditions:_~_....!"' _____ Moon phase: [~ \? M@'::\ Humidity:_..a.,____,L}....,;;.. 77 ~0 ________ Description of weather conditions: ___(_~)_\JJ_!_ <__(___f_~_\_____________ Brand name and model oflight used to conduct surveys: _ c_....; _ w_ •_(_.________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? NO
Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _____.,,. _--__,_~----------------- 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 362, Packet Page 516 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
·7 f¥..p_htv,1 ID Olli- A-dull- y
CJ
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 363, Packet Page 517 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by___________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Survey Biologist: --=j::....;;.i)_\.,.:...n..;.."'.:-~o-_...,-'--__,_yk_tl- _____ (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: -K=c~'--'--l~..:;;..:.(.:...h..:.::..e-c...L..-_...J?,.__.;_f-n;;....;;~;;.. - -- (Last name) (first name)
Site Location: Lctc~\l\t"{ M ,·rc.,dc-.._
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): l 2 3 6 7 8
/JC) ' • lD
Begin Time:._20..z::.._1...;;~------ End Time:___;.L- ___'"1________ CJoud cover: __.,......___________ Precipitation:_~rJ_o_...-,e ________ c~o Air Temperature:_....aa'::?;_.._______ Water Temperature: _________ Wind Speed: I ~ ~ V\ Visibility Conditions: Clt:'G--v"
Moon phase: /--h. ~ f yl Humidity:__7____7__~---"------- Description of weather conditions: (,A), "'-d ~ Lo ld, c,l:%J: 1 1 Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: __0 _W\l'--{. '------------ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? -@ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ______c..::;. •.;..WV1-- .:....._e____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 364, Packet Page 518 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species #of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
- -- - --
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: M ;~hil-b 6 sh Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 365, Packet Page 519 ---------------
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed hl'_ ---------·----______________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: ~~~ Survey Biologist: _ ....J.0""1,""'.:;:. ..... :.,~c..-,;...:...___,1.t'(t....:;:~....lf-'---'-14..-.J_ ( in/d ryy) (Last name) (first name)
Survey Biologist: _.__t:wr----'-_1,,.~=w~----J-~...., .;...l.;...,1_,;L;;;;.___ (Last name} (first name}
Site Location:_----=:;£"....;./'--...;.~...::~;;.;.M.:..;.......o;;;;.______________________ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Briefdescription ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY B~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 GP s 6 7 s
Begin Time:__,:;.2__1.....\--=5"-------- End Time: "I u;:: _.....;.....;.. [,,,., l ...::;.. J ________ _ Cloud cover: Clu.. r Precipitation:.___;_N_o_~________
Air Temperature: s-f.3 ,,Y Water Temperature: i&.'3 °f
Wind Speed: 3-\,/,,Af ~ Visibility Conditions: C.\..&r
Moon phase:. _ __.._t~_"1._f-__fw........ n_.__ ___ _ Humidity:.__7-=--:7...;...:...i'½, _______ Description ofweather conditions: ___.C..•.;..: k._w-'--1/f---'C_,u"-o"'--\.______________ Brand name and model oflight used to conduct surveys: __r:)........~"'--------------- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO C Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _____,:: -./;...._" ...;.:r_~"""-f:...:...____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 366, Packet Page 520 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
- - - - - -
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: K"' CVV-vt';)r 'l/,.tl<.J..lc,ih, J" 1+u16-t: H<frl I twt) ~,,d·ry,, ~
Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 367, Packet Page 521 AppendixE.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by ____________~------------ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Survey Biologist: _.;:,,J"--'-o_h..;..~..;.'-==~'----'---6.&___,;....,.//4 .... ' h;..i.(.1..,.u'--- (Las1 name) J (firs! name) Survey Biologist: ~iG-...0.;..;~.:::lo?f.......;c;;;..'1..;..~...:r __-'-=(£!""-'-{j.:...n.;..;C.==---- (Last name) (first name) Site Location: /;Jf(5J,,,e..O.oOWlf, h
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: __________________
Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY
Survey number (circle one): ] 2
Begin Time: V('{SCloud cover: C /..t,,t:-i;,--
Air Temperature: ______o"---'l_ ~ao_____
Wind Speed:_-"/....f:..;..'lo/,__,/._'7_.,f/- ____
Moon phase: J-4 /f- #blJYI

NON-BREEDING
3 @ 5 6 7 8
End Time: ;2/: IQ
Precipitation:_M..:..:a.~---------
Water Temperature:_(._l),._,._/_·_f.______
Visibility Conditions =---1i:C...'l... ~L;.L..c___ _
Humidity: 11'¼
'
Description of weather conditions: _""w-"-'-,1/f__._J1;;...~f__._C...a....l~1__..t.... •k.t""""'-'v-'------------ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: __._.,_ , _(_________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? G,?. NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ;::_;~
25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 368, Packet Page 522 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) identification
1~f(l}(,f I f)/ H A-Juft- ~
u
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 369, Packet Page 523 ____ ____ _
_____ ____________
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by__-----:------,-------------------------- (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: ~p Survey Biologist: _.l_c)_l-t_1,.t____u_..___'1-¾ __'ff_"t!' ___,........ J ___ (mm/ /yyyy) (Last name) (first name)
Survey Biologist: __._lfi ......... <'S'?t ........?n, ........_____S_44e........,.,.&."T"""-11,._____ (Last name) (ftlst name) Site Location: J/4,fl~ ~ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ BR:EEDmr. NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 8
Begin Time:_.2_ /_.' 3_· ._()______ End Time: 2 !'55
Cloud cover:__._.Ck"--"'-w________ Precipitation:__,N.......v __________ _ , /J,jCF Air Temperature: rv_/l be _ _..:::> o__.·7..._,_[_ Water Temperature:__lt'_7_·______ Wind Speed: ).J.-nf/2 Visibility Conditions :___C_../,....,fj_t.....____ Moon phase:_&_·_/_{_______ Humidity: _ _.pj;..____________ Description of weather conditions: ____Qt __•....W=---+f.....l,....4..............-.1"--------------- Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _ ½ V/1--e. _ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? & NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: -------""'~ aa.--\/V\ _ _.£ ___________ _ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 370, Packet Page 524 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
AMPffiBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Observed Life Stages Size Class Certainty of # of (0) Species indiv. Beard (B) Identification ,,-:r-oefu1 _ ollf Ur(lf).e . · ~
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 371, Packet Page 525 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by ____________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Survey Biologist: _......____.....___________._. __ .......____=-_ Survey Biologist: ................-.a=-:1:a....1._.___=_..::..=:;..i..,-+.:;...L-- Site Location: ~; /$on fbnJ
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP {include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ Survey number (circle one): l 2 Begin Time:__2,0_~--------
Cloud cover:_..,_\ o_~_o________
0 Air Temperature:___,,{t»..,._.L/.__f._______
Wind Speed: () .() \M,~"'.

Moon phase:_~____\.... \ _______
~ NON-BREEDING
3 4 © 6 7 8
End Time:__,;;;;2=''--4..__'0_______
Precipitation:_..,.~_,,}....~----------
Water Temperature: ~t//Jf
Visibility Conditions:_...C_.,__le__vt_r____
Humidity: t2Wt2
Description of weather conditions: _C..;;;.._·/_-e_~_r---+,.,.r,..t,...,{"'-11'.\......_+-,-~"-"-,__'!::J....____________ I Brand name and model oflight used to conduct surveys: _'?_evv-( _~--------- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _______0~ 1.A_'.VV\ _-{?__________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 372, Packet Page 526 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPIDBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
1reefuo. +t
0 Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 373, Packet Page 527 __ _______
-----------
---------------
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by _________________________
(FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Date of Survey: ~?, Survey Biologist: _,:;;..\;;...4'........_.--i-'~=11=\'1.'-'----rlfrt~# ........ £e""':.<,..,)._____ (mm/d/n'YYl /~ast name) (first name) 1 Survey Biologist: ___rrr. ____ ·e:=-=-=-- .... t __ CJn"--'----'S::;.o..kr.,..v....c-..h-,:;;f,,,,..,.,.____ (Last name) (~name) SiteLocation: Lo~ fe<t~,kk
(County, Generalocatiowme, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: __________________
Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): I 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 8
Begin Time:_2,JJ6r:;o _ End Time: 2, /2D
,00__ Cloud cover: ,- ro Precipitation:_W__ u_·<I\Jl. ________ - _ Air Temperature:_.... ~_/fl O....c_~ ______ Water Temperature:_~......_~...._:.J_c... /J_a"c_____ Wind Speed: 0.0 :Mf ~ Visibility Conditions: C/l-e,~r
Moon phase: _..__ ful .......\ _______ _ Humidity: fJO?o Description of weather conditions: ...c ...... ~"""'-'~~)-C-6--_l_"',...._+}--'1.... Vl:)...____________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: - ~ .......e,w.e, ----=--------- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? /YEVNO Brand, model, and power of binoculars:------~....;;;...;;.:.........____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 374, Packet Page 528 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
7~~~ O/+t ,4-~t-f/~~e
'Jr.v;,1 I " I
0 4rv«e ~
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: _______________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 375, Packet Page 529 _______ _
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survev Data Sheet
Survey results revie~ed by_________--------------,,--:-:---:-:- ---- (1,WS Field Office) (date) (biologi~t) DateofSurvey: ~~ Survey Biologist: __.)"""'6,...hw~:'>:-')::::,'""'"""_____,&!,,i.....;;.i....,:ft....,_.k,,,_,_.,.,)"""--_ (m t/d n •n) (Last name) (first name)
Survey Biologist: _¾____"'""""""S-'-t'D_V"'\.___$....__k]{{_,._,(..._._I.,..:;1....\'l....,__ (Last name) (first na\i{e)
Site Location: L1t~;"'t ~4 f'] t1(1« /t,
(Cou ~', General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: _ __________________
Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY~ ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): ] 2 3 4 Cl) 6 7 8
Begin Time: lZ.,tY(; End Time: ):>lo .,
Cloud cover:.._,Ck4,:;., ·'""""":.:..f ________ Precipitation:__.AA~ul_d Air Temperature: \1J f -Obi/ L. Water Temperature:________ ----------:------ Wind Speed: /J -0 lvJ?A I Visibility Conditions: ~A:C
Moon phase: _ _,6,.....,...4..../ ___1/______ Humidity: __ftJ..,....~ft' ..._________ Description of weather conditions: _______________________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _...;s ~ _ ....;...___________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ______0-=..a~'-"'------';;;..._ __________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 376, Packet Page 530 Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
/f'r!''t'~ II- V
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 377, Packet Page 531 -
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by_ ________- - - -~---- - - - - ----- (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: Of:{(:i/(Lt, ( mid /yyyy)
Site Location:_......,U"'-'~,.,.5..,.fte'""""'a&[tl//4...1<.¥.:.r::.....:::th:.:....,,._____________________ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATT ACH A MAP (include habitat types, impmtant features, and species locations)** (Last name)
(Last name)
Proposed project name: _______________
Briefdescription of proposed action:
____
...

Type-of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ B~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 (J) 6 7 8
_...a;...___________
Begin Time:__z_;..,;ii-'0.....S:""'--------- End Time: 2Z,Z,,5 Cloud cover:_...,Oke,'"'""..:,,.oc_______ Precipitation:__,_t\,..,.)&..,;~"---"=-------- ~or G;·i Air Temperature:_..;-.::::,;;..._7 _______ Water Temperature:_________ Wind Speed: 0-0 v41fb Visibility Conditions: C-½C
Moon SI\ phase:_... ~-"'--';...\...a\________ Humidity:~f;"""X;;...a>~::.,_------- Description of weather conditions: __._{)c....:....f/,.__~r__{.;;...t-t_{._,~......._______________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _..;:Svt "--'-'VV--'--' ~---------- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: -------~---="""""'¾'-'-",{?""'<---------- 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 378, Packet Page 532 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
frill?~ fl
('
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 379, Packet Page 533 _____ _
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by_ _ _________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: 0~¥ Survey Biologist: _J,...o_~"--'~=-u..-,------&---"'--~--------v___ (mm/d /yyY)') (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: _._,o/_.__s....::s..,....P!:::z ........._____.¢J_~___e...f_,_.,' ....... - ___ (Last name) (f.6i name) Site Location: C/ C6kro
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Briefdescription of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): DAY ~ ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 a:> 6 7 8
Begin Time:__,~2'-"Z........x)"-=------- End Time:___kj_t,,_OJ Cloud cover:_....U._._cn-te. _______________ _ Precipitation:____ M;_~ __. ________ L -c,_u.~F Air Temperature:__2"-C.__V______ Water Temperature: JO ,, 7()f Wind Speed: D·Ovt:1ph Visibility Conditions:_C,-f&«c~----- Moon phase:_fv,/J_...,.1/________ Humidity:_.._.0 ..... o'l..... 11________ Description of weather conditions: _ __,()......_.le'-''1A'-'f-1...e...,,....k__________________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _ ...'=2.......!...t::_l___________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _______S, _ ,.___!J. ___e______________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 380, Packet Page 534 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
- - - - - -
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: _________ _______ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other suppo11ing documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 381, Packet Page 535 Appeudix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey retu..lts revie""ed by __________________________ (lt'i\'S llit'ld C)ffi cc) (datt) (biul,t(:Jir)
(l..HI "111111/)
Survey Biologist: _______________ (Lasl namr>
Site Location: ft,rli'.;,. ~ /
(County, Geooral !oration mime. UTM Coordinates or LatJLong. or T-R-S ). ••A TIACH A MAP (include habitat types. imponant features. and species locations) ..

Proposed project name: __________________
Brfcfdescription of proposed action:

Type of Su_rvcy (circle oae): «IbX NIGHT
Survey number (circle one): 2
Begin Timc:~/,1/ ~~/ b- _______
Cloud cover:_.l...:~CJf,. .,..,-"-------
Air Tcmperatm·e: 5? J t> f
Wind Speed:_ ¼'"-'-•.... 1/.....uH'.1'4?"-.Jh4-. ----- f Moon phase:___,lA'-'-'\ __,__1_ ....r,...... , .,_f\..,...__"__ V
c!!REiJimG NON-BREEDING
3 4 5 a> 7 8
End Time: / 2.t:>f:i:

Prccipitatioo:_ ,_A};;..;. 01'\,€. _= -------
Water Temperaturc:_75:....::'--"rt...'---.._ ·} o'F_____ Visibility Conditions: Cler,c
Humidity: ____________
Braud name and model of light used to conduct surveys: ___tJ__/1_,_._________ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @) NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ~ •~ IO X<..f'Z.. 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 382, Packet Page 536 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Sur vev Data Sheet
AMPHl BIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species #of
iudi,1•
Observed (0)
Beard {H)
Life Stages Si,e C lass Certaiot)1 of
ldt•ntificatiou
It - ,,, 0 '-4--v,e.
(..)
t.J~-.tt NI Titt() 0 (.,t, /1/(,,. -e_
Describe potential threats 10 California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish. bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes. observations. commcn1s, etc.
(J /,-#- ~v,,i,,/IOVJ'> tJ u ik._l, ''1f "''"'4 ,,i1-<r Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Sile photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 383, Packet Page 537 ~
__________ ___________ _
AppcndixE.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed h),'_-------------·------------- (FWS Fiold Offi<<l (d,c,.) O,iolo~>1) Survey Biologist: __"'1:.u.,.k:ul!:..:i1.eo..,kZ2--"-tl,"'- ~'-'~.,_~.,..e...u'-'·--- Tl:ir 1:t:U11c . ) (fil'.it 11 1mif Sur vey Biologist: ______________ (Llll n11.mr)
Site Location: tJ,/.5tfd O?Hd
(County. General loeation name, UTM Coordiootes or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **A TIACH A MAP (inclucle hahilat types, important features. and spc<:ies locations)•• Proposed project name: __________________
Briefdescription of pro11osed action:

Type of Survey (circ le one):~ NIGHT
Survey number (circle one): 1 2
Begin Time:__.{...ZfJ6 ~..,_________
Cloud cover:_ ~-_%___ _____
Air Temperature:_,_{,.c;~.i..<-" ..,,f:'- ...---- - -
Wind Speed:_O=....:; o ....td. '-,,::;.bft.:..;_____ _ _ Moon phase:-'-! _)_,_.._1_•.___r__\_--"---
l
Description of weather conditions:

NON-BREEDING
3 4 5 (!i;) 7 8
End Time: f'!. :1../6
Precipitation:_,_N.:.~ :.;_-=--------
Watcr Temperan1rc: 70.q o/o f
Visibility Conditions:--'(!,"'-'\e,_W_____
llumidity:---'~""'-'.:..u""-------- -
Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _ c _'-'1<''-"'-'+/=>-_;;; ) t:i""<--._,- ....:....-" ~ Z_,_$, L---- \Vere binoculars used for the s urveys (cirole one)? /Y~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ___<:... "' J"'<,v,. '-'-_ L__= ------------- 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 384, Packet Page 538 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species #of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
- - -- - - - -
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ____________ _ ___ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 385, Packet Page 539 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by ___________________________ (FWS Field Office} (date} (biologist) Survey Biologist: --'~......._a ¼ ...-..;..; t'\= r.a...:i_/\ ___.,.il.A ....'-'---- ~ J+-.....\'-="-=- NA,) - (Last name) <firs1 name) Survey Biologist: ________________ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: \,..c-,1_1.v, \- '•"-,{_ l ' e, -(C.....,,,.ou_n__t)_' , ....G..:..e_n_e-ra_l_lo-c~a\i"""·"'"on__,;;;n_am-""e,-U-T-M-C-o-o-rd-i-n-at-e-s-or-L-at_./_L_on_g___o_r_T--R---S-)-.---- **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one):~ NIGHT ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): ] 2 3 4 5 C6) 7 8
Begin Time:__..I_E__:....0__6_______ End Time: {1 L/Q
Cloud cover: __/ ....0...0........3/c""'o...._______ Precipitation:_J_,_., ___.. l ________ /' - '"lor Air Temperature: ,5B·:1 c.. "F Water Temperature: rh .-...> Wind Speed: 3 i /1,{eh Visibility Conditions:_C_ (f __t_1 r_____ Moon phase: (MV\ 1 •l QGI kk:PY.2 Humidity:__&
1 __.._..:.,_ 0¼0
o _________
Description of weather conditions: _______________________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: __..,,_w. ____-t_-_ 6-, ____r-_,, ____(/_ -_.,/_"?...e _____ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _____c__._,_,t_1...,_____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 386, Packet Page 540 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
1,ee.-froa () ~ VIV' \A..:> '4
<J u ()
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 387, Packet Page 541 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by___________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: ~~/t,, Survey Biologist: _.:::;j ;__a~-'111'. ~f"':;.d -=-.;;.. -" ,___ __ V½~h;.:.:i±.J..+-..... t _ .... 4_ ;;;.,,. tJ ) ___. _ (mm1c1rryy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: _______________ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: _ _..;.;[;;_-...../____.,Fi ~.,..,, =c.~£v i.:.....:ri...,Q.....;______________________ (County, General locati~n name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: ___________________
Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one.k:fM\1 NIGHT ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8
Begin Time:___,;,,/3~5()~"------- End Time:_...:.;_r--'/....,/..._)______ Cloud Precipitation:----'M_ 011 ;;.....:._<e_______ cover:--1{,...U..._\._'3/: '-"' c,"--------- Air Temperature: &O,B";:: Water Temperature:________
Wind Speed: '-/. 0 Mph Visibility Conditions :_C, =---1.... -e.... (...C '------ ,-().. ~l__ Moon phase:_.,_( ""''""\'_1<_h_--,,.(:'--"l""'..__ '"'~""'--"-','-,:-'-- Humidity:__~'""""o'-'/'"'"1'~________ Description of weather conditions: C lc,v{~CJ\ , Stef;' ;1 , r, -1---.l~=-,-1--=~..........(,--:.----------- Brand name and model oflight used to conduct surveys: __<:, .=.;W/lf'. ..;._---'-~ -,,.-= ;)__,l/ '---'Z ""'"""rJ '----- 7 Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? .C:::~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ------'~~~.;..;_"""'------------- 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 388, Packet Page 542 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species #of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (B)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
"N/A
Desc1ibe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: _______________ _ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Tu,+k'S &Se,.---~J
~~ ,J)C,5
Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 389, Packet Page 543 __
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by _ _ ---,-________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Date of Survey: #§1/'? Survey Biologist: _ J=-e_k_..,_..=~-•,., ______.,_~~-+'----"' .;;..._' _,___ (nun/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: _______________ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: L-tfc lA t"I • ~ (Coun •, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: ___________________
Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): @ NIGHT NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): l 2 3 4 5 ® 7 8
I
r. ·-- Begin Time:~/6.;;;... _.'.;... ) _0 _____ _ End Time:_ _;___-> _ • ..:: ..->;....;;;;.... ~ ______ _ Cloud cover: / /~% Precipitation:_;... ;JiOV!.e________ -•'----'---------- Air Temperature: {aOo;:::- Water Temperature:_________
Wind Speed : ___Q '-""-'O .,___..,._:;;.:,.;.- r., \,. .;.._ ____ _ Visibility Conditions :--'C [ :;._;;,_R ;;__t.,.;.;_r ____ _ '
I ,, ;.. r.,. I ., M oon phase __.;;.. '- ____.....:.;....;1:..; --.;,,;a \,.;..;1=...;...- Humidity:_ 'i_)_/t-=-- b _______ '
Description of weather conditions: __D_\."""U"'--_t n........_~__,__C. ;;...o_c'.\_,_______________ Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: S C-vVH{' u ~ l/- Z t'::> Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? @ No Brand, model, and power of binoculars: ______c::=-. :;;.__ " · _ ___/" _ 1_€ ___________ _ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 390, Packet Page 544 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERV ATJONS
Species # of
indiv.

Observed (0)
Heard (H)
Life Stages Size Class Certainty of
Identification
A/ II+
I
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other suppo11ing documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 391, Packet Page 545 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by ____________________,--______ (FWS Fie.Id Office) (date) (biologist) Date of Survey: Survey Biologist: ____.. 1,.,1; \L,___ " ;.:..L i,, IA!,._ £..:.; J •~i:1~---~l :.. ~l - _./.i_, __ (Lasi name) '(first name) Survey Biologist: _______________ (Last name) (first name) 1 Site Location:_....,._r,_r_l_r L......:.'-":.;. ) .;..,,_______________________ (County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description ofproposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): <fid NIGHT ~~ NON-BREEDING Survey number (circle one): 2 3 4 5 {£) 7 8
Begin Time: /~ .• 40 End Time: /':: f{;5
Cloud cover: _.:.,__...;;.. / v'tl°lo________ Precipitation:_M~:::.Dv. ;..;....;l::....._______ Air Temperature: ~; e,.(;/¥: Water Temperature:_{, ________ Wind Speed:_1~-l...ok".lu...,,:. f ""h..._ ______ Visibility Conditions: C {t: r Moon phase: l • ) ,VI , 6 L- _,..... Humidity:_(c=...;c)....;~_r________ C
Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: ~ ~ Cl :, l/ Z~ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)?
Brand, model, and power of binoculars: --------=.;;:.:.;....1...__________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 392, Packet Page 546 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indiv. Heard (H) Identification
,\)/A
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, including non-native and native predators such as fish, bullfrogs, and raccoons: ________________ Other notes, observations, comments, etc.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with impo1tant habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 393, Packet Page 547 , __ __
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by___ __________ ______ ________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Date of Survey: O<olr,:-hdv; Survey Biologist: --'~ =-- f\...:....,=!)-<""- ~.;_} -'-'...:.. 1 J ...._ l\/ ~ '---- C,-t-1- - "'-' ~P '"""I:..:..)....___ " (mm/d~yy) (Last name) (first name)
Survey Biologist: _______________ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: tA \CJ ci flr ' ,- f • • YNJ\ll
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one):& NIGHT BRE~ NON-BREEDING .__- Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 (3) 8
Begin Time:____.l:.... 10-°="-'D-_________ End Time: lb Wb Cloud cover: 17
---,,.....-''---------- 1lf/c - Precipitation: t ),, '(_ Air Temperature: f//f' Water Temperature:

Wind Speed:_...:..r).....:.. V'-1.:..":...'_- ______ Visibility Conditions: Ctv-r Moon 1 phase:_..;.._CY. ;.;.;,_ ,-,--r_-"'--_l___._, ...,,,.. "--- G
Description l ,r\t If' ofweather conditions: _..,._..:....;a.a...

Humidity:

I I,,, ..~...-,._.............,.---:__;.
71%
r\ '\ J ,,). t' r r} ....... ...;..........;;--=...:----- I..

Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: _...;?v'.\ ;;.._o,:.a. lll\, ..;...,,, -e_ ....a....(_... ;;;>;;_4.,J.,_._::b-=----- Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle ?f\e)?! Y.!Tu NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _ __...;::__ 'f-J 1 _,_<__<-)V" ___1""' i)_,, _ -'__________ _ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 394, Packet Page 548 -
Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
AMPHlBJAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # or
indiv.

Observed (0 )
Heard ( H)
Lifo S11ges Siu Closs Cortainty of
ldtnlincatio11
,j/;i.

Describe poten1ial lhreals to California red-legged rrogs observed, including non-na1i ve and native preda1ors such as fish, bullfrogs; and raccoons: .....,(l_J.-'._,..~--'------------- Other notes, observations. commc.nts. e1c:.

Necessary Attachments:

4. All field notes ~nd other supporting documen1s

5. Site photographs

6. Maps wi1h importnnl habitat reatures and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 395, Packet Page 549 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by _ __________________________ (FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
Date of Survey: 0~/!5ij(i Survey Biologist: _ j=-1c ---"i,, ~ ~ ...... ~r' '--_ __,_Af..,_1._-/1; ......_/ i ....;.=.,J ;.;....___ (m:r,;dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name) Survey Biologist: _______________ (Last name) (first name) SiteLocation: El 6 t r,~a
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name:

Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one): OM NIGHT ~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 6!> 8
Begin Time: 09 2 0 End Time:__./--'Qa....?"""'f)...a....______ Cloud cover:_ <2AO/O__.""""'t....) =-....l-=l -_______ Precipitation:~c/_o_H_L ________ ,.-i,.-1 vC
Air Ternperature:_..:.U..::....---1 1-r:....-_____
Wind Speed: 7Mfk\
Water Temperature:________
Visibility Conditions:__::CJ::::;.._:-e,::..t'-1...:r_____ Moon phase: 1,,)t\ ..( (,, b .x • "'- Humidity:__1.......a... 7 ... ~='------- Description ofweather conditions: r},, +I, ' !_~, , t.11 l) Brand name and model of light used to conduct surveys: __5..;M-'l _-=-......._ 0..._? '---""'l(/i '---c,,-8_____ Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ~ NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: --'~:::.-) __-_____.I.;:; ~----------- 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 396, Packet Page 550 AppendixE.

California Red-legged Frog Survev Data Sheet

AMPHIBIAN OBSERVATIONS
Species # of Obscrve.d (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty or indiv. Heard (•n Identification
Al /ll- -; .\
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed. including non-native and native predators such as fish. bullfrogs, and raccoons: .,,1___'....:..;":.._....:'...:"---- I ----- tiirM6r'cki
Other notes, observations, comments, e/c.
~ ~ o? er,.,".:>~
Necessary Attachments:

4. All fie ld notes and other supporting documents

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 397, Packet Page 551 Appendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Survey Data Sheet
Survey results reviewed by__________ _________________
(FWS Field Office) (date) (biologist)
1 Date of Survey: Olr/t#J-01" Survey Biologist: -=~__,_?..;. ',.. __, __ ,, ,..:.,· ___f/\ l.....J,.... Cb .i.....:.. \ _\ 1 ...:..£,. /\0;::r.lA ~ ~:.....- (mm/dd/yyyy) (Last name) (first name)
Survey Biologist: ________________ (Last name) (first name) Site Location: LaCU. "" !'"'4 IV) I Ir. ,k
(County, General location name, UTM Coordinates or Lat./Long. or T-R-S ). **ATTACH A MAP (include habitat types, important features, and species locations)** Proposed project name: ___________________
Brief description of proposed action:

Type of Survey (circle one):~ NIGHT ~~ NON-BREEDING
Survey number (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 8
Begin Time:_ 1_,.__'-_' r.;;;-' ________ End Time:__.t...:...1/-=.J__,(,"""" ) ______ Precipitation:__l_ e.,;;...________
~60 ,,,,- Air Temperature:_....._.~ "--"'--..l-._ ____ _ Water Temperature:_________ 1 I
Wind Speed: _ __._. 8......:..:. m..;,;.f_h _____ Visibility Conditions:_....;...· -"-~...:.r_____ • I ".f.o Humidity:_..1._-1,._....;...,.__________
1 Moon phase: J.JO ' (T rJ/ r. O« ,•• 1L . Description ofweather conditions: _ h .:.....; ·u _, _ -,---=-~ .:.;.;_----,,,--.;__;::...__..;;.... ___ __;_,'.:.. i _____ ( Brand name and model of Light used to conduct surveys: ~wi,,e CL".:;> t./3!} Were binoculars used for the surveys (circle one)? ..X,ES NO Brand, model, and power of binoculars: _...,J_I______;..____________ 25 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 398, Packet Page 552 Species #., Observed (0) Life Stages Size Class Certainty of indh1. Heard (H) ldenliCiC'ft lion
)./rAppendix E.

California Red-legged Frog Sun,ev Data Sheet
AMPffil3IAN OBSERVATIONS
Describe potential threats to California red-legged frogs observed, includjng non-native and native predators such as lish, bullfrogs, and raccoons:_..;';..' _· ____.,_.:I_~~---- -- Orher notes, observations. comments. etc.
... . ,
{
• I I! I Loi.A.) Ce. {111 .....,'-'(.;.( c...l ~ CI) \ u v , l!,l\_ c· f-- '{jil'01.0 '5~~--=- C-- v ec:l uJ 1-1.vl-- Nec,essary Attachments:
--.....

4. i\11 lield notes and other supporting documenlS

5. Site photographs

6. Maps with important habitat features and species locations 26 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 399, Packet Page 553 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Justin Cooper, Division Chief
SUBJECT: Authorize the City of Monterey Fire Department to Apply for a California Fire Foundation Grant and Accept Grant Funding, if Awarded, (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 authorizing the City of Monterey Fire Department to apply for a California Foundation Grant and accept any grant funding, if awarded.

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:

The grant-funded work must be consistent with the City’s General Plan, adopted Wildfire Preparedness Strategy, and Community Wildfire Protection Plan. If the proposed
vegetation management activities occur in sensitive open space or parklands, they may also need to comply with
parks/open space management policies, CEQA, or coastal
resource protections.

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

There is no cost to submit an application for a California Fire Foundation Grant. If awarded, the City may receive up to a $25,000 grant award. Currently the California Fire Foundation Fire Prevention Grant Program does not require a cost share or local match from applicants if awarded.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City of Monterey Fire
Department seeks
authorization to apply for a
$25,000 California Fire
Foundation Fire Prevention
Grant.
 The grant will support wildfire
mitigation efforts in Don
Dahvee Park, a critical
wildland-urban interface zone.
 Planned activities include
vegetation management,
defensible space work, and
improved fire department
access to reduce fire risks.
 The grant aligns with the
City’s General Plan, Wildfire
Preparedness Strategy, and
Community Wildfire Protection
Plan.
 There is no cost to apply for
the grant, and funding, if
awarded, will be notified by
late summer or early fall of
2025.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 554 №11/25
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.

If the grant is awarded, then any planned work conducted in the Don Dahvee Park area would need to comply with all laws including CEQA if applicable. The process of applying for grant funding is not a guarantee that funding will be provided to the City.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City could elect not to pursue this grant, but this is not recommended. There is no cost to apply for the grant and any funding received would be beneficial to the community for vegetation management to reduce the risk of wildfire.

DISCUSSION:

The California Fire Foundation is a nonprofit organization that provides emotional and financial assistance to families of fallen firefighters, firefighters and the communities they protect. In addition to its support programs for fire service families, the Foundation administers a Fire Prevention Grant Program designed to enhance wildfire resilience and public safety in communities at high risk of fire. Funding for the Fire Prevention Grants primarily comes from donations and sponsorships particularly from PG&E and the PG&E Corporation Foundation.

The grants are administered in partnership with local fire agencies, supporting projects focused on defensible space, hazard mitigation, community education, and emergency preparedness.

The City of Monterey Fire Department would like to submit an application for a $25,000 California Fire Foundation Fire Prevention Grant to support enhanced vegetation management and defensible space work within the Don Dahvee Park, a critical wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone. The project includes the removal of dead fuels, limbing up of ladder fuels, reduction of crown-to-crown spread potential, and improved fire department access to assist with emergency response and containment efforts. Don Dahvee Park is identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and is considered a very high fire hazard severity zone identified by CAL FIRE.

This funding will directly support wildfire mitigation efforts, reduce potential ignition sources, and improve public safety for adjacent neighborhoods and city infrastructure. In addition, by investing in proactive vegetation management, the project helps protect ecological assets, recreational access, and air quality during the fire season.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 555 №11/25
If awarded, the California Fire Foundation will notify recipients by late summer or early fall of 2025. The project would begin as soon as feasible upon notification of award and be implemented in phases, with measurable outcomes tracked over the following 6 to 12 months.

This grant aligns with Monterey’s goals of increasing climate resilience and reducing fire risk, as outlined in the City’s General Plan, Wildfire Preparedness Strategy, and coordination with CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City of Monterey Fire Department to apply for a California Foundation Grant and accept any grant funding, if awarded.

AM/jc
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, 7/15/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 556 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MONTEREY FIRE DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR A

CALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION GRANT AND ACCEPT FUNDING, IF AWARDED WHEREAS, the City of Monterey recognizes the threat that wildfire and other fire-related hazards pose to the community; and
WHEREAS, grant funding from the California Fire Foundation Fire Prevention Grant program will support wildfire risk reduction, fire prevention programs, fuel mitigation, defensible space inspections, and code enforcement activities; and WHEREAS, in order to accept any grant funding from the California Fire Foundation, the city/agency must have an approved council resolution authorizing the acceptance prior to the award and acceptance of any grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. 2 Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that 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 of Monterey to submit an application for grant funding to the California Fire Foundation for fire prevention and wildfire risk reduction activities.

2. Authorizes the City of Monterey to accept and appropriate any grant funds awarded .

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 557

3. Designates the City Manager as the official representative and signatory authorized to execute all documents required to obtain grant funding.

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, 7/15/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 558 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Adopt the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the City of Monterey Local
Road Safety Plan
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.

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

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 City Council policies to enhance funding opportunities for transportation
projects, which support City Council’s Value Drivers and strategic priorities of fiscal stewardship, active mobility, and quality of life.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This action will allow the City to become eligible and
more competitive for transportation safety grant
opportunities. Without an adopted Local Road Safety
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City of Monterey aims to adopt
a Local Road Safety Plan to
enhance roadway safety and align
with Vision Zero goals of zero fatal
or serious injuries by 2050.
 Adoption of the plan is essential for
eligibility in future transportation
safety grants, including SS4A and
Highway Safety Improvement
Program funding.
 The plan uses a data-driven
approach to analyze collision
trends, identify countermeasures,
and engage the community for
feedback on safety concerns.
 Community outreach included
events like Park(ing) Day,
Halloween Trunk or Treat, and
Farmer’s Market, along with public
meetings to incorporate feedback
into the plan.
 The Local Road Safety Plan is a
living document, valid for five years,
requiring regular updates to
maintain grant eligibility and reflect
current safety trends.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 559 №11/25
Plan or LRSP equivalent, the City would not be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safe Street for All Implementation grant programs. These grant programs can bring in outside dollars to help fund safety improvement projects.

This project was funded by a competitive Action Planning Grant from the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program. The City was awarded $200,000 in grant funds with a requirement of $50,000 in local matching funds. The City used Measure X funding for the local match.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan, which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. This analysis identifies case study locations and proposes data driven countermeasures, but does not propose projects; therefore, would not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

Furthermore, the exempt projects do 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 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 proposed action involves basic data collection and analysis; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed action is basic data collection and analysis; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their 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, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 560 №11/25
negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed action would involve basic data collection and analysis; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

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. None of these projects would be located on hazardous waste sites listed 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 proposed action would involve basic data collection, case study locations, and data driven countermeasures (not projects); therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the Local Road Safety Plan. However, this is not recommended as the Plan must be adopted before August 2025 in order to comply with the terms of the grant agreement and be eligible for any future Highway Safety Improvement Program grants.

DISCUSSION:

When the federal legislature adopted HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), it established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), a discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years. The SS4A program funds local initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. City staff applied for, and the Federal Highway Administration awarded the City the amount of $200,000 in the first SS4A competitive funding cycle for an Action Planning Grant.

The SS4A Action Planning Grant supports the City’s development of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). A Local Road Safety Plan is a plan that provides the framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads.

The purpose of the Local Road Safety Plan is to provide a comprehensive understanding of Citywide collision patterns with considerations for all road users; identify data-driven countermeasures that are short, medium, and long-term, in addition to low-cost, systemic countermeasures; and use data-driven engagement with the public and stakeholders on the state of transportation safety. This community-led, data-driven approach will make findings and develop actionable implementation items to improve local road safety. Once developed, the Local Road Safety Plan will ultimately be presented to City Council for adoption as a strategic planning document.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 561 №11/25
Vision Zero Monterey
In 2017, the City of Monterey established itself as a Vision Zero city with a goal to reduce serious and fatal injuries to zero, and adopted its first Vision Zero Plan. In 2021, the City integrated the Vision Zero Plan into Chapter 8 of the Multimodal Plan. This was done to make Move Monterey, the City’s Multimodal Plan, a single comprehensive plan that has the City’s established guidance on project and infrastructure design elements for the public, City Staff, and developers when making improvements in the City Right-of-Way. The Multimodal Plan did not include a detailed analysis of collision trends or identify appropriate countermeasures based on an analysis of collision trends. The projects that will be identified in the Local Road Safety Plan will support the City’s Vision Zero goal.

Future Funding Opportunities
The creation and adoption of a Local Road Safety Plan will provide future grant funding opportunities from the SS4A Implementation Planning Grant Program and future cycles of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP program is a core federal-aid program for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Future cycles of HSIP funding will require that any project proposed be included in a Local Road Safety Plan or equivalent Plan. Without an adopted Local Road Safety Plan, the City would not be eligible for either grant program. As part of the SS4A grant, the City will be embracing the Caltrans Vision Zero Goal of zero fatal or serious injuries on Monterey roadways by 2050. This is a grant requirement to establish a timeline to work towards.

Local Road Safety Plan Efforts
The City and consulting firm Kimley-Horn kicked off the project with a comprehensive review of the City’s Plans, Policies and documents which support the Local Road Safety Plan effort. This was followed by a statistical analysis of the City’s Collision trends to start building the background for the Plan. Additionally, City Staff and Kimley-Horn attended several community events setting up a booth to present information to the community and receive feedback on safety concerns Citywide. Engineering staff, supported by the consultant team, tabled at Park(ing) Day on September 20, 2024, Halloween Trunk or Treat October 22, 2024 and Downtown Farmer’s Market May 6, 2024. At these community events, Staff discussed safety concerns, traffic collision information and played Halloween Safety Trivia with Trick or Treaters.

Staff also hosted two community meetings on November 14, 2024 and March 6, 2025.

Community feedback received at these events was incorporated into the Plan.

On May 28, 2025, Staff presented the Draft Local Road Safety Plan before the Council. The Plan has also been available to the Public via the Project Website since May 28th.The Local Road Safety Plan is attached as Exhibit A to this report.

Next Steps
Upon the adoption of the Plan, staff will use the findings to apply for future grant opportunities, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program grant which will have new funding opportunities in 2026. Additionally, as of the writing of this agenda report, staff applied for an Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 4, Packet Page 562 №11/25
implementation grant for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program as a direct result of the Local Road Safety Plan efforts.

The Local Road Safety Plan is a living document that relies on current safety trends and collision information. As a result, the plan is valid for five years and must be updated regularly.

Staff will return every four to five years to update the plan in order to maintain our eligibility for the grant programs.

AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A
c: Steve Pyburn, Federal Highway Administration
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, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 5, Packet Page 563 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

ADOPTING THE CITY OF MONTEREY LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, the Safe Streets for All Program was established by the federal legislature in the HR 3684 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to fund local initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey was awarded an Action Planning Grant for the purpose of developing a Local Road Safety Plan;
WHEREAS, this Plan is consistent with the City’s adopted Vision Zero goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries to zero and the City’s adopted multimodal plan, Move Monterey; WHEREAS, this City of Monterey embraces the State of California’s Vision Zero Goal of zero fatal and serious injuries on Monterey’s public roadways by 2050; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey’s Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan, which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. This analysis identifies case study locations and proposes data driven countermeasures, but does not propose projects; therefore, would not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 6, Packet Page 564 Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed action would involve basic data collection and analysis; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 7, Packet Page 565

MONTEREY LRSP

CITY OF
Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 8, Packet Page 566

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This plan wouldn’t be possible without the hard work and support of the following teams and people:

City of Monterey Staff:

Andrea Renny – Public Works Director
Andrew Easterling – Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Marissa Garcia – Engineering Assistant II
Rich Deal – Retired Annuitant Engineer/Traffic Engineer Project Team:

Kimley-Horn & Associates
Community Stakeholders:

City of Monterey Police Department
City of Monterey Fire Department
City of Monterey Community Development Department –
Planning Division
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
ii

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 9, Packet Page 567 iii

8.5 Vulnerable Users 30

8.5.1 Pedestrian Crashes

8.5.2 Bicycle Crashes

8.6 Time of Day 31

8.7 Time of Year 31

8.8 Behavioral Driving 32

8.9 Statewide Comparison 32

8.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results 33

9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results 54

9.1 Best Practices Evaluation 54

9.2 Emphasis Areas 57

9.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Cyclists and Pedestrians)

9.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Signal, Sign, and Turning Violations

9.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Crashes

9.2.4 Emphasis Area #4: Speeding

9.3 Case Study Locations 59

10. Funding Sources and Next Steps 60

10.1 Funding Sources 60

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program

10.1.3 California SB 1

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants

10.1.5 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)

10.1.6 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

10.2 Implementation Plan 62

10.2.1 Monitoring

10.2.2 Analysis Update

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies

10.3 Next Steps 64
Appendix A – Case Study Sheets
Appendix B – Online Survey Feedback and Results
Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 4

2. Vision and Goals 5

3. Process 7

3.1 Guiding Manuals 8

3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual

3.2 Analysis Techniques 10

3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis

3.2.2 Statistical Performance Measures

3.3 Future Analysis 13

4. Safety Partners 14

4.1 Stakeholder Engagement 14

4.2 Community Meetings 14

4.3 Pop-up Events 15

4.3.1 Park(ing) Day

4.3.2 Trunk or Treat

4.3.3 Old Monterey Marketplace and Farmers Market

4.4 Online Survey 17

5. Equity Considerations 18

5.1 Equity Framework

5.2 Federal and State Policies

5.3 Equity Analysis

6. Existing Efforts 22

7. Data Summary 25

7.1 Roadway Network 25

7.2 Crash Data 25

8. Crash Safety Trends 27

8.1 All Crashes 27

8.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries 28

8.3 Injury Levels 29

8.4 Cause of Crash 29

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 10, Packet Page 568 iv

LIST OF

FIGURES & TABLES
FIGURE 1:

Critical Crash Rate Formula 11
FIGURE 2:

Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion 13 FIGURE 3:

Weekday Average Vehicle Volumes in Monterey 20
FIGURE 4:

Weekday Average Pedestrian Volumes in Monterey 20
FIGURE 5:

Weekday Average Bicycle Volumes in Monterey 20
FIGURE 6:

Monterey CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores 21
FIGURE 7:

Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections 25 FIGURE 8:

All Crashes (2019 to 2023) 26
FIGURE 9:

Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes (2019 to 2023) 26
FIGURE 10:

Crash Type by Year (2019 to 2023) 27
FIGURE 11:

Crashes by Injury Level (2019 to 2023) 27
FIGURE 12:

Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2019 to 2023) 28
FIGURE 13:

Crashes by Injury Levels (2019 to 2023) 29
FIGURE 14:

Pedestrian & Bicycle Crashes (2019-2022) 30
FIGURE 15:

Number of Crashes by Time of Day (2019 – 2022) 31
FIGURE 16:

Number of Crashes by Month (2019-2023) 31
FIGURE 17:

Crash Network Screening Analysis Results (2019-2023) 33 TABLE 1:

Mode Share in Monterey v Statewide 19
TABLE 2:

Mode Share for Trips of Half a Mile or Less 19
TABLE 3:

Review of Existing City Plans 22
TABLE 4:

Review of Existing City Projects 24
TABLE 5:

Fatal and Severe Crashes Categorized by Modes Involved (2019 to 2023) 28 TABLE 6:

Cause of Crashes (2019 to 2023) 29
TABLE 7:

Comparison of Statewide and Monterey Fatal (F) &
Severe Injury (SI) Crashes (2010-2019) 32
TABLE 8:

Crash Analysis Results – Intersections 35
TABLE 9:

Crash Analysis Results – Segments 46
TABLE 10:

Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices 54

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 11, Packet Page 569 1 The City of Monterey has created a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The LRSP was developed in response to local issues and needs.

Through the analysis, this report has identified emphasis areas to inform and further guide safety evaluation and planning for the City’s transportation network. The LRSP also analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history on the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:

With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and providing systematic recommendations to enhance safety.

The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury-related crashes, and the goals for the City of Monterey include the following:

GOAL #1: Identify areas with high crash frequencies.

GOAL #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systematic process.

GOAL #3: Define safety improvements for the near-, mid- and long-term, including projects for HSIP, SS4A and other
program funding consideration.

GOAL #4: Identify emphasis areas to prioritize countermeasure application.

GOAL #5: Propose List of Conceptual Projects for Implementing Countermeasures.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent 5-year range of crash data (January 1, 2019 – September 30, 2023) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

Executive Summary
Identify factors in the
transportation network that inhibit
safety for all roadway users
Improve safety at specific
high-crash locations
Develop safety measures using the
four E’s of safety (Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response) to encourage
safer driver behavior and reduced
crash severity outcomes.

Fatalities
6 Involving Pedestrians
86 Involving
Cyclists
70 Serious Injuries
36 5-year crashes
2,186
Source: Monterey Crash Database (2019-2023)
Due to
Speeding
14%
Due to
Improper Turning
19%
Due to Driver
Violating Right-of-Way
9%

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 12, Packet Page 570 2 Further, the crash history was analyzed to identify
locations with elevated risk of crashes either through their crash histories or their similarities to other locations with more active crash patterns. Using a network screening
process, locations were identified within the city that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire
network were derived. The outcomes informed the
identification and prioritization of engineering and noninfrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes with active transportation users.

Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

These locations were identified through the analysis
process based on their crash histories, public engagement and input, the observed crash patterns, and their
different characteristics to provide the most insight
into potential systematic safety countermeasures that
the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective
safety benefits. Countermeasures are subjected to a
benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their
potential return on investment. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design
characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These grants and funding opportunities include the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), administered by Caltrans, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program, administered by the federal government, and the Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds, which are administered by the State of California. There are also regional funding sources, administered by the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC). The completion of an LRSP is required for some of these programs and will allow the City of Monterey to be eligible for these funds.

Executive Summary
EMPHASIS AREA 1
Vulnerable Road Users
(Cyclists and Pedestrians)
EMPHASIS AREA 2
Signal, Sign, and
Turning Violations
EMPHASIS AREA 3
Intersection Crashes
EMPHASIS AREA 4
Speeding

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 13, Packet Page 571 3 Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City’s achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP.

THE CITY CAN:
/ Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve
safety for all modal users,
/ Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create
a cohesive transportation network,
/ Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a
safer transportation network in Monterey, and
/ Establish a goal of zero traffic fatalities, consistent with statewide goals set by Caltrans.

These recommendations provide Monterey with a look-ahead for safety improvements that can be applied systematically.

Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. An evaluation and implementation plan was created that identifies actionable items that will help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section will lay out next steps for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report. It is recommended that the City Council formally adopt this plan, and to update the plan once every five (5) years.

Executive Summary
3 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 14, Packet Page 572 4 This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies factors associated with the most prevalent vehicle crashes occurring in the city and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This report identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:

Monterey has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the city and with this LRSP, Monterey is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of SWITRS crash data from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2023, and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE LRSP IS TO:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Prioritize investments in traffic safety
Identify factors in the
transportation network that inhibit
safety for all roadway users
Improve safety at specific
high-crash locations
Develop safety measures using the
four E’s of safety (Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response) to encourage
safer driver behavior and reduced
crash severity outcomes.

1. Introduction

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 15, Packet Page 573 5 The Monterey LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City.

Safety counter measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through analysis of historical data and trends, community outreach and input, and proactive identification, safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systematically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project’s vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Monterey staff, various stakeholders input from community members , and a review of existing plans/policies in the area.

This vision aligns with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s (TAMC) Regional Vision Zero Action Plan, which is currently in progress.

VISION:

To enhance the transportation network for all users to move towards a goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

2. Vision and Goals
5 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 16, Packet Page 574 Identify areas with
high crash frequencies.

Objectives:
a. Evaluate the City’s
roadway network for
crash activity.
b. Identify intersections
and segments that may
benefit from safety
counter measures
c. Identify areas of
interest with respect
to safety concerns
for pedestrians
and bicycles.

Illustrate the value
of a comprehensive
safety program and the
systematic process.

Objectives:
a. Demonstrate the
systematic process’
ability to identify
locations with higher
risk for crashes
based on present
characteristics closely
associated with
severe crashes.
b. Demonstrate, through
the systematic
process, the gaps
and data collection
activities that can
be improved upon.

Define safety
improvement
recommendations for
the near-, mid- and
long-term, including
projects for HSIP, SS4A
and other programs with
funding consideration.

Objectives:
a. Create a prioritization
process outline that can
be used in forthcoming
funding cycles.
b. Demonstrate the
correlation between
the proposed safety
countermeasures with
the Vision Zero initiative
and the California State
Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), a federally
funded safety plan
for reducing fatalities
and serious injuries.

LRSPs are a locallydeveloped component
of SHSP’s overall
planning structure.

Identify emphasis
areas to prioritize
countermeasure
application.

Objectives:
a. Use systematic crash
analysis to identify
emphasis areas.
b. Prioritize
emphasis areas
for countermeasure
development.
c. Align emphasis
areas with City
goals & objectives.
d. Align emphasis areas
with current City areas
of concern: speeding,
cut-through traffic,
drivers ignoring stop
signs/signals, lighting,
pedestrian safety, and
bicycle safety.

Proposed List
of Conceptual
Priority Projects for
Implementation of
Countermeasures.

Objectives:
a. Identify conceptual
priority projects for
implementation.
b. Identify similar
areas where
countermeasures can
be implemented.
c. Prioritize these
countermeasures
for implementation
based on cost,
effort, and timeline.

GOAL 1
GOAL 2
GOAL 3
GOAL 4
GOAL 5

2. Vision and Goals
6 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 17, Packet Page 575 7 The primary goal for the City of Monterey and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for an LRSP.

FHWA ENCOURAGES THE FOLLOWING:
• The establishment of a working group (stakeholders)
to participate in developing an LRSP.
• A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern.
• The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systematically, and comprehensively.

CALTRANS GUIDANCE FOLLOWS A SIMILAR OUTLINE WITH THE FOLLOWING STEPS:

The LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the four E’s of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP):

3. Process
7 Engineering Enforcement Education Emergency Response
1 2 3 4 5 6
Establish
leadership
Analyze the
safety data
Determine
emphasis areas
Identify
strategies
Prioritize and
incorporate strategies
Evaluate and
update the LRSP

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 18, Packet Page 576 8 3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Monterey at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the city that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and noninfrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes.

This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.

3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.7, April 2024) encourages local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one-time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.

These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction for a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.

Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) 2024. Page 5.

3. Process | 3.1 Guiding Manuals
8 Source: California Department
of Transportation | Caltrans
Local Roadway Safety Manual
A Manual for California's Local Road Owners
Version 1.7 April 2024

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 19, Packet Page 577 9 3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.2 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

The HSM identifies five steps in this process: 3

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations:

Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of
performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

4. Select Screening
Method: There are
three principal screening
methods described in this
chapter (i.e., ranking,
sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.
2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx 3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.

3. Process | 3.1 Guiding Manuals
9 Source: AASHTO

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 20, Packet Page 578 10 3.2 Analysis Techniques

3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
• Number of Crashes
• Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
• Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4) • Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this study, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized or Unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (Major Arterial, Other Principal Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each sub-population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected.

These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are seen.

The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were:

1. Crash injury (fatal, serious injury,
other visible injury, complaint of pain,
property damage only)

2. Crash type (broadside, rear-end,
sideswipe, head-on, hit object,
overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other)

3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads)

4. Driver behavior (aggressive)

5. Driver impairment. With these additional
factors, the locations were further analyzed
and assigned a new rank
From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Monterey to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for safety toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the city. Ten locations will ultimately be selected for mitigation analysis.

3. Process | 3.2 Analysis Techniques
10 STOP

CONTROL TYPE

FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
Other Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Local

CRASH RATE FOR

SUB-POPULATION
%

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 21, Packet Page 579 11 3.2.2 Statistical Performance Measures
Critical Crash Rate (CCR)
Reviewing the number of crashes at a location is a method used to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level; however, it does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment daily.

The Highway Safety Manual describes the Critical Crash Rate method which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.

The Critical Crash Rate compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a location based on facility type and volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed.

Based on traffic volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type (roadway classification for segments or control type at intersections), a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95% confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities.

Ǡ DATA NEEDS
CCR can be calculated using:
• Daily entering volume for intersections, or
VMT for roadway segments;
• Intersection control types to separate them into
like populations;
• Roadway functional classification to separate them
into like populations;
• Crash records in GIS or tabular form including
coordinates or linear measures.
STRENGTHS
• Reduces low volume exaggeration
• Considers variance
• Establishes comparison threshold

3. Process | 3.2 Analysis Techniques
11 Weighted average crash rate for reference population P-value for corresponding confidence level
Million entering vehicles for intersection (i)
Critical crash rate for intersection (i)
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 22, Packet Page 580 12 CCR Methodology
The Process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial ranking of locations.

The first step in the process was to establish a citywide crash rate for each facility population. These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories:
ƞ INTERSECTION:
• Signalized • Unsignalized
$ ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION:
• Other Principal Arterial • Minor Arterial • Major Collector • Local The individual crash rate for each location was then calculated based on the associated traffic volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance (how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the crash occurring at the location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used. The local crash rates were then compared to the significance threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked by their categories according to that level of exceedance.

Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).

Probability
The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.

3. Process | 3.2 Analysis Techniques
12 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 23, Packet Page 581 13 Ǡ DATA NEEDS
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using crashes records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.
STRENGTHS
• Can be used as a diagnostic tool • Considers variance in data • Not affected by selection bias The HSM methodology first determines the frequency of a specific crash type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that crash type relative to all crash types at that location. A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific crash type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the crash type observed in the entire reference population (e.g. throughout the entire City of Monterey).

These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type.

3.3 Future Analysis
The City will conduct regular crash monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding.

Observed proportion
Observed target crashes for a site (i)
Total number of crashes for a site (i)
Threshold proportion
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Figure 2: Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion

3. Process | 3.2 Analysis Techniques | 3.3 Future Analysis 13 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 24, Packet Page 582 14 4.1 Stakeholder Engagement
Two stakeholder meetings were held, consisting of individuals from key City departments. These included representatives from the City’s police, fire, planning, and public works, as well as from TAMC’s traffic engineering division. During the initial stakeholder meeting, participants received a comprehensive overview of the components of a Local Roadway Safety Plan. The project’s purpose and anticipated outcomes were thoroughly explained to ensure alignment and understanding. The discussion also delved into pressing safety challenges, supported by the presentation of extensive crash data, highlighting incidents involving bicycles and pedestrians, with a particular focus on fatal and severe injury crashes. Additionally, the proposed study locations were introduced, garnering consensus from the stakeholders. They not only endorsed the suggested locations but also contributed valuable recommendations for potential countermeasures to improve safety at these sites. The second stakeholder meeting was held to familiarize the group with the case study locations and proposed countermeasure toolbox, as well as develop the emphasis areas based on observed patterns in the crash data.

4.2 Community Meetings
Two rounds of community meetings were held,
which informed residents on the background
of the project, key project milestones, and
results of the crash data analysis. The meetings
also provided a forum for feedback and open
discussion on the case study locations and
countermeasures selected. Materials for
the community meetings were prepared in
English and Spanish, and Spanish interpreters
were available to assist residents who
required translation.

At the first community meeting on November 14, 2024, the team introduced the safety study to the public, provided background on the purpose of the study, and data summarizing current safety conditions throughout the city. The public was also provided educational material on a variety of safety countermeasures that could be recommended as part of this plan. The team took input from the public on locations where they had safety concerns and general systemic safety issues. Comments received indicated the desire for more protected pedestrian and bicycle facilities and crossings in parts of the city that are not yet well served. Material presented at this workshop was also shared online through the Have Your Say Monterey website.

4. Safety Partners | 4.1 Stakeholder Engagement | 4.2 Community Meetings 14 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 25, Packet Page 583 15 At the Second Community Meeting on March 6, 2025, participants highlighted key safety concerns and infrastructure requests across various locations in the City of Monterey. Feedback from the neighborhood emphasized the urgency of addressing sidewalk gaps, missing streetlights, and implementing traffic study recommendations promptly. Specific issues identified included sidewalk absence on Casanova Avenue (between Sequoia and Toyon), left-turn challenges at Skyline and Holman Highway, dangerous rolling stops at Aguajito Road/8th/10th intersections, and pedestrian hazards at Franklin Street intersections near schools. Additional concerns included potential tree root uplift at the Highway 1 southbound on-ramp at Hannon and the broader request for improved pedestrian crossings citywide.

4.3 Pop-up Events

4.3.1 Park(ing) Day
On September 20, 2024, a community engagement event was held on Alvarado Street in downtown, between Franklin and Pearl streets. Approximately 45 attendees of varying age groups, from young children to seniors, participated. All attendees demonstrated some level of English proficiency, eliminating the need for interpretation services. Initially, many participants were hesitant to contribute to the mapping activity; however, with encouragement, the event facilitators collected numerous comments regarding safety concerns.

Key feedback highlighted recurring safety issues at specific locations. One major concern involved Encina Avenue, where limited sight distance at the Oxner Street intersection, compounded by excessive vehicle speeds, posed risks. Residents reported that drivers frequently used Encina Avenue to bypass traffic signals on Del Monte Avenue and Casa Verde Way. Pedestrian safety was a significant concern at the five-leg intersection of Munras Avenue and Pearl Street, a high-traffic area near schools and commercial spaces. The geometric complexity of the intersection contributed to confusion, sight distance challenges, and safety risks for pedestrians. A proposed solution includes reconfiguring the intersection to a four-leg design.

Other reported issues included speeding on W Franklin Street, High Street, and Camino El Estero, as well as pedestrian crossing concerns at Camino El Estero and Webster Street. Sight distance challenges were noted at intersections such as David Avenue, Del Monte Avenue & Pacific Street, and the southeast corner of Alameda Street and Pacific Street, as well as along Encina Avenue due to parked trucks near the Extra Space Storage facility.

Cyclists expressed a desire for dedicated and protected bike lanes, particularly noting difficulties where the bike lane ends at N Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. Riders reported being forced onto sidewalks or roads, increasing the risk of accidents.

Additional feedback included suggestions for improvements, such as enhanced stop sign compliance at Camino Aguajito and Third Street, restricting right-turns on red, and addressing crosswalk safety concerns where drivers often exceeded speed limits, even when pedestrians were present. Educational and enforcement measures were recommended to mitigate these issues. Overall, the event successfully identified critical safety concerns across the community, with residents highlighting specific problem areas and proposing targeted solutions for improved safety and accessibility.

4. Safety Partners | 4.2 Community Meetings | 4.3 Pop-up Events 15 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 26, Packet Page 584 16 4.3.2 Trunk or Treat
At the October 19, 2024, Trunk-Or-Treat Halloween event, the project team interacted with 45–50 attendees, including 6 parents, discussing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and addressing confusing intersections like Calle Principal/Polk/Hartnell/Madison and Munras/Alvarado/Polk/Pearl. Trivia games helped teach children about traffic safety, with adjustments made for younger participants. While specific location issues were not widely shared, the event successfully distributed treats and safety education materials, fostering meaningful discussions on transportation safety.

4.3.3 Old Monterey Marketplace
and Farmers Market
On May 6, 2025, the project team attended the weekly farmers market in Old Monterey. Staff staged a booth at the farmers market which included boards of the case study locations and potential countermeasures as well as QR codes which participants could use to access the online survey. About 30 participants visited the booth, most of whom were seniors.

They provided a variety of feedback and concerns, including speeding on e-bikes (both on city streets, the 5-leg intersection of Madison Street, Larkin Street, and Herrman Drive, and the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail), and congestion in the Lighthouse Ave tunnel, particularly when an emergency vehicle was in route.

4. Safety Partners | 4.3 Pop-up Events
16 What does the ghost need
to ride his bike safely on
Halloween night?
¿Qué necesita el fantasma
para andar en bicicleta de
manera segura en la noche
de Halloween?
A Helmet A Helmet - To protect his ‘head’
while zooming around!
Reflective Gear Reflective Gear - So he can glow
and be seen in the dark!
A Flashlight A Flashlight - To light up his path and
scare away any bumps in the night!
Bell or Horn Bell or Horn - To let others know he’s
coming—no spooky surprises!
Un casco Un casco - ¡Para proteger su ‘cabeza’
mientras anda en bicicleta!
Equipo reflectante Equipo reflectante - ¡Para que pueda brillar y ser visto en la oscuridad!
Una lintera Una lintera - ¡Para iluminar su camino
y asustar cualquier bache en la noche!
Una campana o claxon Una campana o claxon - ¡Para que los demás sepan que viene - sin sorpresas
espeluznantes!
Helmet
Reflective Gear
Flashlight
Bell/Horn

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 27, Packet Page 585 17 Several participants proposed improvements at specific locations, including a request for a westbound left turn lane at both the intersections of Sloat Avenue/Del Monte Avenue and Webster Street/Munras Avenue, missing crosswalks at the Munras Avenue/ Via Arboles and Pacific Street/San Bernabe Drive/Via Arboles intersections, and a request for an all way stop at Hartnell Street/ Webster Street. Finally, participants noted that speeding throughout the city was a citywide issue.

4.4 Online Survey
An online public feedback survey was created in English and Spanish to better understand residents’ concerns and provide those who could not attend community meetings a chance to provide feedback. Of the 168 respondents, over a quarter identified walking, biking, or using an assisted mobility device as their primary mode of transportation. Among drivers, the most frequently cited issues included violations of traffic signals and signs, as well as aggressive or distracted driving behaviors. For those who primarily walk, common challenges include inadequate ADA accessibility, poor sidewalk conditions, and limited connectivity, highlighting a desire for high-visibility crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Meanwhile, cyclists requested separated bike lanes and lane delineators, particularly along key travel and commuting routes.

4. Safety Partners | 4.3 Pop-up Events | 4.4 Online Survey 17 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 28, Packet Page 586 18 5.1 Equity Framework
The equity analysis supplements technical crashes data analysis by identifying any correlations between equity and safety data, in accordance with federal and state regulations. A comparative analysis between demographic and crashes data provides insights on equity that can be addressed through safety improvements and infrastructure. This ensures that vulnerable and disadvantaged populations can benefit from additional safety considerations. Meeting the needs of disadvantaged populations is a critical step in equitable distribution of resources and outcomes.

5.2 Federal and State Policies
Equity analysis in transportation planning became solidified by two key federal policies: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order (EO) 12898 in 1994. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order (EO) 12898 directs all federal agencies to develop an Environmental Justice strategy that, “identifies and addresses the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Both policies mandate transportation agencies to identify, address and serve disadvantaged communities through their work. More recently in 2021, Executive Order 14008 was signed establishing Justice40 with the goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities. While executive orders 12898 and 14008 have recently been halted by the federal government, these processes played an important role in the development of the project prior to the change in presidential administrations in January 2025.

California SB 535 (2012) directs investments of cap-and-trade funds towards “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs). The SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities map (2022) was established to identify DACs throughout the state of California. The map uses data from CalEnviroScreen.

5.3 Equity Analysis
The most vulnerable groups in Monterey include senior citizens, low-income residents and workers, and bicyclists and pedestrians (also known collectively as vulnerable road users). According to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates,

19.7% of the City of Monterey’s residents are 65 years of age or older, which is higher than the percentage of seniors statewide, at

16.2%. Seniors are more likely than other ages to rely on forms of transportation other than private vehicles, elevating the demand for complete streets with lower vehicle speeds. In addition, the pleasant climate and relative walkability of the city encourages walking and biking for recreational purposes, especially for seniors looking to maintain active lifestyles.

Given Monterey’s status as a travel destination, many are employed in tourism or services in the city. Due to the high cost of housing in Monterey, many of these workers commute into Monterey from neighboring communities for work. These workers tend to be lower income and are more likely to rely on alternative modes of transportation such as carpool, transit, walking, or biking.

5. Equity Considerations | 5.1 Equity Framework | 5.2 Federal and State Policies | 5.3 Equity Analysis

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 29, Packet Page 587 19 The presence of recreational activities like the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail and numerous beaches and parks, as well as tourist attractions like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Cannery Row, Fisherman’s Wharf, Old Monterey, County Fairgrounds, and several museums attract tourists to Monterey, who may not be familiar with the local road network, which can be a contributing cause of crashes. In addition, the proximity of tourist attractions to one another, pleasant year-round climate, and the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail attracts many tourists to bike or walk along city streets.

Given these factors, mode share for trips made by biking or walking is higher than the state average, as shown in Table 1.

Two thirds of trips less than a half mile in length are completed via walking or biking, with another 8.1% being completed by E-scooter, School Bus, Public Transit, or Taxi/Lyft/Uber in Monterey, as shown in Table 2. This shows that there is elevated demand for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in Monterey, and that further improvements to non-motorized infrastructure would benefit not only vulnerable groups, but all of Monterey’s residents and visitors. Figures 3 through 5 display vehicle, pedestrian, and bike volumes throughout the city. Pedestrian and bike volumes are concentrated around the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail, Del Monte Avenue, Cannery Row, Old Monterey, and Monterey Veterans Memorial Park. These areas generally align with the case study locations proposed in Section 9.3.

5. Equity Considerations | 5.3 Equity Analysis
Source: Replica Spring 2024 Estimates
Table 1: Mode Share in Monterey v Statewide
Table 2: Mode Share for Trips of Half a Mile or Less
Primary Mode Mode Share in Monterey Mode Share Statewide Single Occupancy Vehicle 61.2% 62.7%
Carpool 20.9% 20.8%
Walking 12.6% 9.9%
Biking 2.2% 1.3%
Freight/Commercial Vehicle 1.6% 2.7%
Other (E-Scooter, School Bus, Public Transit, Taxi/Lyft/Uber) 1.4% 2.7% Primary Mode Mode Share in Monterey
Single Occupancy Vehicle 18.4%
Carpool 4.4%
Walking 64.9%
Biking 2.5%
Freight/Commercial Vehicle 1.6%
Other (E-Scooter, School Bus, Public Transit, Taxi/Lyft/Uber) 8.1%

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 30, Packet Page 588 20 5. Equity Considerations | 5.3 Equity Analysis
Figure 3: Weekday Average Vehicle Volumes in Monterey Figure 4: Weekday Average Pedestrian Volumes in Monterey Figure 5: Weekday Average Bicycle Volumes in Monterey
Source: Replica Spring 2024 Network Link Volumes

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 31, Packet Page 589 21 5. Equity Considerations | 5.3 Equity Analysis
CalEnviroScreen data shows that the majority of census tracts in Monterey are in the top 25 percentile of all tracts in the state, meaning they have a lower number of pollutants and related health concerns among residents. Once census tract that encompasses El Estero Park, Monterey Peninsula College, and the Del Monte Shopping Center ranks in the 26th-50th percentile, while a small section of undeveloped land northeast of S Boundary Rd ranks in the 51st-75th percentile. A map of Monterey’s CalEnviroScreen percentile scores is shown in Figure 6. Justice40 tracts were also reviewed, but Monterey did not have any qualifying tracts.

As an additional equity consideration, all engagement materials for the LRSP, including surveys and fliers, were created in both English and Spanish. A Spanish translator was available at each community meeting and pop-up event to answer any questions from Spanish speaking residents or workers from nearby communities.

Figure 6: Monterey CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Shapefile

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 32, Packet Page 590 22 Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on-going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the city. Key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision-making in this LRSP.

Table 3 outlines the relevant existing City, County, and regional plans and their improvements and main goals.

Table 4 outlines relevant existing City projects and their timelines.

6. Existing Efforts
22 Table 3: Review of Existing City Plans
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
2005 City of
Monterey
General Plan
• Outlines City’s plans for the future including addresses areas of improvement that the City faces such as preservation, land use, circulation, and conservation.
• Addresses creating facilities and programs which encourage the public walk, bike, or utilize public transportation • Improve the effectiveness of the transportation system by adopting a Transportation Systems Management program
• Increases connectivity between neighborhoods, destinations, parks, public facilities, schools, commercial centers, and parking structures
• Encourages master plans which incorporate transit/pedestrian-oriented design standards for areas planned for development
• Maintain the affordability of low- and moderate- income rental units under Inclusionary Housing Programs Monterey
2031 General
Plan Update
Circulation
Element
• Requires that proposed developments provide ADA improvements, sidewalks, crosswalks, bike facilities, and/or transit facilities
• Encourages pedestrian and transit-oriented design in mixed-use neighborhoods • Includes a policy for the creation and maintenance of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation
• Includes a policy for considering the needs of buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians when planning all road improvements
• Includes a policy for prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements over vehicle convenience • Includes a policy for prioritizing infrastructure projects which optimize the existing street network before investing in costly roadway and parking expansion projects. • Outlines additional policies for prioritizing safety over congestion, transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, and for pedestrian facilities that consider users of all abilities and ages.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 33, Packet Page 591 23 6. Existing Efforts
Table 3: Review of Existing City Plans
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
Monterey
Downtown
Specific Plan
• Serves as a guide for future development in the Downtown and East Downtown areas • Creates a seamless transportation plan that integrates the Downtown network with the surrounding area • Develops and inventory of desirable and high-quality businesses which are compatible with the vision and will attract visitors and encourage pedestrians to use the Downtown • Preserves the Downtown architectural character that reflects the “Old Monterey” including adobes, early 20th century architecture, and landmark resources
Citywide
Transportation
and Parking
Study
• Builds on the foundation established by the General Plan and further refines the City’s vision of being a transportation first city
• Creates a street network that embraces all travel modes, including automobile, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel. • Recommends elimination/reduction of parking minimums, implementation of parking maximums, and establishment of in-lieu fees for new development
Move Monterey
Multimodal Plan
• Outlines measures that can be implemented across the city to promote bicycling and walking as modes of transportation
Waterfront
Master Plan
• Creates a comprehensive, far-reaching, and visionary plan for the waterfront that will ensure the City’s future as a multi-day destination that is convenient, fun, and beautiful • Defines that types of commercial and recreational land uses that are appropriate and desirable for the waterfront • Implements bicycle and pedestrian connections between the waterfront and Downtown City of Monterey
Safe Routes
to School
Action Plan
• Works to enable children and youth to safely walk and bicycle to and from school and in their neighborhoods, with the goal of improving safety, reducing traffic, and supporting healthier kids.

Monterey
Neighborhood
Traffic Calming
Program Plan
• Evaluates Monterey’s neighborhood traffic problems and produces adopted plans for each residential neighborhood.
• Effectively balance the public safety interests, including traffic mitigation and emergency response.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 34, Packet Page 592 24 6. Existing Efforts
Table 4: Review of Existing City Projects
Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements Mar Vista
Reconstruction
Design
-
• Reconstruction of Mar Vista Drive from Dry Creek to Soledad. • Construction of curb ramps, bulb outs, and median islands as show in Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan.
• Seeking grand funding from Safe Routes to School and Complete Streets Programs.

Del Monte and
Casa Verde
Recreational
Trail Intersection
Improvement
Project
Construction
Began
February 2025
• Complete design of Del Monte and Casa Verde Way intersection to implement approve recreation trail crossing and possible intersection improvements. • Include shortened crosswalks and additional left turn lanes.

Fisherman’s
Flats Traffic
Calming Plan
Plan Completed
January 2020
• Creates a traffic calming plan for Fisherman’s Flats
• Concentrate on slowing traffic between sections of Josselyn Canyon Road from Deer Flats to Highway 68 as well as Via Isola, which has many school children walking along it North Fremont
Gap Closure In Progress
• Connects central Monterey to the Casanova Oak Knoll, Del Monte Grove, Laguna Grande, and Villa Del Monte Neighborhoods.
• Constructs a multi-use ADA accessible bicycle and pedestrian path along North Fremont Street

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 35, Packet Page 593 25 7. Data Summary | 7.1 Roadway Network | 7.2 Crash Data This section describes the data sources used
for the analysis process of this LRSP.

7.1 Roadway Network
The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database
was used to build the base roadway network used
for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments
were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and
be compared with similar facilities or control type.

Functional Classifications were imported from the City’s General Plan and confirmed by City staff. Information
on intersection traffic control was provided by the
City and included in the analysis network. The crash
analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. Figure 7 illustrates
the City of Monterey’s roadway functional classification and intersection control type, respectively, as used
for this study.

7.2 Crash Data
Crash data was collected from the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the period from
January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023. Five
years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or
patterns. Analysis of the raw crash data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges
faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of
data provided insight on the following crash trends and patterns. All crashes analyzed in the study period are
shown in Figure 8. The locations of fatal and severe
injury crashes are displayed in Figure 9.

Figure 7: Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 36, Packet Page 594 26 7. Data Summary | 7.1 Roadway Network | 7.2 Crash Data Figure 8: All Crashes (2019 to 2023) Figure 9: Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes (2019 to 2023)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 37, Packet Page 595 27 This analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based
on crash records spanning from January 1, 2019,
to December 31, 2023. This section contains the
results of the analysis which included the evaluation of Monterey’s fatal and serious injury (generally denoted
as K+SI) crashes, statewide K+SI crashes, pedestrian
crashes, bicycle crashes, crash severity levels,
and crash causes.

8.1 All Crashes
This report utilized crash data from a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to
reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on
city streets. Data used for this report were extracted
from Crossroads Software analytics for the period
of January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023, as
reported to Crossroads from local law enforcement.

The data indicated that during this time there were
2128 crashes recorded within Monterey, and an
annual average of 426 crashes.

During the study period, the most common
occurring crash types were Sideswipes (28%) and
Rear-End (25%). The total number of crashes per
year trended significantly downward from 2019 to
2020, slightly climbing in 2021, then continuing to
trend upward in 2022 and 2023. Figure 10 shows
the crash types by year.

Figure 11 shows the injury crashes over
the study period.

8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.1 All Crashes
27 Figure 10: Crash Type by Year (2019 to 2023)
Figure 11: Crashes by Injury Level (2019 to 2023)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 38, Packet Page 596 28 8.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries
During the study period, 6 fatal crashes and 36 serious injury crashes occurred as seen in Figure 12.

Table 5 outlines the fatal and severe injury crashes categorized by modes involved.

8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries 28 Figure 12: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2019 to 2023) Table 5: Fatal and Severe Crashes Categorized
by Modes Involved (2019 to 2023)
Involved with # of Serious
Injury Crashes
# of Fatal
Crashes
Fixed Object 6 2
Other Motor
Vehicle 14 2
Parked Motor
Vehicle 1 0
Non-Crash
(Single
Vehicle
Crash)
2 1
Bicycle 5 0
Pedestrian 5 1
Other Object 3 0
TOTAL 36 6

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 39, Packet Page 597 29 8.3 Injury Levels

69.2% of the crashes reported during the time-period
resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 2.0% of all crashes. Figure 13 shows
the percentage of crashes by injury level. Table 6
shows the cause of these crashes.

8.4 Cause of Crash
The highest recorded cause of crashes in Monterey
during this time is Improper Turning at 19.45%,
followed by Other Factors at 19.41% and Unsafe
Speed at 14.43%. Table 6 showcases the top causes
of crashes in Monterey.

8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.3 Injury Levels | 8.4 Cause of Crash 29 Figure 13: Crashes by Injury Levels (2019 to 2023)
Table 6: Cause of Crashes (2019 to 2023)
Primary Crash Factor No. of Crashes %
Improper Turning 414 19.45%
Inconclusive/Other Factors 413 19.41%
Unsafe Speed 307 14.43%
Auto R/W Violation 197 9.26%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 186 8.74%
Traffic Signals and Signs 123 5.78%
Driving Under Influence 121 5.69%
Unsafe Lane Change 63 2.96%
Other Improper Driving 44 2.07%
Ped R/W Violation 43 2.02%
Unknown 41 1.93%
Primary Crash Factor No. of Crashes %
Unknown Violation 40 1.88%
Other Than Driver or Ped 30 1.41%
Other Hazardous Movement 29 1.36%
Pedestrian Violation 19 0.89%
Improper Passing 18 0.85%
Wrong Side of Road 16 0.75%
Following Too Closely 13 0.61%
Hazardous Parking 6 0.28%
Other Than Driver 3 0.14%
Brakes 1 0.05%
Lights 1 0.05%

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 40, Packet Page 598 30 8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.5 Vulnerable Users

8.5 Vulnerable Users

8.5.1 Pedestrian Crashes
86 pedestrian involved crashes occurred during the
study period, resulting in one fatality, 5 severe injuries, 71 crashes with some form of reported injury and 9
resulting in property damage only. Figure 14 shows the
locations of pedestrian crashes during the study period.

8.5.2 Bicycle Crashes
During the study period, 70 crashes involving bicycles
were reported. Of these, none were fatal, 5 resulted in severe injuries, 54 resulted in some form of reported
injury or pain, and 11 crashes resulted in property
damage only. Figure 14 also shows the location of
bicycle crashes during the study period.

Figure 14: Pedestrian & Bicycle Crashes (2019-2022)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 41, Packet Page 599 31 8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.6 Time of Day | 8.7 Time of Year

8.6 Time of Day
Crashes in Monterey occurred more frequently in
the PM hours in comparison to the AM hours, with

67.1% of crashes occurring in the PM hours, and

32.9% occurring in the AM hours. The peak period of
crash activity was from 7am to 5pm. 72.0% of crashes
also occurred in daylight, as indicated by the officer
responding to the crash. Time of day data was only
available for 2019 through 2022. Figure 15 shows the
number of crashes based on time of day.

8.7 Time of Year
The total number of crashes vary by month and year.

The most common month for crashes was November,
with 264 crashes between 2019 and 2023. Crashes were
consistent from January to June. There was a slight
upward trend from July to November before decreasing
in December. The months with the fewest number of
crashes were March and December, with 163 and 152
total crashes between 2019 and 2023. The number of
crashes by month can be seen in Figure 16.

Figure 15: Number of Crashes by Time of Day (2019 – 2022) Figure 16: Number of Crashes by Month (2019-2023)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 42, Packet Page 600 32 8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.8 Behavioral Driving | 8.9 Statewide Comparison

8.8 Behavioral Driving
Aggressive driving and impaired driving are two
important behavioral factors that often significantly
contribute to crash patterns. These areas were studied
in the analysis. Caltrans defines aggressive driving as behaviors that include speeding, tailgating, and running stop signs or red lights. These behaviors contributed
to 20.82% of the crashes in Monterey during the study
period (2019-2023).

Impaired driving is defined by Caltrans as any instance where a driver, pedestrian, cyclists, or motorcyclist
is under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs, or
prescribed or over-the-counter medication. 5.69% of
crashes in Monterey during the study period (2019-
2023) occurred where the driver had been impaired.

8.9 Statewide Comparison
A comparison of fatal & severe injury crash data to the State averages was conducted for data from 2020-2024
(the most recent statewide data available). These
numbers may vary slightly from those mentioned
previously, due to the differences in the years of
the study period. The following are areas where
Monterey’s crash rates are higher or lower than those
of the State. These numbers specifically compare
the proportion of fatal and severe injury crashes
that have the characteristics listed in Table 7. Some
factors are influenced by Monterey’s demographics
and characteristics. For example, while the percentage
of fatal and severe injury crashes involving cyclists
is higher in Monterey than the rest of California, its
bicycle commute rate is 1.5%, more than double that of
the 0.7% average throughout the state.

Table 7: Comparison of Statewide and Monterey Fatal (F) & Severe Injury (SI) Crashes (2010-2019)
Challenge
Areas
Statewide Monterey
% Point
Difference
% of F+SI
Crashes
(2010-2019)
% of F+SI
Crashes
(2010-2019)
Cyclists 8.3% 17.6% 9.4%
Aging Drivers 12.4% 20.2% 7.8%
Intersections 23.6% 26.1% 2.4%
Aggressive Driving 33.1% 34.5% 1.4%
Lane Departure 43.3% 44.5% 1.3%
Work Zones 1.4% 1.7% 0.2%
Motorcyclists 21.0% 21.0% 0.0%
Distracted Driving 5.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Impaired Driving 25.3% 24.4% -0.9%
Occupant
Protection 14.2% 11.8% -2.5%
Young Drivers 13.1% 9.2% -3.8%
Commercial
Vehicles 6.4% 2.5% -3.9%
Pedestrians 19.2% 15.1% -4.1%

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 43, Packet Page 601 33 8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results

8.10 Crash Network
Screening Analysis Results
Figure 17 shows the results of the crash network
screening analysis, with the number of crashes at both
intersection and mid-block roadway segments.

Table 8 and Table 9 show the number of crashes
occurring at locations in Monterey by crash type for
the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of
those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%.

The tables are ordered by the number of crashes
that occurred at that segment or intersection. To be
statistically significant, only locations where more than two crashes occurred are represented. At locations
with two or less crashes, random chance can account
for crash history as much or more than specific
roadway characteristics.

The tables are separated into sub-sections visible by the blue gradient. The first two columns, Crashes and CCR,
represent the level of crash activity in absolute terms, and as relative to other similar locations, respectively.

Per guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM) each sub-population of locations was ranked
according to the number of crashes. The second
column shows the CCR, which highlights whether the
crash activity was higher or lower than the average for the sub-population based on the individual segment or
intersection volume. This volume was either collected
through data count resources or calculated based on
the roadway classification.

Figure 17: Crash Network Screening Analysis Results (2019-2023)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 44, Packet Page 602 34 8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results All averages used in the CCR calculation were established based on City of Monterey crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level. This process highlights locations of crashes that are unusual for the city to determine Monterey’s challenge areas, and not problems faced by peer cities that do not apply in Monterey. The remaining columns total crashes by type, to evaluate each sub-population and understand what proportion of crashes in the city are of a particular type.

The citywide proportion was compared with the local intersection or segment specific proportion to determine which locations have more of a given crash type than would be expected when considering the city average. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. For this study, two categories of ranges were highlighted:
• Light Gray: >50% probability that this crash type is overrepresented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Monterey. Although these locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant.
• Dark Gray: >75% probability that this crash type is overrepresented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Monterey. These locations are highly significant regarding the number of crashes occurring here and should be further investigated.

After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the city by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Monterey. Locations with higher-than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.

Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Crash Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the crashes and should not be counted as separate crashes.

The following provides an example of how to read Tables 8 and 9.

TABLE DEFINITIONS:
• Total Crashes: Number of crashes observed at the
intersection or segment from January of 2019 to
December of 2023.
• Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal crashes that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Fatality: The number of fatal crashes that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-On, Hit Object,
Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of
these types of crashes that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Other: The number of miscellaneous crash types
(mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location
in the study period.
• Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the crashes with these factors identified as the cause of crash.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 45, Packet Page 603 35 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results Intersection
CrashesLocal CCR Differential1EPDO2FatalSerious InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainPDOBroadsideSideswipeRear EndHead OnHit ObjectOverturnedOtherPedestrianBicycleAggressiveDistractedImpairedDarkWet Signalized Intersections

DEL MONTE AVE &
WASHINGTON ST 36 0.54 91 1 9 26 4 4 1 1 14 1 2 3 11 4 6

HOFFMAN AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 35 5.76 248 1 3 4 27 6 21 5 2 8 2 4

PRESCOTT AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 33 0.32 444 2 6 5 2 17 12 3 1 3 13 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
SLOAT AVE 30 -0.07 293 1 4 12 13 1 9 8 1 1 7 1 2

DEL MONTE AVE &
CAMINO EL ESTERO 29 -0.10 83 4 3 22 4 9 9 6 1 2 8 1 2 1 2

N FREMONT ST &
CASA VERDE WAY 23 1.90 241 1 3 5 14 6 6 5 3 3 1 8 1 3

REESIDE AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 23 -0.16 58 2 3 18 4 14 4 1 4 1 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
CASA VERDE WAY 22 2.54 77 2 7 13 5 5 11 1 3 1 3

DRAKE AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 22 4.10 58 7 15 3 1 7 2 8 1 3

SOLEDAD DR &
MUNRAS AVE 21 -0.17 76 1 9 11 6 1 4 1 11 2 2

DEL MONTE AVE &
CAMINO AGUAJITO 19 0.87 208 1 5 13 3 3 1 2 1 1 11 1 1

MCCLELLAN AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 19 11.49 68 3 4 12 3 1 1 5 1 2 1

DICKMAN AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 18 5.97 53 1 5 12 11 4 1 2 6 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 46, Packet Page 604 36 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

CASANOVA AVE &
FREMONT ST 16 1.20 56 1 6 9 2 3 7 1 3 4

FREMONT ST &
ABREGO ST 16 0.17 51 2 3 11 2 3 5 4 1 7

MADISON ST &
PACIFIC ST 16 0.38 234 1 3 5 7 3 4 1 4 1 1 3

DEL MONTE AVE &
FIGUEROA ST 15 1.03 55 2 4 9 2 3 9 1 1 9 2

E FRANKLIN ST &
TYLER ST 14 2.18 34 1 2 11 8 3 2 1 9 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
ENGLISH AVE 14 11.82 24 2 12 1 2 2 8 5 3 1 1

W FRANKLIN ST &
CALLE PRINCIPAL 12 0.28 17 1 11 1 8 2 1 1

HOFFMAN AVE &
FOAM ST 12 1.31 47 2 3 7 6 5 1 5 1 1

IRVING AVE &
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 12 -0.29 36 2 1 9 2 5 3 3 3 1 1

E FRANKLIN ST &
FIGUEROA ST 11 0.53 31 1 2 8 3 1 3 1 1 1 3

E FRANKLIN ST &
ALVARADO ST 11 3.65 35 2 1 8 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2

DEL MONTE AVE &
TYLER ST 11 -0.28 26 1 1 9 3 3 2 1 2 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
ALVARADO ST 11 3.65 26 1 1 9 1 4 4 1 1 2 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 47, Packet Page 605 37 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

FREMONT ST &
CAMINO AGUAJITO 10 -0.34 35 1 3 6 3 4 3 3

N FREMONT ST &
AIRPORT RD 10 1.28 10 1 1 4 3 2 3 1

W FRANKLIN ST &
PACIFIC ST 10 -0.16 35 1 3 6 1 5 2 2 1 2 2

RAMONA AVE &
FREMONT ST 9 2.53 187 1 1 1 6 2 2 1 4 1 2 3

CAMINO AGUAJITO &
FREMONT ST 9 -0.25 24 1 1 7 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 1

DRAKE AVE &
FOAM ST 9 1.03 19 1 8 2 7 1

WEBSTER ST &
MUNRAS AVE 8 1.25 23 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

E FRANKLIN ST &
WASHINGTON ST 8 0.14 18 1 7 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

W FRANKLIN ST &
VAN BUREN ST 8 1.71 28 1 2 5 5 1 2 6

MUNRAS AVE &
ABREGO ST 7 -0.27 186 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 4

REESIDE AVE &
FOAM ST 7 0.16 186 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2

IRVING AVE &
FOAM ST 7 -0.41 12 1 6 4 2 1 2

DAVID AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 7 -1.03 37 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 48, Packet Page 606 38 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

JEFFERSON ST &
PACIFIC ST 6 -0.39 16 2 4 2 2 1 1 3 1

DAVID AVE &
FOAM ST 5 -1.00 20 1 1 3 2 1 2 1

AGUAJITO RD &
AGUAJITO RD 4 -1.20 19 1 1 2 2 1 1 3

DEL MONTE AVE &
CALLE PRINCIPAL 4 -0.46 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
MARK THOMAS DR 4 -0.24 14 1 3 2 2 1

SOLEDAD DR &
PACIFIC ST 3 -1.28 8 1 2 1 1 1 1

MARK THOMAS DR &
SLOAT AVE 3 -0.95 18 1 1 1 2 1

CANNERY ROW &
FOAM ST 3 0.10 23 1 2 1 2 1
Unsignalized Intersections

LIGHTHOUSE AVE &
PRIVATE BOLIO RD 18 -0.01 216 1 2 3 12 1 1 12 2 1 1 9

DEL MONTE AVE &
HANNON AVE 15 -0.10 373 2 6 7 8 3 2 1 1 1 3

E FRANKLIN ST &
CAMINO EL ESTERO 12 1.14 17 1 11 3 1 2 5 4 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
PARK AVE 12 -0.21 42 1 4 7 2 4 4 2 1 3 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 49, Packet Page 607 39 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

PEARL ST &
CAMINO AGUAJITO 11 0.23 46 1 5 5 5 1 3 1 1 3 5

EL DORADO ST &
CASS ST 10 1.32 35 1 3 6 4 2 2 1 1 1

WEBSTER ST &
HARTNELL ST 10 0.37 20 2 8 1 6 1 2 1 1

N FREMONT ST &
PALO VERDE AVE 9 4.87 19 2 7 3 3 1 2 3

POLK ST &
HARTNELL ST 9 0.27 9 9 1 5 2 1 1

JEFFERSON ST &
LARKIN ST 9 5.39 34 5 4 6 1 1 1 3 2

DEL MONTE AVE &
PALO VERDE AVE 9 10.98 202 1 2 2 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1

SCOTT ST &
PACIFIC ST 9 -0.06 49 1 6 2 2 3 1 1 4 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
CANNERY ROW 9 1.32 14 1 8 1 7 1 1 1 1

MONTECITO AVE &
DELA VINA AVE 8 15.40 8 8 1 5 1 1 2 2 1

ANTHONY ST &
FIGUEROA ST 8 31.22 13 1 7 3 2 2 1 1 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
CORTES ST 8 13.07 18 2 6 4 3 1 3 1

POLK ST &
MUNRAS AVE 7 0.19 195 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 50, Packet Page 608 40 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

BONIFACIO PL &
ALVARADO ST 7 0.19 12 1 6 2 4 1 2

LIGHTHOUSE AVE &
TYLER ST 7 -0.24 17 2 5 3 4 4

DEL MONTE AVE &
DELA VINA AVE 7 -0.26 196 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 4 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
VIRGIN ST 7 4.78 195 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

DRAKE AVE &
MONTEREY BAY COASTAL TRAIL 7 0.58 42 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 7 1.04 12 1 6 3 1 1 2 1 2

FREMONT ST &
VIA MIRADA 6 2.15 21 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

FREMONT ST &
CAMINO EL ESTERO 6 0.06 11 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

TYLER ST &
MUNRAS AVE 6 0.82 16 1 5 4 1 1 1

RAMONA AVE &
DEL MONTE AVE 6 -0.29 195 1 1 3 1 4 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE AVE &
PACIFIC ST RAMP 6 -0.30 170 1 5 2 3 1 1 2

ARTILLERY ST &
PACIFIC ST 6 0.01 6 6 6 2 2 2

MCCLELLAN AVE &
FOAM ST 6 2.30 11 1 5 5 1 2

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 51, Packet Page 609 41 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

DAVID AVE &
WAVE ST 6 0.12 11 1 5 1 1 1 1 1

MUNRAS AVE &
DON DAHVEE LN 5 -0.28 30 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1

FREMONT ST &
MESA RD 5 -0.28 15 2 3 4 1 1 2 1

CAMINO EL ESTERO &
PEARL ST 5 0.16 15 1 4 3 1 1 1 1

FREMONT ST &
MUNRAS AVE 5 -0.27 15 1 4 2 1 1 1 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
OCEAN AVE 5 -0.34 30 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2

FIGUEROA ST &
MONTEREY BAY COASTAL TRAIL 5 -0.11 15 1 4 2 1 1 1 1

VIRGIN ST &
ENCINA AVE 5 7.72 10 1 4 3 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE AVE &
FOAM ST 6 -0.32 170 1 5 4 2 1 1 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
LAINE ST 5 0.19 25 1 2 2 3 1 1

SHIRL PAT WAY &
CASANOVA AVE 4 35.84 4 4 2 2 2 1

VIA ESPERANZA &
PACIFIC ST 4 -0.27 168 1 3 1 1 2 1 1

CARMELITO AVE &
CASS ST 4 3.36 9 1 3 1 1 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 52, Packet Page 610 42 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

FREMONT ST &
AGUAJITO RD (CALTRANS) 4 -0.33 9 1 3 3 1 1
6TH ST &
PARK AVE 4 10.17 4 4 1 1 2

N FREMONT ST &
ALCALDE AVE 4 7.55 9 1 3 2 2 1

WEBSTER ST &
ABREGO ST 4 -0.25 14 1 3 1 1 2
4TH ST &
OCEAN AVE 4 11.27 9 1 3 2 1 1 1

PEARL ST &
TYLER ST 4 0.05 14 2 2 1 3 1 2

PEARL ST &
ABREGO ST 4 -0.20 9 1 3 2 2 1

RAMONA AVE &
RAMONA CT 4 0.93 19 1 1 2 1 1 2 1

W FRANKLIN ST &
LARKIN ST 4 1.58 14 2 2 2 1 1

SCOTT ST &
VAN BUREN ST 4 1.55 168 1 3 3 1

MCCLELLAN AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 4 1.39 24 1 2 1 3 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
WAVE ST 4 -0.07 182 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

MAR VISTA DR &
MONTE VISTA DR 3 0.42 8 1 2 2 1 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 53, Packet Page 611 43 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

DON DAHVEE LN &
IRIS CANYON RD 3 6.15 22 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

VIA GAYUBA &
MAR VISTA DR 3 -0.12 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

MUNRAS AVE &
CARMELITO AVE 3 2.02 18 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

FREMONT ST &
AGUAJITO RD 3 -0.34 8 1 2 1 1 2

DORMODY CT &
CASS ST 3 -0.18 13 1 2 1 1 1

LOGAN LN &
PACIFIC ST 3 -0.36 3 3 1 1

FAIRGROUND RD &
CASA VERDE WAY 3 -0.27 13 1 2 2 1 1

FREMONT ST &
MAJOR SHERMAN LN 3 6.19 8 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

WEBSTER ST &
CASS ST 3 0.04 13 2 1 1 2

N FREMONT ST &
HANNON AVE 3 3.72 13 1 2 1 1 1 2

MONTECITO AVE &
CASA VERDE WAY 3 0.42 3 3 2 1 1 1

RAMONA AVE &
SEQUOIA AVE 3 0.39 3 3 1 2 1

JEFFERSON ST &
CALLE PRINCIPAL 3 -0.20 3 3 1 1 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 54, Packet Page 612 44 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

BONIFACIO PL &
WASHINGTON ST 3 -0.30 3 3 1 1 1 1

BONIFACIO PL &
ADAMS ST 3 0.58 8 1 2 2 1 1

BONIFACIO PL &
TYLER ST 3 0.52 3 3 1 1 1

RAMONA AVE &
BRANNER AVE 3 0.29 3 3 2 1 1 1

ENCINA AVE &
CASA VERDE WAY 3 -0.33 167 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

JEFFERSON ST &
MONROE ST 3 0.40 8 1 2 2 1 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
VAN BUREN ST 3 0.09 3 3 2 1 1 1

DEL MONTE AVE &
ROBERTS AVE 3 4.05 8 1 2 1 2

KIT CARSON RD &
PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY 3 -0.04 3 3 1 1 1 1

REESIDE AVE &
LAINE ST 3 3.18 8 1 2 1 1 1 1

REESIDE AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 3 1.89 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

DICKMAN AVE &
LAINE ST 3 3.58 3 3 2 1 1 1

DAVID AVE &
TAYLOR ST 3 9.75 3 3 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 55, Packet Page 613 45 Table 8: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections

HOFFMAN AVE &
CANNERY ROW 3 -0.25 3 3 2 1

DAVID AVE &
GRACE ST 3 -0.34 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

HOFFMAN AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 3 0.62 8 1 2 3 1

DAVID AVE &
OAK ST 3 -0.35 13 2 1 1 1 1

IRVING AVE &
HAWTHORNE ST 3 -0.07 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

DAVID AVE &
BELDEN ST 3 -0.35 3 3 1 1 1

PRESCOTT AVE &
MONTEREY BAY COASTAL TRAIL 3 -0.13 13 1 2 1
1 1 1

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 56, Packet Page 614 46 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

8. Crash Safety Trends | 8.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results Facility Limits
CrashesLocal CCR Differential1EPDO2FatalSerious InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainPDOBroadsideSideswipeRear EndHead OnHit ObjectOverturnedOtherPedestrianBicycleAggressiveDistractedImpairedDarkWet Other Principal Arterial

DEL MONTE
AVE

CAMINO EL ESTERO -
CAMINO AGUAJITO 13 0.61 211 1 2 3 7 1 6 5 1 2 1 1

DEL MONTE
AVE

SLOAT AVE -
LAKE DEL MONTE DR 9 0.12 207 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 4 3

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

FOAM ST -
PACIFIC ST OFF-RAMP 8 0.84 18 2 6 3 1 3 1 2 2 2

FREMONT
ST

VIA MIRADA -
AGUAJITO RD 6 0.50 26 4 2 6 4 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

HOFFMAN AVE -
MCCLELLAN AVE 6 0.89 11 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1

N FREMONT
ST

CASANOVA AVE -
CITY BOUNDARY 6 1.35 26 4 2 4 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

IRVING AVE -
PRESCOTT AVE 5 0.79 174 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

DICKMAN AVE -
REESIDE AVE 5 0.44 10 1 4 1 4

N FREMONT
ST

AIRPORT RD -
RAMONA AVE 5 1.32 5 5 1 2 2 1 1

DEL MONTE
AVE

LAKE DEL MONTE DR -
PALO VERDE ROAD 5 0.05 25 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 1

N FREMONT
ST

CASA VERDE WAY -
AIRPORT RD 5 1.00 20 3 2 1 3 1 3

DEL MONTE
AVE

PALO VERDE AVE -
CASA VERDA WAY 3 -0.06 8 1 2 1 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

PRESCOTT AVE -
HOFFMAN AVE 3 0.10 13 1 2 2 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 57, Packet Page 615 47 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

DEL MONTE
AVE

OCEAN AVE -
SLOAT AVE 2 -0.24 7 1 1 2 2

DEL MONTE
AVE

WASHINGTON ST -
FIGUEROA ST 2 -0.18 2 2 1 1 2 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

OLIVER ST -
TYLER ST 2 -0.20 7 1 1 1 1 1

LIGHTHOUSE
AVE

MCCLELLAN AVE -
DRAKE AVE 1 -0.44 1 1 1 1 1

DEL MONTE
AVE

UNNAMED ROAD -
LAKE DEL MONTE DR 1 -0.43 1 1 1 1

DEL MONTE
AVE

CASE VERDE WAY -
PALO VERDE RD 1 -0.44 6 1 1 1

FOAM ST SPENCE ST -
LIGHTHOUSE AVE 1 -0.47 1 1 1 1

DEL MONTE
AVE

PARK AVE -
OCEAN AVE 1 -0.43 6 1 1 1
Minor Arterial

PACIFIC
ST

MADISON ST -
LOGAN LN 4 0.75 19 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

PACIFIC
ST

FRANKLIN ST -
JEFFERSON ST 2 0.00 7 1 1 1 1 1
MUNRAS
AVE S

SOLEDAD DR -
VIA BUENA VIS 2 -0.01 2 2 1
MUNRAS
AVE

DON DAHVEE LN -
CARMELITO AVE 2 -0.19 7 1 1 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 58, Packet Page 616 48 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

FREMONT ST -
MUNRAS AVE 1 -0.41 1 1 1

W FRANKLIN
ST

HIGH ST -
CLAY ST 1 -0.16 11 1 1 1
MUNRAS
AVE

FREMONT ST -
EL DORADO ST 1 -0.22 1 1 1 1

PACIFIC
ST

LIGHTHOUSE AVE -
ARTILLERY ST 1 -0.33 1 1 1 1 1
Major Collector
GARDEN
RD

HENDERSON WAY -
OLMSTED RD 4 0.82 182 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
GARDEN
RD

FAIRGROUND RD -
SKY PARK WAY 4 -0.31 24 4 3 1
YORK
RD

WILSON RD -
SHS 68 3 2.04 8 1 2 1 2 1

MONTECITO
AVE

CASA VERDE WAY -
DELA VINA AVE 3 2.86 13 1 2 3 1

CANNERY
ROW

DRAKE AVE -
REESIDE AVE 3 1.26 13 1 2 2 1 1 1
PEARL
ST

CAMINO EL ESTERO -
CAMINO AGUAJITO 3 0.20 8 1 2 3 1

CASANOVA
AVE

MELWAY CIR -
RALSTON DR 2 2.00 2 2 2 1

CAMINO EL
ESTERO

WEBSTER ST -
FREMONT ST 2 0.09 2 2 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 59, Packet Page 617 49 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

FAIRGROUND
RD

MICHAEL J SMITH LN -
CASA VERDE WAY 2 -0.39 12 1 1 1 2 1

AGUAJITO
RD

FARRAGUT RD -
CASTRO WAY 2 0.03 2 2 2

GLENWOOD
CIR

IRIS CANYON RD -
VIA LAVENDERA 2 0.04 12 1 1 1 1

CASANOVA
AVE

FREMONT ST -
MELWAY CIR 2 -0.73 166 1 1 1 1

MARK THOMAS
DR

SCHOOL ST -
OLD SALINAS HIGHWAY 1 -0.85 1 1 1

FAIRGROUND
RD

CASA VERDE WAY -
AIRPORT RD 1 -0.86 1 1 1

PACIFIC
ST

SCOTT ST -
DEL MONTE AVE 1 -0.80 1 1 1 1
PINE
ST

PRESCOTT AVE -
HOFFMAN AVE 1 1.21 1 1 1

SOLEDAD
DR

SOLEDAD PL -
SOLEDAD DR 1 -0.87 1 1 1

CASA VERDE
WAY

MONTECITO AVE -
FREMONT ST 1 -0.87 1 1 1

AGUAJITO
RD

ALLEN DR -
FARRAGUT RD 1 -0.82 11 1 1

AGUAJITO
RD

CASTRO WAY -
SYLVAN RD 1 -0.85 6 1 1 1

SKYLINE
DR

SKYLINE FOREST DR -
SHEPARDS PL 1 -0.73 11 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 60, Packet Page 618 50 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

BARNET SEGAL
LN

SOLEDAD DR -
IRIS CANYON RD 1 -0.85 1 1 1 1 1

EL DORADO
ST

CASS ST -
ABREGO ST 1 -0.83 1 1 1

MARK THOMAS
DR

AGUACITO RD -
SLOAT AVE 1 -0.81 6 1 1 1 1

SOLEDAD
DR

MUNRAS AVE -
CA 1 S OFF-RAMP 1 -0.87 1 1 1

SOLEDAD
DR

SOLEDAD PL -
VIA DESCANSO 1 -0.87 1 1 1 1 1

MARK THOMAS
DR

SLOAT AVE -
OLD GOLF COURSE RD 1 -0.81 6 1 1 1

MONTECITO
AVE

DELA VINA AVE -
RAMONA AVE 1 -0.75 1 1 1 1

CASA VERDE
WAY

DEL MONTE AVE -
PORTOLA AVE 1 -0.87 1 1 1 1

HAWTHORNE
ST

PRESCOTT AVE -
HOFFMAN AVE 1 -0.66 1 1 1

MAR VISTA
DR

TODA VISTA -
VIA GAYUBA 1 -0.86 11 1 1
Local

MUNICIPAL
WHARF 2

MONTEREY BAY

COASTAL TRAIL -

END OF WHARF
8 2.60 8 8 1 3 1 1

DELA VINA
AVE

FREMONT ST -
MONTECITO AVE 6 8.39 16 1 5 2 3 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 61, Packet Page 619 51 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

BARNET SEGAL
DR

IRIS CANYON RD -
BARNET SEGAL LN 3 8.39 8 1 2 3 2 1

CASANOVA
AVE

SHIRL PAT WAY -
RALSTON DR 3 19.41 3 3 2 1 2 1
RAMONA
AVE

BRANNER AVE -
RAMONA CT 3 6.77 8 1 2 2 1 1 1

CANNERY
ROW

HOFFMAN AVE -
WAVE ST 3 0.62 13 1 2 1 2

DELA VINA
AVE

MONTECITO AVE -
DEAD END 2 36.67 2 2 1 1

MONTERRA
RD
SHS 68 -
CITY BOUNDARY 2 212.34 12 1 1 1 1 1
SCOTT
ST

PACIFIC ST -
OLIVIER ST 2 0.93 12 1 1 1 1

FISHNET
RD

IRIS CANYON RD -
VIA LAVANDERA 2 4.96 2 2 1 1

DRY CREEK
RD

TOYON DR -
DEAD END 2 17.60 12 1 1 2 1 1

FOREST RIDGE
RD

STRATFORD PL -
VICTORIA VALE 1 0.88 1 1 1
WATSON
ST

JEFFERSON ST -
FRANKLIN ST 1 1.27 1 1
MONROE
ST

JEFFERSON ST -
FRANKLIN ST 1 -0.28 1 1 1
VIA
ISOLA

JOSSELYN CANYON RD
- MESSINA PL 1 1.60 1 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 62, Packet Page 620 52 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

SCOTT ST -
VAN BUREN ST 1 2.82 11 1 1
MONROE
ST

WAINWRIGHT ST -
LARKIN PARK 1 4.25 1 1 1 1
RAMONA
AVE

DEL MONTE AVE -
DEAD END 1 1.09 6 1 1 1

IRIS CANYON
RD

EL DORADO ST -
VIA MORADO 1 -0.84 1 1 1 1

SAN BERNABE
DR

VIA VENTURA -
BARTOLOMEA WAY 1 0.17 6 1 1
ALICE
ST

PRESCOTT AVE -
DEAD END 1 307.43 11 1
LILY
ST

IRVING AVE -
PRESCOTT AVE 1 19.30 1 1 1
WATSON
ST

FRANKLIN ST -
SCOTT ST 1 -0.38 1 1 1 1

CASANOVA
AVE

SEQUOIA AVE -
KOLB AVE 1 0.23 1 1 1
VIA

DEL REY

YERBA BUENA CT -
VIA CHIQUITA 1 0.45 11 1 1 1
LARKIN
ST

MADISON ST -
MHS ENTRANCE 1 0.13 1 1 1

BIKEPED

MONTEREY BAY

COASTAL TRL

FISHERMANS WHARF -
SPENCE ST 1 -1.20 1 1 1 1

FARRAGUT
RD

SPRUANCE RD -
AGUAJITO RD 1 -1.12 1 1 1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 63, Packet Page 621 53 Table 9: Crash Analysis Results – Segments

SOLEDAD DR -
CITY BOUNDARY 1 -1.20 1 1 1 1

ROOSEVELT
ST

HIGH ST -
CLAY ST 1 8.17 1 1 1
CALLE

PRINCIPAL

JEFFERSON ST -
FRANKLIN ST 1 -1.20 11 1 1
DUNDEE
DR

AIRPORT RD -
RAMONA AVE 1 0.17 1 1 1
TIDE
AVE

BEACH WAY -
SEAFOAM AVE 1 -0.78 1 1 1
LAINE
ST

DICKMAN AVE -
REESIDE AVE 1 5.50 1 1 1
UPPER

RAGSDALE DR

HARRIS CT -
JUSTIN CT 1 -1.12 11 1 1 1
VIA

CASTANADA

SIERRA VISTA DR -
MAR VISTA DR 1 1.56 1 1 1

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 64, Packet Page 622 54 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.1 Best Practices Evaluation

9.1 Best Practices Evaluation
Table 10 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, are planned, or on-going within the City of Monterey.

The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non-infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 9.2.

Table 10: Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status
Does the City have a Complete Streets Policy?
The City mentions it briefly in the general plan and will be recommended in the new plan update. The County of Monterey adopted the Monterey Bay Area Complete Streets Guidebook in 2013.

Does the City assess Traffic Impact Fees?
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County established the Regional Development Impact Free program for the County. There is no TIF for local roads owned by the City of Monterey.

Does the City apply for and receive Safe Routes
to School funding?
The City received SRTS funding for sidewalk improvement projects adjacent to schools in the past. The County of Monterey and Transportation Agency for Monterey County received ATP funds.

Does the City offer educational resources such as driver’s ed, bicycle training in schools, or other traffic safety education? The City of Monterey launched ‘Walk & Bike Safe in Monterey’ after receiving a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Does the City have a program for reviewing crash activity? If yes, how often and does the City conduct a before/after evaluation of crash mitigation implementation?
From 2023-2025, The Monterey Police Department completed the implementation of a new record system including Caltrans and Crossroads. Staff look at this on a case-by-case basis. The database is updated monthly as police department reports are approved.

How often is Monterey’s Crossroads database updated? -
Does the City have/enforce ordinances pertaining to:
a. Bicycle helmet use?
b. Riding bicycles on sidewalks?
c. Jaywalking?
The City enforces bicycle helmet usage for people under the age of 18 when possible.

Does the City frequently conduct sobriety or seatbelt checks? No.

Does City law enforcement coordinate with municipal and adjacent jurisdictions?
No, Monterey Police Department provides law enforcement services for the city.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 65, Packet Page 623 55 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.1 Best Practices Evaluation Table 10: Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status
How frequently does the City conduct speed surveys?
When was the last Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted for the entire City?
Every 7 years. The last survey was conducted in 2023.

Does the City have any traffic calming policies for local and residential streets? The City adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan in 2013.

Do transit vehicles accommodate bicycles? Yes.

Is there coordination between transit providers and City staff to ensure safe and equitable access to transit stops? Yes, the City is regularly involved.

Does the City have a bicycle and pedestrian master plan? Yes, the Multimodal Transportation Plan.

Does the City’s general plan address multimodal traffic safety? The newly adopted Circulation Element addresses multimodal traffic safety.

Does the City maintain an inventory of bicycle, pedestrian, parking, and other facilities?
The Transportation Agency of Monterey County maintains an inventory of bicycle facilities. The City maintains an inventory of parking facilities.

Does the City have a traffic safety audit program? No, the crash data is required to run audits.

Is emergency response engaged in City transportation planning? Emergency response is a factor considered in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.

Are local health agencies engaged in City
transportation planning? No.

Does the City have a means for residents to submit feedback and concerns regarding traffic and active transportation safety? The Police Department has a Traffic Speed Enforcement phone line.

Does the City have any active bike and/or pedestrian safety programs?
The City of Monterey launched ‘Walk & Bike Safe in Monterey’ after receiving a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Does the City have local design standards to add additional safety amenities or protection for pedestrians and cyclists? Standards and additional safety measures are included in the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 66, Packet Page 624 56 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.1 Best Practices Evaluation Table 10: Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status
Does the City maintain roadway surfaces to minimize debris or poor conditions that could reduce surface friction or pose a hazard for cyclists?
Street sweeping is done biweekly on most streets, except for Cannery Row and Old Monterey, where streets are swept nightly on Monday through Friday.

Does the City have a dedicated funding source allocated to roadway safety enhancement?
The City of Monterey enacted Measure X to fund transportation safety and mobility projects in Monterey County.

Does the City have any transportation demand management policies or programs?
The City is currently developing an independent Transportation Demand Management program incorporated into the Vehicle Miles Traveled policy mitigation.

Does the City have an access management plan for major and secondary roadways? Not currently.

Does the City use overlays, specific plans, or redevelopment areas to encourage infill development to reduce VMT? -
Does the City maintain an inventory of regulatory or safety signage?
No, The City does not have an inventory of regulatory or safety signage and is working toward implementation.

Does the City have a formal advisory committee for
transportation planning or safety? No. The City does have a public safety commission.

Does the City regularly collect traffic / bicycle / pedestrian volumes?
Traffic data is collected twice a year over a two day 24-hour vehicle count period by the Transportation Agency of Monterey County.

Does the City have a program for installing wayfinding signage? No. The City does have a wayfinding plan and it working on implementing its final phase.

Does the City have local warrants for traffic control devices? The City uses CA-MUTCD standards for traffic control.

Does the City have local stop sign control warrants for urban and rural areas? The City uses CA-MUTCD standards for traffic control.

Does the City have traffic signal priority? No, the City does not have traffic signal priority.

Does the City have an active program to coordinate traffic signal timing to accommodate roadway changes and projected development/growth?
The City of Monterey implemented the Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique to minimize traffic delays, stops and emissions.

Does the City have a safety record system to track the safety issues raised, evaluation, mitigation measures and plans? -

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 67, Packet Page 625 57 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.1 Best Practices Evaluation

9.2 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the city and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

9.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Cyclists and Pedestrians) Description: Cyclist and Pedestrian safety was a major concern of residents and a significant cause of severe injury and fatality crashes in Monterey. Cyclist and pedestrian safety aims to create an environment where non-motorists feel safe and confident while travelling through the city.
ʉ GOALS:
• Reduce the number and severity of bicycle
crashes in Monterey.
• Increase bicycle safety on Monterey’s streets.
• Increase the visibility of cyclists and pedestrians.
• Increase the connectivity of the City’s sidewalk, bike lane, and trail network.
k STRATEGIES:
• Provide outreach, education, and enforcement programs to encourage safer driving behaviors near cyclists.

Pursue any county, state, and federal funding opportunities for these programs. • Install separate/protected bicycle facilities along key corridors and neighboring city connections. • Work closer with local advocacy groups and bicycle clubs to assist in prioritizing bicycle improvements.

9.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Signal, Sign, and Turning Violations Description: Drivers ignoring traffic signals and signs or turning improperly at intersections or along roadways were a factor in over a quarter of crashes in the city.
ʉ GOALS:
• Reduce the number of crashes resulting from a violation of traffic signals and signs. • Increase driver awareness of existing signals and signs. • Upgrade existing and implement new signage to avoid improper turning. k STRATEGIES:
• Partner with local law enforcement to increase patrols at locations with high rates of signal and sign violations. • Increase penalties for sign violations.
• Implement public education campaigns to raise awareness and understanding of sign and signal laws. • Work with stakeholders and residents to identify locations that could benefit from new regulatory warning signage.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 68, Packet Page 626 58 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.2 Emphasis Areas

9.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Crashes
Description: Crashes identified by the responding officer as occurring at an intersection. Monterey was above the statewide average in fatal and serious injuries occurring at intersections. The city also features a significant number of intersections with unique geometries, which can cause confusion for the many tourists visiting Monterey. ʉ GOALS:
• Reduce the number and severity of crashes at intersections. • Provide safe infrastructure for all modes of transportation through upgrades to existing infrastructure. • Standardize intersections as well as possible through common infrastructure and hardware. k STRATEGIES:
• Apply for additional funding to implement countermeasures to reduce intersection crashes. • Implement crosswalks on all legs of intersections when data indicates it would have a safety benefit, in accordance with the City’s crosswalk policy.
• Continue to implement systemic improvements and hardware upgrades.

9.2.4 Emphasis Area #4: Speeding
Description: Crashes where the responding officer indicated that involved parties were exceeding the maximum speed limit, and this action was a significant factor in the crash. Speeding is often associated with aggressive driving. 14% of crashes in Monterey were determined to be the result of speeding.
ʉ GOALS:
• Reduce the severity of crashes (especially fatal and severe injury crashes) that were the result of speeding. • Increase safety of drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists through reduced speeds on local roads. • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for speed management. k STRATEGIES
• Alter road design to encourage lower speeds.
• Increase law enforcement at speeding hotspots.
• Increase penalties for speeding.
• Implement education campaigns to reduce speeding.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 69, Packet Page 627 59 9. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Results | 9.3 Case Study Locations

9.3 Case Study Locations
Based on the safety analysis in Sections 7 and 8, The following 10 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the city. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash rates, crash patterns, stakeholder suggestions, and their different characteristics and functions.

The purpose of this was to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can explore further to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment.

These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.

A safety project case study was developed for the following locations:

1. INTERSECTION:

Del Monte Avenue and Washington Street

2. INTERSECTION:

Lighthouse Avenue and Prescott Avenue

3. INTERSECTION:

Del Monte Avenue and Sloat Avenue

4. INTERSECTION:

Munras Avenue and Soledad Drive

5. INTERSECTION:

Lighthouse Avenue and McClellan Avenue

6. SEGMENT:

Del Monte Avenue between Hannon Avenue and English Avenue

7. INTERSECTION:

Del Monte Avenue and Virgin Avenue/Roberts Avenue

8. SEGMENT:

Del Monte Avenue between Camino El Estero and Camino Aquajito

9. SEGMENT:

Garden Road between Fairground Road and Sky Park Way

10. SEGMENT:

North Fremont Street between Casanova Avenue and City Limit The individual case study sheets are located in Appendix A.

POINT
PINOS
Shell Ave Coral St
Surf Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Ocean Vie w Blvd
Asilomar Blvd
173 ft
Grove Acre Ave
Egan Ave
Crocker Ave
Crocker Ave
Sinex Ave
Evergreen Rd
Maple St
Jewell Ave
Dennett St
Walnut St
Ripple Av e Crest Ave
Cedar St
Asilomar Blvd
Lighthouse Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Pacific Grove
Golf Links
George
Washington
Park
Pacific Grove
Acres Asilomar
Dunes
Beach Tract -
Fairway Homes
409 ft
183 ft
99 ft
Lincoln Ave
Montecito Ave
David Ave
Pres di io Blvd
Funston Ave
Piedmont Ave
Congress Ave
17 Mile Dr
Forest Lodge Rd
CedarSt
Rd
Majella Rd
Rd
Ortega Rd
Congres s Rd ch Rd
Presidio Rd
Colton Rd
Morse Dr
Sunset Dr
Country Club
Gate - Forest
Grove
Del Monte Park
420 ft
Sunridge Rd
Poppy Ln
Morse Dr
Lopez Rd
o Dr
d
Spruance Rd
373 ft
Sunrid
R
ge Rd onda Rd
Ronda Rd
Midwood Ln
Palmer o Way
Whitman Ln
Viscaino Rd
Spruance Rd
Deer Path
Mora Ln
LUCAS
POINT
Del Monte Blvd Shell Ave
17th St
Park St Central Ave
Eardley Ave
Evans Ave
Sinex Ave
Gibson Ave
8th St
Pacific Ave
Jewell Ave
Monterey Ave
Bayview Ave
2nd St
4th St
High St
12th St
Laurel Ave
Junipero Ave
Sloat Ave
Crest Ave Ripple Ave
Cedar St
Walnut St
Willow St
Locust St
6th St
Lobos Ave
Grand Ave
Perkins Park
Berwick Park
Downtown
Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove
Retreat
First Addition Third Addition
Fifth Addition
Second
Addition
Pacific Grove
David Ave
Syida Dr
Roosev
H
elt St
arrison St
High St
Spencer St
Taylor St
Mason Rd
W Franklin St
Irving Ave
Eardley Ave
Private Bolio Rd
Morse Dr
Sinex Ave
Fountain Ave
Prescott Ave
Archer St
Parcel St
Jessie St
Hillcrest Ave
Alice St
Withers Ave
Lew is Rd
Bishop Ave
Gibson Ave
Hellam St
Army St
Belden St
Laine St
Pine St
Oak St
Lily St
Terry St
Hoffman Ave
Newton St
Lyndon St
Seaview Ave
MacArthur Rd
Divisadero St
Forest Ave
Sunset Dr
Holman Hwy
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Veterans
Memorial Park
Country Club
Heights
Sunset Drive
Glen
Fourth Addition
Hillcrest
Seaview
805 ft
Via del Re y
Forest Ridge Rd
Skyline Dr
Skyline Dr
Dry Creek Rd
Mar Vista Dr
Via Gayuba
Haul Rd
Toyon Dr
Scenic Dr
Monte Vista Dr
El Bosque Dr
Sierra Vista Dr
Sunset Ln
Crest Rd
Hol m an Hwy
Via Paraiso
Park
Quarry Park
Monterey Vista
Skyline Forest
Skyline Ridge
784 ft
High Mea
Aguajito Rd
Sc e nic Dr
Portola Ave
Crest Rd
Suns et Ln
17 Mile Dr
17 Mile Dr
Del Ciervo Rd
Kingsley Ct
Holman Hwy Holman Hwy
19 ft
POINT
ALONES
Foam St
Cannery Row
Wave St
Lighthouse Ave
Drake Ave
Foam St
Artillery St
Clay St
Del Monte Ave
Van Buren St
Jefferson St
Monroe St
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Plummer St
McClellan Ave
Spencer St
Pierce St
Stilwell Rd
Private Bolio Rd
Madison St
Cannery Row
Scott St
Tyler St
Figueroa St
Patton Ave
Wave St
Hoffman Ave
Belden St
Wainwright St
Lighthouse Ave
Lower Presidio
Historic Park
New Monterey
Old Town
Downtown
Monterey
227 ft
Munra s Ave
Cass St
Abrego St
El Dorado St
Pacific St
Barnet Segal Dr
Pearl St
Via Mirada
Colton St
Martin St
Soledad Dr
Grove St
Iris Canyon Rd
Don Dahv e e Ln
Vi a Lavandera
Madison St
Viejo Rd
Mesa Rd
Leidig Rd
Munras Ave
Abrego St
Fremont St
Soledad Dr
Cemetario El
Encinal
El Estero Park
Iris Canyon
Greenbelt
Don Davee Park
Alta Mesa
Glenwood
865 ft
255 ft
Viejo Rd
Aguajito Rd
Aguajito Rd
Fairfield Pl
Paseo Venado
Dunecrest Ave
Casa V erde Way
Lake de
2nd
l Monte Dr
St
Helvic Ave
1st St
Tide Ave Park Ave
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Spray Ave
Del Monte Ave
Montecito Park
Villa Del Monte
Del Monte
Beach
Ocean Ave
Sloat Ave
Morse Dr
Mark Thomas Dr
8th St
Josselyn Canyon Rd
Sylvan Rd
10th St
3rd St
El k Run
School St
Park Ave
Antelope Ln
Leahy Rd
Spruance Rd
Malloway Rd
Bergin Dr
Ricketts Rd
Old Salinas Hwy
Fairground Rd
Aguajito Rd
Fremont St
Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Del Monte Golf
Course
Oak Grove
La Mesa
Village
Sylv an Rd
Manor Rd
Cas tro Rd
Aguajito Rd
Jacks Rd
Shubrick Rd
Mervine St
Jacks Peak Rd
Aguajito Rd
Monhollan Rd
Deer Flats Park
Deer Flats
Aguajito Oaks
The Mal
Tio
l
ga Ave
California Ave
Monterey Rd
La Salle Ave
Metz Rd
Del Monte Blvd
Fremont Blvd
23 ft
Canyon del Rey Blvd
Montecito Ave
Casanova Ave Grant Ave
Harcourt Ave Harcourt Ave Harcourt Ave
Hannon Ave
Shafer St
Ramona Ave
Rousch Ave
San Pablo Ave
Olympia Ave
San Lucas St
Carson St
Broadway Ave
Echo Ave
Alhambra St
Hilby Ave
Ortiz Ave
Calaveras St
Sequoia Ave
Terrace St
Roberts Ave
Wanda Ave
Trinity Ave
Sand Dunes Dr
Phoenix Ave
Baker St
The M all
Catalina St
Redwood Ave
Birch Ave
Clementina Ave
Virgin St
Fremont Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
Laguna Grande
Terrace Cabrillo
Del Monte
Grove - Laguna
Grande
Rousch
Olympia
Sand City
Seaside
271 ft
242 ft
92 ft
Salinas Hwy
Monterey Salinas Hwy
Fred Kane Dr
Garden Rd
Casanova Ave
Sk ypark Dr
Plumas Ave
Portola Dr
Airport Rd
Airport Rd
R o sita Rd
Euclid Ave Via Verde
Paloma Rd
O'Hare Ave
Angelus Way
Via Isola
Oxton Rd
Ralston Dr
Edinburgh Ave
Littleness Ave
Lerwick Dr
North Rd
Fremont St
Olmsted Rd Work Memorial
Park
Monterey
Regional Airport
Casanova Oak
Knoll
Via Isola
Jacks Peak Rd
Via Malpaso
Via Malpaso
Mills
Olmsted Rd
Fisherman
Flats
188 ft
131 ft
164 ft
Monterey Rd Kiska Rd
Beach Range Rd
Beach Range Rd
Noumea Rd Noum ea Rd
Attu Rd
Luzon Rd
Bataan Rd
Norm an dy Rd
Bunker Ln
Coe Ave
Coe Ave
Beach Range Rd
Monterey Rd
Ord Grove Ave
McClure Way
Luxton St
Noche Buena St
La Salle Ave
Military Ave
Circle Ave
Mira Mar Ave
Dahlia Ave Peninsula Point Dr
Fairway Dr
Mariposa St
Mira Monte Ave
Buttercup Blvd
Mission
Memorial
Cemetery
Bayonet and
Black Horse
Golf Course
Ord Grove Ord Terrace
287 ft
204 ft
Broadway Ave Broadway Ave
Luxton St Luxton St
Noche Buena St
Mescal St
Mescal St
Hilby Ave
Waring St
General Jim Moore Blvd
Flores St Flores St
Darwin St
Watkins Gate Rd
San Pablo Ave
Kenneth St
Luzern St Luzern St
Highland St
Ancon St
Laguna St
Elm AveJudson St
Harding St Harding St
Havana St
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Lowell St Lowell St
Mendocino St
Granada St
Napa St
Fernando St
Hannon
Kimball
Highland
Noche Buena
Canyon del Rey Blvd
Monterey Salinas Hwy
General Jim Moore Blvd
Plumas Ave
Quendale Ave Carlton Dr
Los Encinos Dr
Via Verde
Rosita Rd
Quail Run Ct
Cal le del Oaks Pl
Ryan Ranc h Rd
S Boundary Rd
Del Rey Oaks
Monterey Salinas Hwy
Ragsdale Dr
Lower Rags dale Dr
Monterra Rd
Monterra Ranch Rd
Monterra Ranch Rd
Manjares
Paseo Venado
2nd St
d
Divarty St
WELCH
RIDGE
Light Fighter Dr
General Jim Moore Blvd
Chapel Dr
Gigling Rd Gigling Rd
Malmedy Rd
Ardennes Cir
1s t Ave
Parker Flats Cut-Off Rd
Monterey Rd
Normandy Rd
Normandy Rd
2nd Ave
Califor nia Rd
Nijmegen Rd
Brittany Rd
Radden Rd
Anzio Rd
7th Divis io
4 n Pl
th Division Ave
Colonel Durham St
555 ft
490 ft
General Jim Moore Blvd
Tunisia Rd
Hatten Rd
Ardennes Cir
Ardennes Cir
Eucalyptus Rd
Eucalyptus Rd
Remagen Rd
Cassino Rd
Arloncourt Rd
426 ft
569 ft
430 ft
Watkins Gate Rd
Watkins Gate Rd
529 ft
325 ft
S Boundary Rd
Monterey Salinas Hwy Monterey Salinas Hwy
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Blue Larkspur Ln
S Boundary Rd
Determine Ln
Lower Ragsdale Dr
York Rd
York Rd
Wilson Rd
McIntosh Dr
6th Ave
S
Monterey
Harbor
Del Monte Ave
Garden Rd
5 1
8 3
4 6
9 7
2 0 1 2 3 4Miles
10 MONTEREY
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

THE CITY OF MONTEREY
1 Washington St & Del Monte Ave (Signalized)
2 Lighthouse Ave & Prescott Ave (Signalized)
3 Sloat Ave & Del Monte Ave (Signalized)
4 Munras Ave & Soledad Dr (Signalized)
5 Lighthouse Ave & McClellan Ave (Signalized)
6 English Ave & Del Monte Ave (Signalized)
LEGEND
No. Location Name
Locations selected utilizing crash data from 2019 to 2023 7 Del Monte Ave & Roberts Ave/Virgin Ave (Unsignalized) 9 Garden Rd: Fairground Rd to Sky Park Way
98 Del Monte Ave: Camino El Estero to Camino Aguajito
Unsignalized Intersections
Signalized Intersections
10 Fremont St: Casanova Ave to City Limit

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 70, Packet Page 628 60 10. Funding Sources and Next Steps | 10.1 Funding Sources

10.1 Funding Sources
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Monterey. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Monterey. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program. HSIP Cycle 13 applications open in September 2026.

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects
(e.g., safe routes to school)
• Non-infrastructure programs
(education and enforcement)
This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/activetransportation-program.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 71, Packet Page 629 61 10. Funding Sources and Next Steps | 10.1 Funding Sources

10.1.3 California SB 1
The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion
• This funding is dedicated to improving local road
maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through
projects such as restriping and repaving.
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
• This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grant applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving
• Drug-Impaired Emergency
Medical Services
• Motorcycle Safety
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Police Traffic Services
• Public Relations, Advertising,
and Marketing Program
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records

10.1.5 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
This program has allocated $1B annually from 2022 to 2026 for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based. Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 72, Packet Page 630 62 10. Funding Sources and Next Steps | 10.1 Funding Sources | 10.2 Implementation Plan

10.1.6 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, President Biden signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE/BUILD grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, the City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.

10.2 Implementation Plan

10.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. • Pull yearly crash data from Crossroads database to determine year-over-year trend • Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of crashes occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring. • Based upon changes in crash activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward.

This before and after analysis can be performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Police Department on a regular basis to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest crash analysis.

10.2.2 Analysis Update
Every five (5) years, the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the LRSP by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and locationspecific safety needs.

1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) crash data from the Crossroads or TIMS databases.

2. Identify new or changing hot spots through GIS mapping.

3. Review crash data in changing trends, new land uses, and evolving driver behavior.

4. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or
upgraded roadways.

5. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or
upgraded intersections.

6. Evaluate crash trends to determine whether new
emphasis areas are emerging

7. Document implemented countermeasures and review
changes in crash activity.

8. Review the FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
or Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse
to determine if any additional countermeasures
should be considered for implementation in the city.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 73, Packet Page 631 63 10. Funding Sources and Next Steps | 10.2 Implementation Plan

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location-specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the city. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources; this guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
• Vulnerable Road Users
(Cyclists and Pedestrians)
• Signal, Sign, and Turning Violations
• Intersection Crashes
• Speeding
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the city. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying citywide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes. For locationspecific improvements, the City can utilize benefit-cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available.

The City can also plan to implement the non-engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy-in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions.

To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a ‘Task Force’ of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Community Development, Planning, and Code Compliance. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development, and project implementation outlined in this plan.
63 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 74, Packet Page 632 64 10. Funding Sources and Next Steps | 10.3 Next Steps

10.3 Next Steps
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come.

In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and its overall safety efforts.
64 1
4 2
3 Develop investment program to help
achieve the City’s crash reduction goals.

Work with state and partner agencies on
implementation of large-scale programs and policies.

Incorporate safety analysis findings in
future updates of safety programs.

Monitor statewide safety priorities,
guidance, and funding opportunities.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 75, Packet Page 633 APPENDIX A –

CASE STUDY SHEETS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 76, Packet Page 634 A1
r St
Beach Tract -
Fairway Homes
ft
CedarSt
try Club
- Forest
rove
Park
Del Monte Blvd
e
17th St
Park St Central Ave
Eardley Ave
Evans Ave
Sinex Ave
Gibson Ave
8th St
Pacific Ave
Jewell Ave
Monterey Ave
Bayview Ave
2nd St
4th St
High St
12th St
Laurel Ave
Junipero Ave
Sloat Ave
Crest Ave Ripple Ave
Cedar St
Walnut St
Willow St
Locust St
6th St
Lobos Ave
Grand Ave
Perkins Park
Berwick Park
Downtown
Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove
Retreat
First Addition Third Addition
Fifth Addition
Second
Addition
Pacific Grove
David Ave
Syida Dr
Roosev
H
elt St
arrison St
High St
Spencer St
Taylor St
Mason Rd
W Franklin St
Irving Ave
Eardley Ave
Private Bolio Rd
Morse Dr
Sinex Ave
Fountain Ave
Prescott Ave
Archer St
Parcel St
Jessie St
Hillcrest Ave
Alice St
Withers Ave
Lew is Rd
Bishop Ave
Gibson Ave
Hellam St
Army St
Belden St
Laine St
Pine St
Oak St
Lily St
Terry St
Hoffman Ave
Newton St
Lyndon St
Seaview Ave
MacArthur Rd
Divisadero St
Forest Ave
Sunset Dr
Holman Hwy
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Veterans
Memorial Park
Country Club
Heights
Sunset Drive
Glen
Fourth Addition
Hillcrest
Seaview
805 ft
Via del Re y
Forest Ridge Rd
Skyline Dr
Skyline Dr
Dry Creek Rd
Mar Vista Dr
Via Gayuba
Haul Rd
Toyon Dr
Scenic Dr
Monte Vista Dr
El Bosque Dr
Sierra Vista Dr
Sunset Ln
Crest Rd
Hol m an Hwy
Via Paraiso
Park
Quarry Park
Monterey Vista
Skyline Forest
Skyline Ridge
784 ft
Aguajito Rd
Sc e nic Dr
Crest Rd
Suns et Ln
17 Mile Dr
Ciervo Rd
Holman Hwy Holman Hwy
19 ft
POINT
ALONES
Foam St
Cannery Row
Wave St
Lighthouse Ave
Drake Ave
Foam St
Artillery St
Clay St
Del Monte Ave
Van Buren St
Jefferson St
Monroe St
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Plummer St
McClellan Ave
Spencer St
Pierce St
Stilwell Rd
Private Bolio Rd
Madison St
Cannery Row
Scott St
Tyler St
Figueroa St
Patton Ave
Wave St
Hoffman Ave
Belden St
Wainwright St
Lighthouse Ave
Lower Presidio
Historic Park
New Monterey
Old Town
Downtown
Monterey
227 ft
Munra s Ave
Cass St
Abrego St
El Dorado St
Pacific St
Barnet Segal Dr
Pearl St
Via Mirada
Colton St
Martin St
Soledad Dr
Grove St
Iris Canyon Rd
Don Dahv e e Ln
Vi a Lavandera
Madison St
Viejo Rd
Mesa Rd
Leidig Rd
Munras Ave
Abrego St
Fremont St
Soledad Dr
Cemetario El
Encinal
El Estero Park
Iris Canyon
Greenbelt
Don Davee Park
Alta Mesa
Glenwood
255 ft
Viejo Rd
Aguajito Rd
Fairfield Pl
Paseo Venado
Dunecrest Ave
Casa V erde Way
Lake de
2nd
l Monte Dr
St
Helvic Ave
1st St
Tide Ave Park Ave
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Spray Ave
Del Monte Ave
Montecito Park
Villa Del Monte
Del Monte
Beach
Ocean Ave
Sloat Ave
Morse Dr
Mark Thomas Dr
8th St
Josselyn Canyon Rd
Sylvan Rd
10th St
3rd St
El k Run
School St
Park Ave
Antelope Ln
Leahy Rd
Spruance Rd
Malloway Rd
Bergin Dr
Ricketts Rd
Old Salinas Hwy
Fairground Rd
Aguajito Rd
Fremont St
Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Del Monte Golf
Course
Oak Grove
La Mesa
Village
Sylv an Rd
Manor Rd
Cas tro Rd
Aguajito Rd
Jacks Rd
Shubrick Rd
Mervine St
Aguajito Rd
Monhollan Rd
Deer Flats Park
Deer Flats
Aguajito Oaks
The Mal
Tio
l
ga Ave
California Ave
Monterey Rd
L a Salle Ave
Metz Rd
Del Monte Blvd
Fremont Blvd
23 ft
Canyon del Rey Blvd
Montecito Ave
Casanova Ave
Grant Ave
Harcourt Ave Harcourt Ave Harcourt Ave
Hannon Ave
Shafer St
Ramona Ave
Rousch Ave
San Pablo Ave
Olympia Ave
San Lucas St
Carson St
Broadway Ave
Echo Ave
Alhambra St
Hilby Ave
Ortiz Ave
Calaveras St
Sequoia Ave
Terrace St
Roberts Ave
Wanda Ave
Trinity Ave
Sand Dunes Dr
Phoenix Ave
Baker St
The M all
Catalina St
Redwood Ave
Birch Ave
Clementina Ave
Virgin St
Fremont Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
Laguna Grande
Terrace Cabrillo
Del Monte
Grove - Laguna
Grande
Rousch
Olympia
Sand City
Seaside
271 ft
242 ft
92 ft
Salinas Hwy
Monterey Salinas Hwy
Fred Kane Dr
Garden Rd
Casanova Ave
Sk ypark Dr
Plumas Ave
Portola Dr
Airport Rd
Airport Rd
R o sita Rd
Euclid Ave
Via Verde
Paloma Rd
O'Hare Ave
Angelus Way
Via Isola
Oxton Rd
Ralston Dr
Edinburgh Ave
Littleness Ave
Lerwick Dr
North Rd
Fremont St
Olmsted Rd Work Memorial
Park
Monterey
Regional Airport
Casanova Oak
Knoll
Via Isola
Via Malpaso
Olmsted Rd
Fisherman
Flats
Coe Ave
Beach Range
Monterey Rd
Ord Grove Ave
Luxton St
Noche Buena St
La Salle Ave
Military Ave
Circle Ave
Mira Mar Ave
Dahlia Ave Peninsula Point Dr
Fairwa
Mariposa St
Mira Monte Ave
Buttercup Blvd
Ord Grove
287 ft
204 ft
Broadway Ave Broadway Ave
Luxton St Luxton St
Noche Buena St
Mescal St
Hilby Ave
Waring St
Flores St Flores St
Darwin St
San Pablo Ave
Kenneth St
Luzern St Luzern St
Highland St
Ancon St
Laguna St
Elm AveJudson St
Harding St Harding St
Vallejo St Vallejo St
Lowell St Lowell St
Mendocino St
Hannon
Kimball
Highlan
Noche Buena
Canyon del Rey Blvd
Monterey Salinas Hwy
General Jim Moore Blvd
Plumas Ave
Quendale Ave Carlton Dr
Los Encinos Dr
Via Verde
Rosita Rd
Quail Run Ct
Cal le del Oaks Pl
Ryan Ra
Del Rey Oaks
Monterra Rd
Monterra Ranch Rd
Monterey
Harbor
Del Monte Ave
Garden Rd
5 1
8 3
4 6
9 7
2 0 1 2 3 4Miles
10 MONTEREY
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 77, Packet Page 635 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A2
Signalized Intersection
Location #1

WASHINGTON ST & DEL MONTE AVE
1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 78, Packet Page 636 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

Total Collisions 36
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 0
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Hit-Object (39%)
Rear End (28%)
Sideswipe (11%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Unsafe Speed (38%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing (19%)
Improper Turning (19%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 4
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on 2 approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH A3
Other Vehicles
33 Pedestrians
0 Cyclists
2 3
6 2
2 6
2 3
2 Del Monte Ave
Del Monte Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Washington St

WASHINGTON ST & DEL MONTE AVE
Location #1
Collision Data
LEGEND
Broadside
Other
Overturned
Bicycle
Rear-end
Sideswipe
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Hit-Object
14 Hit-Object
36 Collisions
10 Rear-end
4 Sideswipe
4 Broadside
3 Other
1 Overturned
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 79, Packet Page 637 A4
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Road Diet
(per existing plans) 30% (R14) $364,860 Varies Varies
Convert Intersection to Roundabout
(from signal) 50% (S07) $608,100 $4,000,000 0.15
Improve signal hardware and lenses,
backplate with retroreflective borders 15% (S02) $182,430 $50,000 2.43 Convert all signals to mast arm
(per existing plans) 30% (SI07) $364,960 $750,000 0.49
Install delineators, reflectors, and/or
object markers (per existing plans) 15% (R27) $182,430 $40,800 37.26 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% (R22) $182,430 $40,000 4.56 Install edge-lines and centerlines
(per existing plans) 25% (R28) $304,050 $31,000 9.81
Install bike lanes (intersection conflict striping)
(per existing plans) 35% (R32PB) $61,285 $103,219 0.59
Install new pedestrian crossing
(per existing plans) 35% (R26PB) $61,285 $150,000 0.41
Modify Intersection Geometry
(per existing plans) 5% (N/A) $60,810 $2,500,000 0.02
Increased
Enforcement 5% (N/A) $60,810 N/A N/A
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #1

WASHINGTON ST & DEL MONTE AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 80, Packet Page 638 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A5
Signalized Intersection
Location #2

LIGHTHOUSE AVE & PRESCOTT AVE
2 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 81, Packet Page 639 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

Total Collisions 33
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Broadside (52%)
Sideswipe (36%)
Rear End (9%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Improper Turning (33%)
Traffic Signals and Signs (30%)
Auto R/W Violation (12%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on 3 approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH A6
Other Vehicles
29 Pedestrians
1 Cyclists
3 2
2 3
Prescott Ave
Lighthouse Ave

LIGHTHOUSE AVE & PRESCOTT AVE
Location #2
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red LEGEND Broadside
Head-on
Other
Rear-end
Sideswipe
17 Broadside*
33 Collisions
3 Rear-end
12 Sideswipe*
1 Vehicle-Pedestrian
* 14 Broadside (1 Serious Injury) and
2 Sideswipe collisions occured at the
intersection that are not mapped due to
lack of distance and direction data

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 82, Packet Page 640 A7
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Improve signal hardware; lenses,
backplate with retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
15% (S02) $885,645 $28,750 30.81
Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% (S21PB) $2,725,080 $12,000 227.09 Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #2

LIGHTHOUSE AVE & PRESCOTT AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 83, Packet Page 641 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A8
Signalized Intersection
Location #3

SLOAT AVE & DEL MONTE AVE
3 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 84, Packet Page 642 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

Sloat Ave
Del Monte Ave
Total Collisions 30
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 0
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Broadside (33%)
Sideswipe (30%)
Rear-end (27%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Auto R/W Violation (26%)
Unsafe Speed (20%)
Improper Turning (20%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 1
Number of Approaches 3
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalks on all approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH A9
Other Vehicles
30 Pedestrians
0 Cyclists
0 SLOAT AVE & DEL MONTE AVE
Location #3
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red LEGEND Broadside
Head-on
Other
Rear-end
Sideswipe
10 Broadside*
30 Collisions
8 Rear-end*
9 Sideswipe
1 Head-on*
1 Overturned*
1 Other*
* 9 Broadside, 4 Rear-end, 1 Head-on,
1 Overturned, and 1 other collision
occured at the intersections that are
not mapped due to lack of distance and
direction data

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 85, Packet Page 643 A10
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Relocate Bus Stop
(Daylighting) 20% (NS11) $780,580 $20,000 39.03
Install Bike Lanes
(Intersection conflict striping) 25% (NS06) N/A $14,314 N/A Install “No Stopping at Any Time” signage
near crossings and along Del Monte 15% (NS06) $585,435 $10,000 58.54 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% (R22) $585,435 $294,400 1.99 Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #3

SLOAT AVE & DEL MONTE AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 86, Packet Page 644 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A11
Signalized Intersection
Location #4

MUNRAS AVE & SOLEDAD DR
4 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 87, Packet Page 645 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:
2 2
2 2
2 Soledad Dr
Munras Ave
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 0
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Rear-End (62%)
Broadside (33%)
Hit Object (33%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Unsafe Speed (33%)
Auto R/W Violation (14%)
Traffic Signals and Signs (14%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 2
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalks on all approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH A12
Other Vehicles
20 Pedestrians
1 Cyclists
0 MUNRAS AVE & SOLEDAD DR
Location #4
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red LEGEND Broadside
Hit-Object
Rear-end
Vehicle-Pedestrian
13 Rear-end*
21 Collisions
7 Broadside*
7 Hit-Object
1 Vehicle-Pedestrian
1 Other*
* 3 Rear-end, 4 Broadside, and 1 Other
collision occured at the intersection that
are not mapped due to lack of distance
and direction data

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 88, Packet Page 646 A13
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Close/Modify driveway
closest to intersection 5% (N/A) $50,835 $170,000 0.30
Modify intersection
geometry 5% (N/A) $50,835 $2,000,000 0.03
Install
bike lanes 35% (R32PB) $4,655 $39,319 0.19
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% (R22) $152,505 $5,888 25.90 Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features)(Curb extensions) 35% (R36PB) $347,070 $15,000 0.31 Install
sidewalks 80% (R34PB) $10,640 $63,000 0.17
Convert intersection to roundabout
(from signal) 50% (SI16RA) $508,350 $4,000,000 0.13
Improve signal hardware; lenses, back plate with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 15% (S02) $152,505 $50,000 3.05 Convert Signal to Mast Arm with associated
ADA improvements 30% (SI07) $305,010 $1,000,000 0.31
Increased
Enforcement 5% (N/A) $50,835 N/A N/A
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #4

MUNRAS AVE & SOLEDAD DR

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 89, Packet Page 647 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A14
Signalized Intersection
Location #5

LIGHTHOUSE AVE & MCCLELLAN AVE
5 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 90, Packet Page 648 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:
2 2
McClellan Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Total Collisions 19
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 0
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Sideswipe (53%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (26%)
Broadside (16%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Improper Turning (37%)
Ped R/W Violation (16%)
Unsafe Lane Change (11%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalks on all approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH A15
Other Vehicles
13 Pedestrians
5 Cyclists
1 LIGHTHOUSE AVE & MCCLELLAN AVE
Location #5
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red LEGEND Broadside
Head-on
Rear-end
Sideswipe
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Hit-Object
Other
* 3 Vehicle-Pedestrian, 1 Broadside
(2 Bicycle), and 2 Sideswipe collisions
occurred at the intersection that are
not mapped due to lack of distance and
direction data
10 Sideswipe*
19 Collisions
3 Broadside*
5 Vehicle-Pedestrian*
1 Rear-end

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 91, Packet Page 649 A16
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Improve signal hardware; lenses, backplate
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size,
and number
15% (S02) $136,515 $25,000 5.46
Modify intersection
geometry 60% (S21PB) $361,200 $3,000 120.40
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #5

LIGHTHOUSE AVE & MCCLELLAN AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 92, Packet Page 650 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A17
Roadway Segment
Location #6

ENGLISH AVE & DEL MONTE AVE
6 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 93, Packet Page 651 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

Del Monte Ave
English Ave
Hannon Ave
Total Collisions 29
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Broadside (31%)
Hit Object (28%)
Sideswipe (17%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Broadside (31%)
Hit Object (28%)
Sideswipe (17%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 3
Lighting Yes
Median Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
A18
Other Vehicles
27 Pedestrians
1 Cyclists
1 ENGLISH AVE & DEL MONTE AVE
Location #6
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red LEGEND Broadside
Head-on
Hit-Object
Rear-end
Sideswipe
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Bicycle
9 Broadside*
29 Collisions
8 Hit-Object*
5 Sideswipe*
4 Rear-end*
1 Other
1 Vehicle-Pedestrian
1 Not Stated*
* 6 Broadside, 2 Sideswipe, 4 Hit-Object,
1 Rear-end, and 1 Not Stated collision
occured at the intersection that are
not mapped due to lack of distance and
direction data

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 94, Packet Page 652 A19
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% (R22) $791,985 $5,888 134.51 Modify Lane Widths 25% (R28) $1,319,975 $76,000 17.37
Modify intersection geometry 5% (N/A) $263,995 1,200,000 0.22 Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced
safety features)(curb extensions) 35% (R36PB) $32,970 $150,000 0.22 Install bike lanes 20% (R35PB) $32,970 $11,742 2.81
Install edge lines
and centerlines 25% (R28) $1,319,975 $30,000 44.00
Increased
Enforcement 5% (N/A) $263,995 N/A N/A
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #6

ENGLISH AVE & DEL MONTE AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 95, Packet Page 653 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A20
STOP
STOP
Unsignalized Intersection
Location #7

DEL MONTE AVE &

ROBERTS AVE/VIRGIN AVE
7 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 96, Packet Page 654 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:
2 Roberts Ave
Del Monte Ave
Virgin Ave
Total Collisions 10
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Sideswipe (30%)
Broadside (20%)
Other (20%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Improper Turning (30%)
Auto R/W Violation (20%)
Other (20%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalks on 2 approaches
Control Type Unsignalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH A21
Other Vehicles
9 Pedestrians
1 Cyclists
0 3 Sideswipe*
10 Collisions
2 Broadside*
2 Other*
1 Overturned
1 Head-on
1 Vehicle-Pedestrian*
* 2 Broadside, 1 Vehicle-Pedestrian,
1 Sideswipe and 1 Other collision
occurred at the intersection that are
not mapped due to lack of distance and
direction data
LEGEND
Broadside
Head-on
Rear-end
Sideswipe
Overturned

DEL MONTE AVE & ROBERTS AVE/VIRGIN AVE
Location #7
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 97, Packet Page 655 A22
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Install
median 25% (R08) $675,725 $280,000 2.41
Add edge lines and
rumble strips 5% (N/A) $135,145 $10,000 13.51
Install centerline
rumble strips/stripes 20% (R30) $540,580 $10,000 54.06
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #7

DEL MONTE AVE & ROBERTS AVE/VIRGIN AVE

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 98, Packet Page 656 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A23
Roadway Segment
Location #8
DEL MONTE AVE: CAMINO EL

ESTERO TO CAMINO AGUAJITO
8 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 99, Packet Page 657 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:
2 2 2
Del Monte Ave Camino Aguajito
Camino El Estero
Total Collisions 13
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Sideswipe (46%)
Rear-End (38%)
Hit Object (8%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Improper Turning (54%)
Unsafe Speed (15%)
Other Hazardous Movement (15%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 1
Lighting Yes
Median No
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
A24
Other Vehicles
13 Pedestrians
0 Cyclists
0 6 Sideswipe
13 Collisions
5 Rear-end
1 Hit-Object
1 Broadside
LEGEND
Broadside
Rear-end
Hit-Object
Sideswipe
DEL MONTE AVE: CAMINO EL ESTERO TO CAMINO AGUAJITO
Location #8
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 100, Packet Page 658 A25
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Install edge-lines and centerlines
(Parking Stall Markings) 25% (R28) $702,600 $7,000 100.37 Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #8
DEL MONTE AVE: CAMINO EL ESTERO TO CAMINO AGUAJITO

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 101, Packet Page 659 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A26
9 Roadway Segment
Location #9
GARDEN RD: FAIRGROUND RD

TO SKY PARK WAY

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 102, Packet Page 660 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

Garden Rd
Fairground Rd
Sky Park Way
A27
Other Vehicles
4 Pedestrians
1 Cyclists
3 Broadside 0 5 Collisions
1 Vehicle-Pedestrian
1 Overturned
LEGEND
Broadside
Vehicle-Pedestrian
Overturned
Total Collisions 5
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Broadside (60%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (20%)
Overturned (20%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Improper Turning (40%)
Auto R/W Violation (20%)
Unsafe Speed (20%)
Dark Collisions 1
Impaired Collisions 0
Lighting No
Median No
Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
GARDEN RD: FAIRGROUND RD TO SKY PARK WAY
Location #9
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury
collisions are shown in red

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 103, Packet Page 661 A28
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Install
Sidewalks
80%
(R34PB) $1,413,965 $778,800 0.08
Add segment
lighting
20%
(R01NT) $547,500 $932,000 0.59
Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning)
15%
(R22) $377,040 $58,880 6.40
Install speed
feedback signage
30%
(R26) $754,080 $45,600 16.54
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #9
GARDEN RD: FAIRGROUND RD TO SKY PARK WAY

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 104, Packet Page 662 Project Name:

Monterey Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Agency Name:

City of Monterey
A29
10 Roadway Segment
Location #10
FREMONT ST:

CASANOVA AVE TO CITY LIMIT

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 105, Packet Page 663 Motor Vehicle
Collisions With:

A30
Casanova Ave
N Fremont StN Fremont St
2 2
2 Other Vehicles
28 Pedestrians
0 Cyclists
1 Total Collisions 29
Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 0
Top 3 Collision
Types (%)
Rear-End (28%)
Broadside (24%)
Hit Object (24%)
Top 3 Primary
Collision Factors (%)
Other (31%)
Improper Turning (21%)
Auto R/W Violation (17%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Lighting Yes
Median Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
LEGEND
Broadside
Head-on
Hit-Object
Rear-end
Sideswipe
8 Rear-end*
29 Collisions
7 Hit-Object
7 Broadside
5 Sideswipe
2 Head-On
* 5 Hit-Object, 2 Rear End, 2 Broadside
and 1 Sideswipe collision occured at the
the intersection that are not mapped due
to lack of distance and direction data
FREMONT ST: CASANOVA AVE TO CITY LIMIT
Location #10
Collision Data
Note: fatal and servere injury collisions are shown in red

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 106, Packet Page 664 A31
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety Benefit
Total
20-Year Costs
Safety Related
B/C Ratio
Install Sidewalks
(per existing plans) 80% (R34PB) $1,213,040 $112,600 10.77 Increased
Enforcement 5% (N/A) $75,815 N/A N/A
Countermeasure Evaluation:

Location #10
FREMONT ST: CASANOVA AVE TO CITY LIMIT

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 107, Packet Page 665 APPENDIX B –

ONLINE SURVEY FEEDBACK AND RESULTS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 108, Packet Page 666 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
1 / 16

82.14% 138

9.52% 16

0.60% 1

0.00% 0

4.76% 8

1.19% 2

0.00% 0

1.79% 3
Q1 What is your connection to the City of Monterey? If more than one answer, pick the one that best describes the reason you spend time there.

Answered: 168 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 168
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I live in
Monterey
I work or
volunteer in
Monterey
I go to school
in Monterey
My child
attends a
school in...

I shop or
visit social or
recreational...

I travel
through
Monterey wit...

None of the
above
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I live in Monterey
I work or volunteer in Monterey
I go to school in Monterey
My child attends a school in Monterey
I shop or visit social or recreational destinations in Monterey I travel through Monterey with a destination outside of the City None of the above
Other (please specify)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 109, Packet Page 667 Q1 “Other (please specify)” responses
• I still live in Mty but in past could have clicked all the above! • I live in Marina.
• Used to live in the city

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 110, Packet Page 668 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
2 / 16

59.52% 100

7.14% 12

12.50% 21

0.00% 0

11.90% 20

0.60% 1

8.33% 14
Q2 How do you typically travel throughout the City of Monterey? Answered: 168 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 168
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Drive alone
Carpool with
others
Bike or scooter
Light rail,
bus, or
paratransit
Walk
I use a
mobility device
(like a walk...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Drive alone
Carpool with others
Bike or scooter
Light rail, bus, or paratransit
Walk
I use a mobility device (like a walker or wheelchair)
Other (please specify)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 111, Packet Page 669 Q2 “Other (please specify)” responses
• 2 people in car
• I drive but I also walk to downtown destinations whenever possible. • I also drive alone.
• Drive / Bike
• I bike and drive and use a walker sometimes
• My wife and I live near downtown, we walk and drive
• Drive or walk
• Walk whenever possible, but usually drive for errands • I bike, walk and travel in car pretty much equally
• walk bus drive car
• Walk, Bike, Drive
• drive alone or with another, then park and walk
• None of your business
• Mixed walking and driving

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 112, Packet Page 670 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
3 / 16
Q3 Please identify the top three challenges you face when traveling in the City of Monterey.

Answered: 152 Skipped: 16
(no label)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Traffic sign… Aggressive … Pedestrian … Street Ligh…
Stop sign o… ADA access… Distracted … Electric mo…
Choice 1:

Choice 2:

Choice 3:

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 113, Packet Page 671 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
4 / 16
(no label)

34.87%
53 28.29%
43 4.61%
7 1.97%
3 9.21%
14 0.00%
0 15.79%
24 12.84%
19 21.62%
32 14.19%
21 8.11%
12 20.95%
31 1.35%
2 12.16%
18 8.53%
11 11.63%
15 19.38%
25 7.75%
10 13.18%
17 3.10%
4 19.38%
25 TRAFFIC

SIGNALS
(POOR

VISIBILITY,
SIGNAL

TIMING,

CONFLICTS
WITH

PEDESTRIANS
OR

BICYCLISTS,
ETC.)

AGGRESSIVE

DRIVING
(SPEEDING)

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSINGS
(LONG

CROSSING

DISTANCE,

DETERIORATED

PAVEMENT

STRIPING,

SIDEWALK
GAPS, ETC.)
STREET

LIGHTING
(NIGHTTIME

VISIBILITY)

STOP SIGN
OR REDLIGHT

RUNNING

VIOLATIONS
ADA

ACCESSIBILITY

DISTRACTED

DRIVING
Choice
1:

Choice
2:

Choice
3:

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 114, Packet Page 672 Q3 “Other (please specify)” responses
• Light timing is totally off for most of lighthouse...constant red lights, traffic does not flow
• very few designated bike lanes
• Endless construction
• Lack of driving infraction enforcement
• No bus going up Prescott.
• Casa Verde & Encina - numerous violations, running stop sign • Green painted bike lanes slippery when wet
• Road paint super slippery when wet.
• Alvarado/Pearl/Polk/Munras intersection needs addressing • Bike path on Fremont doesn't connect well to follow on routes. • Lack of safe bike lanes
• Traffic
• Lane discipline and intersection blocking
• I see that bicycle travel is unsafe due to lack of bike lanes. • Drivers don't stop at crosswalks. Drivers making right turn into crosswalks when the "walk" sign is on for pedestrians to cross. Drivers do not stop for Recreation Trail crossings. Recreation Trail users don't slow/check for cars. • The crosswalk at Reeside Ave. and the Bike path is SO dangerous! I live at the condo right on the bike path and MANY people don't see it as a crosswalk and stop first. You can't easily see people coming from behind the building (when traveling either direction) and pedestrians and bikers often have close calls. Bikers don't always exercise caution wither. A stop sign there, or repainting to look like a normal crosswalk is needed for safety. • Loud mufflers
• Underground utilities so there are less poles & wires • drivers ignore pedestrians trying to cross street at intersections • Cars pass bikes at unsafe distance or spees
• Neighborhood roads in bad disrepair......lots need major work • I recently observed a Mty PD officer completely blow a stop sign at Calle P & Hartnell. It did not appear to be because of an emergency. • LOUD vehicles
• traffic congestion
• Streets cramped by too many street parked cars
• deteriorating roads
• Other drivers' bright headlights blinding me at night or no headlights at all • Driver turns right; crosses crosswalk while pedestrian walk signal onignal c

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 115, Packet Page 673 • #1Turning onto 68 East from skyline; #2 long wait at signals Washington and Del Monte or Munras and Soledad
• Plants or trees blocking views at corners specifically at Prescott and Cypress • Cyclists on sidewalks
• Congestion
• gas/electric bikes, scooters non-licensed, running lights, speeding • Foam Street deteriorating conrete road surface. Main tourist route too ! • Narrow streets with parking
• Insufficient Signage for Tourists accessing Major Roads • Pedestrian crossing timers go on every cycle making cars wait while no one crosses. This encourages drivers to bypass signals by using side streets, running red lights or other manners of avoiding waiting for long cycles where no cars are moving due to waiting for the pedestrian timer despite no pedestrians ever being present.
• Ignorance of right of way laws
• Specifically car hoping to make the light block intersections • Parked cars / on-street parking no bike lanes
• Munras should have a stop at Pearl
• We have excellent streets , well maintained
• New Monterey very limited access an egress
• Timing lights on lighthouse so people following the speed limit would not stop would minimize road rage and be fantastic :). Also making it easier to walk from New Monterey to Monterey. I spend my time and money in PG since I can walk there
• Just plain old traffic
• Intersection at Scott and Van Buren needs “Cross traffic does not stop” sign.

Many near misses here
• Too many events drawing too many people to the area. The roads are jammed all the time.
• signal timing: Pacific St, El Dorado St, Martin St intersection • just rush hour traffic is not fun, but not NEARLY as rough as in most other cities
• Poor sidewalks for ADA or strollers
• Lack of a sidewalk on upper part of Monte Vista & Cielo Vista • Cars pass too close and cars park in bikeways.
• my #1 would be no law enforcement of traffic laws
• Unreal speed limits. Too low on Delmonte too high on Prescott • Unsafe intersection at Alvarado/Pearl. Lack of sidewalks on Via Del Rey below Veterans Park

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 116, Packet Page 674 • Castro Road City fails to maintain street need guard rails. • The aggressive driving is really bad now and I see street racing on del monte avenue during the day. Freeway is just as bad.
• drivers stopping in crosswalks, not before them.
• All of the above
• Too many unprotected left turns at signals (ex: N. Fremont & Casa Verde, and Del Monte Ave and Sloat)
• Lack of good bike lanes in old town
• Road directions are confusing and the distances of blocks can be really short with no all-ways stop signs. It can be complicated to be driving behind people who are distracted and unfamiliar with the oddities of Monterey’s streets, which are also often narrow or suddenly one-way only, etc. • Traffic piled up on Del Monte on weekends
• Congested traffic in general!
• Lack of space for cycling to work
• I don’t really have much issue to report that the city would be able to control, because I think a lot of it is the driver! There may be some areas of improvements with relation to lack of visibility due to parking.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 117, Packet Page 675 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
5 / 16
Q4 Other than these 10 locations, where else within the city do you currently experience safety challenges?
Answered: 147 Skipped: 21

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 118, Packet Page 676 Q4 responses
• Lack of shoulder or bike lane in Laureles Grade. Too many stop signs parallel to lighthouse ave.
• Pearl & Alvarado (very difficult for traffic on Pearl to advance) Peal & Calle Principal/Pacific Street (backlog of cars during rush hour) Pearl by El Estero Park (no bike lane E bound)
• The whole Lighthouse /Del Monte corridor needs more help. Not sure that the automated traffic signal are synced correctly. Now I’ll sit at a light for 90 seconds without any cross traffic. Sigh … I travel that corridor multiple times a day and it’s a challenge. Also pedestrians don’t seem to yield - maybe they are all wearing earphones - but it is scary when someone enters the crosswalk and they don’t look up to see iff car sees them • Corner Mesa rd and Fremont St. blind left turn from mesa to Fremont. • Pacific at Madison intersection. Munras/Pearl/Polk/Alvarado intersection. trying to exit the rec trail on a bike to visit businesses on Alvarado. • Traveling by foot from my apartment on Glenwood Circle to get to Del Monte Beach or downtown. Sometimes MPC access points are locked and it's very long top go around.
• Scott and Pacific near First Theater
• Casanova Ave Speedway… lack of speeding enforcement Lack of Stop Sign enforcement Lack of sidewalks and proper ADA curbs • Casanova & Branner - run stop sign Casanova & N. Fremont - turning arrow time too short Casa Verde & Del Monte - needs turning arrows • Lighthouse backed up.
• David at Pine, stop sign running on David heading east. • Turning left on Highway 68 from Skyline
• Pacific @ Martin
• Hwy 68/North Fremont connection merge is dangerous. The center island bike lane signals are confusing to drivers.
• Sloat at Mark Thomas, and at the entrance to NPS
• Pebble Beach

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 119, Packet Page 677 • There needs to be separate lanes for pedestrian and bikes on the bike path.

Walkers are unsafe because they walk in the middle of the lanes and meander unpredictably
• Bike path between the wharfs. Pedestrians never look before stepping into on coming bike traffic, dogs run loose, children are a threat to cyclists and themselves, etc!
• Pacific Grove, asilomar state Beach area with green paint on bike lanes • Alvarado/Pearl/Polk/Munras Pacific and Alameda My neighborhood which has no sidewalks Walking access up Via del Rey to Veterans Park • Nowhere immediately comes to mind.
• Coastal trail at fisherman wharf plaza Mixing of commuter traffic and visitors, and bad trail design incentiving riding through parking lot instead of turning on blind corners
• Josselyn Canyon Road from Fisherman's Flats and Deer Flats down to the Catalina School. Can we make a safe way for everyone (school kids too) to walk or bike this beautiful corridor?
• There is currently no safe route to Ryan Ranch. Even though a route would include other City’s right of ways, the City of Monterey should be responsible in creating/funding a safe route as they are the ones who benefit from the businesses.
• David Avenue - no safe bike lanes Jefferson - no safe bike lanes Pacific Ave - no safe bike lanes Broadway Ave - the bike lanes ends with no connection to other bike lanes. there should be a connected system to get you to different parts of the city. for example connecting broadway to the coastal trail
• Mark Thomas bike lane is full of obstacles. Josslyn Canyon needs better shoulder for bikes
• Corner Library police station
• Turning from Clay Street onto Franklin Street heading to downtown. It is very difficult to see oncoming cars. Too many parked cars getting hit on David Avenue and Monroe Street. i’m also concerned about overnight parking/camping on High Street.
• North Fremont Ave corridor

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 120, Packet Page 678 • Rec Trail Fishermans Wharf to PG; also no crosswalk across Fremont from Fishnet/MPC entrance.
• This map is exactly where the problems are
• Sloat/Mark Thomas intersection, Fremont Street in front of Dennys, intersection of Cass and Webster
• Fremont St from Highway 1 to Canyon Del Rey - Intersection Blocking, Del Monte from Washington to Tyler St - Traffic Signal Timing causing Intersection Blocking.
• Munras Avenue/ Eldorado Street
• Walking on the rec trail, when e-bikes are too fast or are weaving. Also, the crosswalk on Aguajito at 4th St. The sign for this has been removed, and virtually no drivers pay attention to the crosswalk anymore. We need this back since our residents and kids from Oak Grove try to use this crosswalk.

In addition, bicycles are forced to use the bridge sidewalks on 3rd/Pearl Street since there's no room for them to ride on the street on the bridge. • Sloat Ave & Mark Thomas
• Intersection of Webster and Camino El Estero
• English ave in proximity of the highway 1 ramp. Drivers during commuting hours drive aggressively and use the road as a shortcut between North Freemont, Casa Verde exit nd Del Monte/Highway 1. Additionally there are two Speed Feedback signs on English ave (300 block) that have not been functioning for years.
• Foam Street crosswalks. The Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail. • The crosswalk at Reeside Ave. and the Bike path is SO dangerous! I live at the condo right on the bike path and MANY people don't see it as a crosswalk and stop first. You can't easily see people coming from behind the building (when traveling either direction) and pedestrians and bikers often have close calls. Bikers don't always exercise caution either. A stop sign there, or repainting to look like a normal crosswalk is needed for safety.

Also, the block of Foam St., Reeside Ave. and Cannery Row is like a racetrack for loud, speeding cars at night. I literally watch them and hear them do laps after 10 PM or so when traffic is sparse. Any crackdown? Fridays and Saturdays the worst. Can't law enforcement crack down on the noise ordinance either? The excessively loud mufflers and backfiring of cars

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 121, Packet Page 679 is out of control (and mostly the locals, although exacerbated when car show or events in town).
• All of the above
• English and Del Monte 6. Lights are totally arbitrary and drivers get tired of waiting and when light turns they ignore pedestrians trying to cross on green.
• Cannery Row and Lighthouse Avenue
• Curve atCalle Principal/Hartnell near Museum
• Number 9 and 10 on the map above.... need signals.....lots of traffic and speeding.
• Speeding on Casanova Ave
• Crossing Pacific from Madison is perilous, especially when Mty HS school lets out.
• Crossing the street in front of the Trader Joes parking lot (no stripes), crossing the intersection by Alta bakery.
• 9, 7
• Casanova and oak knolls district especially on Ralston drive everyone enjoys walking in this area but people drive very fast and there are no sidewalks so highly recommend fire department spaced speed bumps • It’s not the locations as much as the poor drivers.
• 2, 5, 1
• Along David avenue Along delmonte from the tunnel through sloat Along casa Verde between the fairgrounds and delmonte as a cyclist • New Monterey
• Between 5 & 1--speeding during commute time; congestion & stopped traffic at the entrance to DLI around 8 AM
• The north Fremont corridor
• 2, 5, 9

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 122, Packet Page 680 • Crossing Polk to Alvarado (walking) Crossing Pacific at Del Monte (the Conference Center) Cars turning right on red cannot see Pedestrian crossing Pacific w/walk signal.
• 2,5
• Skyline drive and highway one
• 9, 6, 8, 10
• Don’t know names of all streets. Intersections around Alvarado area are at weird angles & difficult to navigate when walking & driving • Speeding on Del Monte Avenue between tunnel and Embassy Suites • Webster and Camino El Estero - Drivers can’t see pedestrians Fremont and Mesa Rd - Drivers turning left onto Mesa don’t look for pedestrians Fremont and Camino El Estero - drivers continue after light turns red • Fremont ave going from Munras to highway 1 onramp.
• 10, 4
• #2 signal timing is poor and lasts too long on Lighthouse. • Skyline & 68 intersection No sidewalks consistently through Skyline, Peter's Gate/Monterey Vista
• 1 and 9 due to traffic timing
• 10
• Olmstead and Garden Road
• In general --Downtown Intersections...
• Webster @ Munras. This intersection is a mess. Westbound approach is confusing and results in many vehicles changing lanes at the last second.

Northbound Webster right turn is too tight and many vehicle in the right turn lane end up going straight and conflicting with the vehicles in the Webster Northbound left/through lane. Further, traffic signal timing at this intersection is a disaster. It needs to be blown up and redone. Tons of stacking Webster on both sides of Munras with no vehicles on Munras.

Makes it difficult to access businesses on Webster and also make the left turn from Webster to Cass due to excessive stacking. But you probably

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 123, Packet Page 681 already know this with all the technology/cameras you have at the intersection.
• 1,3,6 and 7
• #5
• Around the Post Office
• (4) In addition to planned safety changes at #4 Munras/Soledad Dr, additional lane signage should be installed at this intersection for cars exiting Hwy 1 (Southbound): Three (3) lanes at intersection do not have overhead markings that each lane has a specific direction. Confusing for visitors...and a traffic mess.
• Intersection skyline forest to hwy68
• When high school lets out
• I think, overall, Del Monte Ave is the worst due to distracted driving and speeding
• 3 and 9
• David at Pine; Scott at Pacific
• 1. Washington and Del Monte 2. Lighthouse and Prescott 5. Lighthouse and McClellan
• Aguajito Road...not listed above.
• Del Monte & Virgin
• Fremont St
• Munras should have a stop at Pearl
• Cielo Vista Dr.
• 6 & 8
• David and Terry
• On Major Sherman Lane on our morning walks and throughout the day....we have almost been hit on Major Sherman and reported to beat cop...also the business across from us has requested speed bumps...its just a matter of time before someone is killed on this street

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 124, Packet Page 682 • Crossing David on foot in new monterey. It would be nice to have a crosswalk closer to the top of the hill
• 2,5, foam street
• 9,2
• Area 3 needs left hand turn lane
• 4
• 6,9,2,5
• 4, 7
• Iris Canyon. All sorts of high speed driving and reckless driving along that roadway. Surprised no one has gotten killed. Walk and bike there frequently and it is a city lawsuit waiting to happen.
• 3
• Crossing DelMonte at Washington (signal not quite long enough) • 2. 5. 9. 3.
• 1. Lighthouse Avenue
• Monte Visat neighborhood- via Gayuba, Martin st. Location 9 • 1, 3, 9
• tunnel
• Pacific Street has high speed traffic on the south end with many side streets. Better lighting and signage is needed to alert drivers that there are intersections ahead.
• Post office.....too much jaywalking. Old and disabled jaywalk. It's crazy. • Sloat/Del Monte Del Monte El Estero, C. Aguahito
• #3 above
• Polk St.
• Lighthouse by Presidio.
• Upper part of Monte Vista and Cielo Vista Drive have no sidewalk

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 125, Packet Page 683 • 9 Del monte and Sloat
• Mostly in busier areas and during busier times.
• 3) Del Monte & Sloat - left turns onto to Sloat are incredibly dangerous - Pearl & Alvarado - too many vehicles/cross traffic -Munras & Tyler - pedestrians often cross in between Fidelity and Trader Joe's -Pacific St. at the Monterey Museum of Art sculpture garden - I've often felt a crosswalk should be there; pedestrian crossing point. -Franklin St. & Jefferson St. - The Watson and Larkin St. intersections for vehicular traffic are terrifying.

Watson intersections on both streets could use more daylighting - parked cars limit visibility for crossing -Lighthouse Ave. - As a pedestrian, the amount and proximity of vehicle traffic on Lighthouse gives me incredible anxiety. Del Monte Ave. & Park Ave. - Eastbound traffic turning left onto Park/La Playa
• Most often, downtown, along the rec trail, and along Pacific Street up to Soledad.
• Near the Aquarium and Andronico’s Market All along Lighthouse The tunnel, speeding, honking, too dark to see other vehicles • 2, 3
• Soledad Dr and area around DMC
• Sorry, your map isn’t readable on my phone. Horrible left hand turn driving intersection at Skyline Forest/Holman Highway.
• Castro Road Heavy traffic of CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES LOOPING AROUND FROM AGUAJITO.
• Munras - Polk - Pearl - Alvarado corner/ intersection • 1,9,3,7,6
• entering highway 68 from Josselyn canyon rd. I have seen cars drive right through the traffic lights.
• Joselyn canyon road and 68
• 6, 7 & 8
• 1, 4, 9, 2, 5
• Del Monte & Washington and Lighthouse & Prescott

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 126, Packet Page 684 • All of Lighthouse Ave
• Crossing almost any crosswalk within the City feels unsafe. Drivers are rarely paying attention to pedestrians and are increasingly impatient. I experience near-misses (almost being hit) at least once a week when walking downtown near the Madison/Polk/Hartnell intersection. • 1,3,5
• Lighthouse speeders
• Intersection of Pearl Street, Polk Street|Alvarado Street and Munras Avenue - as a cyclist it is really hard to get across the intersection right at the Cooper Molera Building, people are never sure about the right of way and there is no easy way as a cyclist to cross. Even when driving that intersection causes problems.
• 1, 2, 5 — The triangles and weird unmanaged brief intersections around Alvarado St and downtown old Monterey. The unlit pedestrian walkways, especially when they could be crossing multiple lanes and at busy convoluted intersections
• Monterey Bay Coastal Trail
• 2, 5, 1, 3, 4
• Hey 1
• Monte Vista Drive X Mar Vista Drive Monte Vista Drive X Soledad Drive Small shopping center parking lots
• Polk, Pearl and Alvarado intersection Hartnell and Webster • Location #4
• Del Monte Ave - speeding and weaving
• Polk, Alvarado and Pearl intersection Madison and Pacific intersection • Pearl St/Alvarado intersection, Aguajito/Del Monte intersection, both frequently have cars run or impatient
• This relates to the Casa Verde, Del Monte crosswalk, but I understand that is being improved. It is dangerous for pedestrians at night, cars coming down Roberts Avenue or Casa Verde Avenue making a left or right turn onto Del Monte are not watching out for pedestrians! There are a few times I have nearly been killed. I now cross that street holding my phone flashlight

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 127, Packet Page 685 on, waving it back-and-forth so people see me. That also often does not help!
• The street before Alvarado that turns into it.
• Pacific Street Franklin Street

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 128, Packet Page 686 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
6 / 16
Q5 As a PEDESTRIAN, what is your primary safety concern? Answered: 142 Skipped: 26

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 129, Packet Page 687 Q5 responses
• Length of time waiting for /at traffic intersections. • Driver’s blind spots.
• Being hit by inattentive or unlawful drivers
• Distracted drivers not seeing me as I cross the street • None
• blocked sidewalks due to poles, plants, signs, construction, parked cars. also cars that don't pay attention or yield at crossings.
• Need more ADA accessible sidewalks and safe crossing areas. • Drivers failing to stop at stop signs and stop lights • E-bikes that do not require pedaling by the rider. They go too fast! • Distracted drivers
• Not enough time to cross. Agressive speeders.
• See above
• Speeders
• distracted drivers. A close second are E-bikes close to pedestrians such as along the Rec. trail
• Cars running stop signs, especially at Casa Verde & Encina • Lack of sidewalks in some areas
• motorized vehicles on the recreation trail
• Coastal trail interaction with motorized vehicles (bicycles, scooters, and monopods).
• Crossing the street on Sloat Avenue.
• Ebikes that are driven at high rates is speed on the rec trail with NO enforcement even attempted. A friend was hit by an ebike and broke his hand... he's a doc so that impacted his livelihood!
• Cyclists riding too fast in bike/walk areas (cannery row). • Lack of sidewalks in my neighborhood
• Crossing streets safely and being seen.
• Drivers not stopping or yielding
• Non continuous sidewalks, and unsuitable sidewalks being impinged by light poles, benches and other, creating a need to walk on roadway • No safe zone on Josselyn Canyon Road.
• Cars don’t always stop at cross walks. Cars turning right at stoplights when pedestrians are crossing
• Cars stopping at stop signs
• Drivers not stopping at cross walks
• Clearly marked crosswalks

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 130, Packet Page 688 • People stopping at red lights. Often signals are ignored on certain intersections, especially in New Monterey near David Ave when driving towards Pacific Grove.
• Rec Trail congestion & speeding ebikes that don’t lower speed thru crowds. • Speeding drivers
• Cars ignoring that pedestrians and bikes exist, speeders. For location #3, cars often rush through on Del Monte after the light has changed and peds/bikes are in the crosswalk--this is, I think, the most dangerous intersection in town.
• Poor placement of crossings, poor visibility for vehicles. • Driving agressive/ Not enough sidewalks
• Being hit by cars due to drivers not paying attention to the fact that there are walkers. I have had close calls at Del Monte/Sloat and also at the crossing for Dennis the Menace Park.
• school traffic zones & parents in neighborhoods running stop signs, cornering at speed and distracted by their kids in the car (bring back school buses to reduce traffic!)
• Having visible, safe pedestrian crossings at intersections • Crossing Del Monte at the corner of English is very dangerous with speeding cars and many distracted or aggressive Drivers. (6 on the map) • Recreation Trail has become too dangerous. Bicycles, motorized vehicles, electric bikes, scooters, boards, etc. going way too fast. They pass walkers and come head on into others. They don't brake or announce they are passing. Someone is going to get seriously injured or killed!! A separate trail is needed for walkers.
• The bike path, as stated above (recreation trail). I walk my dog every day on the path, as I live right on it, and the motorized and electric vehicles are quite dangerous to everyone. It is stated they are illegal on the path, yet I have NEVER seen anyone ticketed or diverted. You also have ebike rental places on the path! It is so frustrating. The safety features mentioned below won't solve the problem of no police presence to enforce the already existing laws! • drivers not stopping while you are in the crosswalk or waiting to cross street • Need better night time lighting for safety 2) Underground utilities & remove poles in the middle of already uneven sidewalks to make them more ADA compliant
• too many motorized bikes on pedestrian paths and sidewalks going too fast.

They are there because the streets have no bike lanes and are dangerous. • Getting run over by drivers not paying attention to the crosswalks or other drivers.
• No one pays attention to people in the cross walks.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 131, Packet Page 689 • ME! Also speeding and reckless driving.........drivers do not care...it's all about them.
• Speeding on Casaova Ave
• A neighbor was killed while crossing Pacific from Madison about 3 years ago. • Drivers who run lights. Short crossing signals, especially if you accidentally hit the bike button! Drivers speeding in residential areas. • Getting hit by cars but as an ex bysclist the bikers ignore right of way rules and don’t realize the bike lanes
• N/a
• 2, 5
• Traffic, particularly in David avenue not acknowledging pedestrians right of way to cross the street
• Lack of ADA approved sidewalks.
• Confusing street layouts and traffic flow causing drivers to be confused or distracted while I’m crossing the road
• Recommend NO RIGHT ON RED Being hit by vehicle turning across crosswalk.
• not being able to walk across the street until all the red-light runners are through
• Speeding electric “bikes” that are really motorcycles. • People drive too fast and run red lights often at signalized intersections with crosswalks. Would like more ways to get out to the recreational trail that don't put us in contact (even hearing distance of cars).
• Drivers not looking for pedestrians, only looking ahead to where they are heading
• People crossing lighthouse on the corners that say do not cross here. • Drivers only looking for cars, not pedestrians
• Lack of blinking light alerts in high traffic roads like Pacific. (2) Crosswalks at street intersections. Right turn on Red is a danger for pedestrians. (3) I was once crossing Pacific going from the First Theatre to Monterey State Park.

The sun was in the eyes of drivers facing me and going from Scott to Pacific downtown and I almost got hit even though I had the pedestrian light. Make that intersection have all red lights if a pedestrian is crossing. • 4; but all over, cars turning without checking the crosswalk • Monterey lacks sidewalks
• Unsafe for pedestrians on recreation trail due to e-bikes, and the pedestrian buttons seem less responsive on Lighthouse Avenue.
• Speeding, distracted drivers.
• Drl Monte Figuroa

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 132, Packet Page 690 • Distracted Drivers not looking out for pedestrians.
• Pedestrians not looking both ways before crossing.
• #9
• Jaywalking around the Post Office. That area needs to be redesigned so people don't have to park across the street from the post office. • Cars stopping IN THE CROSSWALK, not allowing pedestrians to safely use crosswalks. Tickets should be given out for this infraction. • Cars not honoring crosswalks especially when making right-hand turns • People driving too fast and weaving in traffic
• Getting hit by distracted driver
• Lack of sidewalks especially in paths leading to Monte vista school on Martin and today vista
• Motorists not seeing pedestrians or not paying attention. Motorists, I suspect visitors, run stop signs. Stop signs with LED borders would help emphasize the presence of stop signs.
• Cars hoping they will make the light to continue on Del Monte -- blocking the cross walk.
• getting hit
• English & Del Monte
• No sidewalks in New Monterey
• Munras should have a stop at Pearl
• SAFELY USING CROSSWALKS, WARCHING FOR CARS TURNING ONTO STREET.. "NO TURN ON RED LIGHT" SIGNAGE!
• Speeding cars on Major Sherman
• Getting hit by a car during the day. The white paint used is slippery when wet
• Being hit by a car. Especially in crosswalks when cars do not slow down or yield to pedestrians. I have been told cars have right of way on the rec trail, so have been more cautious not to step out unless I make eye contact with driver. I’ve also noticed in tourist areas where cars have to wait for pedestrians, some get impatient and try to turn as soon as they can almost hitting me in the cross walk (they were paying attention to the cross walk in front of them and not to the side). Luckily most are low speed, so stop in time.

But scary nonetheless. Also there’s one crosswalk on Foam not affiliated with a traffic light and without RFB that’s VERY dangerous since visibility is low if one lane stops and the other lane isn’t paying attention or doesn’t know why the other lane stopped. I’m waiting to hear of an accident at that specific crosswalk one of these days… Also bikes do not yield to pedestrians on the rec trail. It’s a shared trail and often times bikes need to slow down or be

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 133, Packet Page 691 aware that hearing a bell behind someone when walking or a yell can be startling and not everyone will move the way the bicyclist wants them to move. It should be known they should SLOW DOWN in congested areas and stop blaming pedestrians for “not getting out of the way.” Bicyclists ride way to fast (over 12mph) with no enforcement, and I’m seeing more supped up ebikes and some borderline motorcycles on the trail • visibility to cars making a turn
• 2
• red light runners, distracted driving
• E bikes, long waits at signals
• Cars not signaling to turn right on Hartnell from Madison and crossing Alvarado near Alta Bakery and former Ordway.
• Crossing David Avenue at Lily Street
• Speeding.
• Distracted drivers not paying attention to when pedestrians have the right of way and being hit.
• Speeding, no sidewalks in neighborhoods.
• none
• speeding ebikers that don’t slow down for crowded conditions. i have an unsteady gait & worry about getting hit.
• crosswalks are more "I dare ya'" , rather than secure opening parked car doiorsvenue
• Crossing busy streets that don’t have crosswalks and have high speed limits. • Fast cars at curves with no sidewalks.
• Distracted drivers, rules don't apply to 'me'
• Speeding e-bikes on rec trail
• Distracted drivers
• Distracted drivers, lengthy distances caused by moderate sprawl. • Not having a sidewalk
• Walking along roads without sidewalks, such as upper Via del Rey. • Walking on the bay trail has become a horrible experience due to speeding cyclists, particularly with high-speed e-bikes, electric dirt bikes, and youth bike crews performing stunts. There should be enforcement, traffic calming, or some mitigation. It's a matter of time before someone becomes seriously injured.
• E-bikes and other e-vehicles on the sidewalks and rec trail, as well as regular bikes on the city sidewalks.
• I rarely walk because of the speeding cars, people going through stop signs, red lights. I would have to have a death wish to walk in Monterey!

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 134, Packet Page 692 • not to be run over by fast bicycles (electric or people powered) • Distracted drivers who only look left before turning right. Drivers who don’t yield to pedestrians in crosswalk.
• Lack of sidewalk on Via Del Rey.
• Being RUNOVER BY VEHICLES BECAUSE CITY FAILS TO REMOVE

BRUSH WHICH OBSCURES PERSONS FROM BEING VISIBLE TO
DRIVERS.
• 1
• Distracted drivers. People driving through red lights, stop signs (especially early in the morning), and people driving too fast.
• A driver is distracted and wouldn't see me.
• Distraction
• Lack of marked cross walks, non competitive with stop signs and aggressive and/or speeding
• Aggressive drivers who speed and run stop signs/lights • Hazardous traffic on the Recreation Trail between Del Monte & Washington and Lighthouse & Prescott, and to Lover's Point.
• distracted drivers and speeding through stop lights
• Car speeds and lack of available walking space.
• More visibility at crosswalks. Drivers rarely give pedestrians the right of way.

Maybe the City should look into installing pedestrian crossing flags mounted on the stop sign poles near crosswalks for pedestrians to carry as they cross the street. These are popular in other cities and states, as well as any other options that might increase pedestrian visibility. The Rec Trail is also increasingly becoming unsafe with the increase in e-bikes and their fast speeds on the trail.
• Drivers that are not paying attention or looking for parking. • Not getting hit by people turning corners and hotting me • Traffic lights are timed so it sometimes takes you two cycles to get across on Pacific St. Also getting across Pacific Street at the Alameda intersection is really challenging. A crosswalk might help slow the speeding traffic. • Not lit crosswalk zones
• Poorly timed traffic lights
• Speed of vehicles that do not slow down or stop as legally required. • Distracted drivers
• Distracted drivers
• Ensuring eye contact with drivers when crossing the street • Getting hit by a car
• 30 mph e-bikes on rec. teail

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 135, Packet Page 693 • Not enough sidewalks
• Cars running red lights and stop signs
• See answer two question 4. Also, e-bikes along the rec trail, sometimes go too fast.
• Speeding on alvarado
• Cars not stopping for pedestrians crossing Polk St.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 136, Packet Page 694 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
7 / 16
Q6 As a BICYCLIST, what is your primary safety concern? Answered: 114 Skipped: 54

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 137, Packet Page 695 Q6 responses
• Length of time waiting for /at traffic intersections
• Lack of bike lanes
• I don’t ride them. It’s absolutely dangerous - stay on bike paths • N/a
• lack of bicycle lanes on busy streets I need to travel • More separated bikes lanes to get neighborhoods linked to the coastal rec trail
• Drivers failing to stop at stop signs and stop lights • Unrestricted eBikes.
• NA
• Not a bicyclist now due to disability, in the past cars passing too close was a frequent challenge.
• See above
• Speeders
• Not a cyclist.
• Our historic city has narrow roads. It is not feasible to create bike lanes. It would be best to EDUCATE bicycle users to use the rules of the road properly.
• People on their devices while driving
• Car doors opening when a driver or passenger exits after parking, aggressive drivers and no police enforcement even when an accident occurs (personal experience). The green paint on the bike lanes becomes slick when wet.

Several friends have crashed due to this paint. Either add sand to the paint so it isn't slippery or remove it.
• Pedestrians not sticking to one side on the path, family spread across the lane can't get around and young kids are very unpredictable which way they will move.
• Narrow roads and no sidewalks in my neighborhood.
• Being seen, avoiding road rage, avoiding painted surfaces. • Little to no lane separation schemes outside of primary trail. Road sweeping/cleaning only done on center car lane and not on sides, concentrating debris and puncture hazards to side, and causing cycling to be closer to lane center sometimes impeding traffic
• Pedestrians on the bike paths jump in front of bikes! Green paint on bikeways is ridiculously slippery when wet. I've witnessed numerous accidents with injuries from sliding out on the paint when wet. When it's so slippery it is a detriment to the cycling community.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 138, Packet Page 696 • Speeds of vehicle traffic. No separation from cars. The bike lanes that do exist often get stranded and don’t connect to anything safely. • Bike lanes are almost non existent when off the bike trail. There are some, but lanes can be improved for safety.
• Not getting hit by a car and dying due to lack of protected bike lanes. I feel especially unsafe biking at night due to lack of bike lanes. Distracted drivers are a serious issue
• Cars passing to close, running red lights, street paint is extremely slippery when it is raining
• Other bicyclist not following laws
• Visibility
• It’s unsafe to bike anywhere except the rec trail. Drivers do not yield to bicycles
• Cars--the city needs more bike lanes. The rec trail is GREAT FOR RECREATION and I'm on it almost every day, but doesn't help bicyclists who want to replace car trips with bike trips in town. I would use my bike for many more trips--and my car even less--if we had more protected space for bikes. • Access to Del Monte Bike Path
• None in reality, since I would not bike here at all any more due to the combination of inattentive drivers plus lack of safe bike lanes. • lack of bike lanes on roadway
• English Ave in proximity of the off/on ramp of highway one has very poor infrastructure for bicyclist. Too many cars, too many fast moving vehicles and poorly signed bike lane.
• The recreation trail isn't really safe for bikes and pedestrians. The roads aren't safe for bikes.
• Same as above! Get rid of the motorized vehicles on the path. The safety features mentioned below won't solve the problem of no police presence to enforce the already existing laws!
• Better night time lighting 2) Cyclists need to share the road & wear reflective clothing
• motorized bicycles!!!
• N/A - although the cyclists are maniacs on the bike path. They treat that space like the Tour de France and get angry with anyone that is slower than them.
• Cars pass TOO close and speed up as there is usually a car coming from the other direction and they don't wait to pass.
• NA
• inattentive coastal bike trail users

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 139, Packet Page 697 • N/a
• As a cyclist I need to use the rules of the road and stop and actually use bike lanes
• N/a
• 9
• Drivers cutting corners, Rough roadway and lack of safety lanes on casa Verde between the fairgrounds and delmonte
• Chronic lack of proper bike lanes.
• NA
• Excessive speed on the rec trail. As an ebike rider (pedal assist) I support bikes on the rec trail but some are going as fast as motorcycles! • Having to ride with cars on the road. Would like more buffered bike lanes.

Especially at intersections where cars are turning right without looking for bikes.
• People drive too fast and run red lights often at signalized intersections.

People are often distracted and it feels unsafe to share the same surface/pathway with these huge vehicles that could kill me in a second.

Would like more separated bike lanes with a divider.
• N/A
• Sharing a lane with cars
• N/a
• Monterey lacks protected bike lanes for safe transportation. I'd like to commute to work on my bike, but I don't feel safe cycling from my home near Veterans Park to downtown Monterey.
• E-bikers on the recreation trail and on the streets are not following signs. • Speeding, distracted drivers, sharing the road.
• Sloat and Del Monte
• Do not ride a bicycle... too old!
• Bicycles running stop signs and riding with no frontal white lights and rear red lights.
• #3
• Silly middle lane on North Fremont.
• Getting hit by distracted driver
• Not a bicyclist
• Cars hoping they will make the light to continue on Del Monte -- blocking the cross walk.
• n/a
• Bicycleis not obeying signals & signs
• Rec trail crossings

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 140, Packet Page 698 • Munras should have a stop at Pearl
• Lack of real bike lanes onn. Pacific or the parts of Munrus below Don Davi park
• NA
• Getting hit by a car during the day. The green paint is slippery when wet • Not enough space on side of road. If there’s an obstacle, there’s no real safe way to maneuver without stopping and checking if a car is coming because you’ll need to turn into the road a bit to get past. I’d ride my bike more if there were a protected lane for bikes that drivers have to respect. I also think there’s over reliance on the rec trail for bikes rather than creating bike lanes.

Some of the avid bicyclists would be better biking on the side of the road and leave the rec trail to pedestrians, surreys, and casual bike riders. • electric bikes/motorcycles on recreation trail
• same as above
• E bikes, too many mobility types on Rec Path (walk, run, reg bike, e bike, multiperson bike, strollers, skaters, tourists not looking where they're going. • Speeding cars in all areas
• Crossing DelMonte at Washington
• Distracted drivers
• Electronic bikes going too fast and causing a dangerous accident to those riding standard bikes.
• Absence of bike lanes
• inattentive drivers and drivers of parked cars (opening door) • parked cars opening doors
• NA
• Too dangerous to bike here.
• Almost no bike paths. The one on Fremont is useless.
• Distracted and/or impatient, careless drivers
• N/A
• People don’t understand the rules of the recreation trail and walking on the side path/DG when it’s narrow. Signs need to be more obvious and frequent.

So many near crashes
• Cars passing too close/fast and cars parking in bikeways. • The blind curve on Veterans Dr. immediately downhill from Veteran's Park can be scary. Some signs to increase awareness to the presence of bicyclists would help. -Via Mirada at Fremont - exiting Via Mirada to make a left onto Fremont can be a little scary.
• Speeding, no regard for traffic signs, Bikes are spoiling the walking path by the ocean. They fly by.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 141, Packet Page 699 • Drivers coming too close, not sharing the road!. Insufficient bike lanes. Bike lanes with debris, making them unuseable.
• Lack of bike lanes or other means to ride bike safely in downtown Monterey. • 3
• I don’t bike.
• I don't bike
• See above
• Aggressive drivers and other cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road • distracted drivers and sharing the road with cars
• Car speeds and safety between myself and drivers
• There are too many speeding e-bikes on the Rec Trail, making it unsafe for walkers and traditional bike riders.
• Drivers that are not paying attention or looking for parking. • None
• The bike lane at Pacific is insufficient. Traffic is traveling fast and there seems to be little space for bikes. It's also difficult to get across Pacific at the Alameda intersection. Also wish Old Town was more bicycle friendly. • I no longer cycle, but before I quit it was traffic, especially on the bike path because of walkers.
• Distracted drivers.
• Vehicle conficts
• Getting hit by a car
• N/A
• Being forced to ride close to parked cars and getting hit by their doors • N/A
• I don't bike
• Would really appreciate a clear, safe, designated and ideally separate bike solution (lanes) for getting from the Rec Trail to downtown locations.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 142, Packet Page 700 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
8 / 16
Q7 As a DRIVER, what is your primary safety concern?
Answered: 139 Skipped: 29

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 143, Packet Page 701 Q7 responses
• Length of time waiting for/at traffic intersections
• Other driver’s rolling stops.
• Being hit by inattentive or unlawful drivers
• I don’t see a pedestrian step out from curb. Other Distracted drivers. Bikes taking up room on already crowded streets
• Homeless druggies stumbling in the street.
• other cars not following traffic rules
• Other drivers speeding and running red lights.
• Drivers failing to stop at stop signs and stop lights • eBikes and pedestrian walkways at traffic signals.
• Avoiding aggressive drivers, road work and construction sites and unanticipated congestion.
• See above
• People in a hurry and not paying attention.
• Distracted drivers.
• motorized vehicles driven by under 15 year olds on city streets... • Lighthouse is too busy for street parking. Dedicated left turn lanes, one way streets, and delivery trucks all complicate the situation. This all compounds into a safety nightmare for drivers.
• Aggressive and nonattentive drivers
• E bikes that block traffic
• Giving enough space to pass a cyclist while watching for approaching vehicles.
• Munras/Pearl/Polk/Alvarado intersection Alameda/Pacific intersection • Avoiding distracted and/or aggressive drivers.
• Speed
• Lack of visibility at intersections on rural crossing due to street parking close to corners
• The merge from 68 onto 1 northbound. Double trouble.
• Road rage
• Certain stop lights have terrible timing and the que can be incredibly long. A few adjustments in signal length can make a major change. • Speed limits are too high
• Distracted drivers
• People obeying traffic signals and top issue is horn honking through the tunnel. My greatest wish is to have signs posted saying, “ Be kind to your fellow drivers, please avoid honking”.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 144, Packet Page 702 • Too many cars on Del Monte & Lighthouse. Long lights & unable to make Lt turns.
• Visibility around parked cars with oncoming traffic
• Other drivers--speeders and distracted drivers, particularly. Monterey could use more traffic calming.
• Intersection Blocking and drivers blocking turn lanes to merge. • Trying to turn left from Del Monte onto Sloat.
• Cyclists not yielding to traffic at Roberts Rd.
• too many drivers roll through stop signs and running yellow/red lights • Many aggressive drivers, speeding in excess of posted speed limits within residential streets. The situation makes it dangerous for many residents to leave or pull into the driveway due to the speed and impatience of many commuter drivers using our street as a shortcut/commuting route. Very dangerous traffic situations with little traffic enforcement and presence (officer or speed cameras)
• Better signage for tourists.
• No crackdown on the road ragers, speeders and red-light runners- especially on Lighthouse Ave. in New Monterey. The safety features mentioned below won't solve the problem of no police presence to enforce the already existing laws!
• drivers running stops and signals. blocking intersections during rush hour. speeding
• All of the above 2) Replace all street signs with easy to see, reflective signs • reckless driving, speeding, running stop signs and lights.1,9,3,6,8 • Hitting a pedestrian as they continue to stream across the street and not seem to have a car in the world about walking in front of a car. • Fast drivers.
• Driving defensively while watching out for others. (Bikes/People/Speeders) • traffic backup at the in & out drive through spilling over into Del Monte • I worry about pedestrians, especially in the later afternoon/evening when the sun obscures vision.
• Drivers speeding in residential areas.
• Not being able to anticipate walkers and cyclist that don’t follow the rules • Other cars hitting me by racing through traffic, cutting into and out of lanes. • pedestrians
• Drivers running stop signs
• Streets cramped by too many street parked cars
• Other cars speeding, tailgating and ignoring the rules of the road. NO presence of Traffic Officers at any time. Bicyclists riding wherever they want,

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 145, Packet Page 703 motorized bicyclists & scooters traveling on & off sidewalks with riders wearing dark clothing. Hard to be aware of all challenges presented by other users of roadways. , tailgating 7
• Pedestrians and cyclists in the road
• Gridlock on Lighthouse Ave, trying to cross Lighthouse from Foam going uphill
• NA
• Always have to wait for red-light runners. Two of my neighbors have had their cars totaled by red-light runner.
• None
• Kids on electric bikes with no helmet going fast; 68 and skyline Paint on streets faded
• People drive too fast. Speed limits should be brought down. People and wildlife are killed all over our city and people operating vehicles should be able to respond before they kill something.
• Aggressive drivers who do not observe the right of way for other drivers in many circumstances
• Speeding and other aggressive driving every day. Day and night. • Lack of proper synchronization of traffic light causes drives to try to go very fast to beat the light going red. The traffic light synchronization on Fremont going to highway 1 onramp is very poor and I inevitably hit a red light at El Estero car wash and again at Camino Aguajito intersection. • 2, 4, 10: Unexpected / unsafe behavior by other drivers • 2 signal timing is poor and lasts too long on Lighthouse. • Traffic signal timing on the Del Monte and Figueroa is less responsive to waiting traffic and sits longer than would be expected for non-existent traffic • Other drivers speeding, running red lights, distracted drivers. • Sloat and Del Monte
• Defensive Driving -- watching for other reckless drivers. • Reduced and substandard lane widths throughout the city often combined with higher than average speed limits. Poorly timed traffic signals throughout the city. Also, the bus lane approach to the stop at Fremont on Camino Aguajito near MPC is scary. Buses fly down this substandard lane width at 40+ mph very close to stopped traffic on Fremont.
• Tailgating drivers, lane changes without using turn signals and speeding. • Looking in 360 degrees for drivers doing anything except paying attention to their driving !!!
• Traversing the city from Old Town to the freeway north. • Distracted drivers

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 146, Packet Page 704 • The pedestrian timers going on every cycle. Also, I would love to see stoplights replaces with traffic circles wherever possible • Narrow lanes on Lighthouse
• People crossing from Del Monte, across the small park/island, to wharf parking. Rather than continuing to the Washington regulated cross walk • reckless drivers
• Old people driving
• Road maintenance
• NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY
• Width of lanes on Lighhouse. The Lighthou - Foam one way couplete plan should be implemented
• Distracted drivers, rudeness and a " me first " additude • I feel safe, but the congestion causes me to avoid driving downtown and spending money there.
• Low visibility of certain crosswalks. Worried I may hit someone because I can’t see them in time
• speeding vehicles
• Motorcycles and e-bikes
• 8
• same as above
• Intersection Fremont and Via Mirada
• Aggressive drivers, speeding on neighborhood streets, MPC students racing • Cars tailgating me for going the speed limit on the street I live on, Pacific Street.
• People making left turns into businesses on Lighthouse • Too many cars.
• Distracted or aggressive drivers. Often get cars entering my lane. • Speeding, pedestrians in streets due to no sidewalks. • 10th at Aguajito & Fremont; Alvarado at Jefferson
• I don't feel safe, driving on a road with bicycles on it...don't want to be there • Pulling out of side streets into busy, higher speed arteries. • Crazy drivers
• Not enough enforcement. Again.rules don't apply (to most drivers) • The stoplight system for the Fremont St. bike path is confusing. • Speeding on all streets, especially N. Fremont, Fremont, and Del Monte • Distracted pedestrians
• N/A
• Other drivers texting or otherwise distracted by devices.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 147, Packet Page 705 • -Franklin St. & Jefferson St. - The Watson and Larkin St. intersections for vehicular traffic are terrifying. Watson intersections on both streets could use more daylighting - parked cars limit visibility for crossing vehicles. Pearl at Polk/Alvarado and Hartnell crossing Polk
• People driving too fast and distracted driving.
• My life!
• others running stop signs and red lights
• Distracted and/or speeding drivers. People still text or use handheld phones to talk, have dogs on their laps, etc.
• Alvarado Street intersection at Pearl.
• Bicyclist ACTING AS IF THEY OWN THE CENTER OF THE
ROADWAY…AND NEVER FOLLOW TRAFFIC LAWS!
• 1
• People driving too fast. You have to slow down to a reasonable speed to look for pedestrians, people crossing the street, other cars, and bikers so you can respond in time.
• Lack of safety concerns by other drivers.
• Aggressive driving and running lights
• Distracted, aggressive, speeding drivers. I have frequently been passed by vehicles crossing double yellow lines, and I genuinely drive just at posted speeds
• Speeding and aggressive drivers - especially through the tunnel...more police to make traffic stops. PLEASE!
• Many tourists in the City that are not familiar and may be on their GPS or maps. People that ARE familiar are speeding and impatient aggressive drivers.
• Other drivers speed and distracted drivers
• Speeding and drivers running stop signs and stop lights. • Cyclists that are visiting and are not paying attention to the pedestrians • People speeding through streets
• It would be great to funnel more traffic on Munras (a two-lane street in each direction) rather than Pacific Street (a one-lane street in each direction). • Well kit streets where pedestrians could be crossing. Distracted drivers who are unfamiliar with Monterey’s odd roadways (like tourists and texters) • Drivers breaking traffic laws
• Too much traffic piled up along Del Monte Avenue, especially during the weekends. The traffic backs up from the tunnel toward the NPS and beyond. • Congestion, often caused in areas where tourists are driving and do not know their way (Cannery Row and Lighthouse in New Monterey, primarily).

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 148, Packet Page 706 • Aggressive drivers.
• Erratic drivers
• Bicyclists not following rules of the road
• Having idiot pedestrians and cyclists in my way
• Speeding, passing on right, unsafe lane changes
• Traffic
• Cars running red lights
• Unsafe drivers and large vehicles parked along the street that block visibility. • Slow drivers or not making signals in time
• People texting

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 149, Packet Page 707 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
9 / 16

19.55% 26

59.40% 79

55.64% 74

31.58% 42

17.29% 23

21.80% 29

37.59% 50
Q8 As a PEDESTRIAN, Which safety improvements do you recommend for the locations you have chosen above?
Answered: 133 Skipped: 35
Total Respondents: 133
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Street
Lighting
High
Visibility
Crosswalk
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
Audible Push
Buttons
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon
Midblock
Crosswalk

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Street Lighting
High Visibility Crosswalk
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Audible Push Buttons
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Midblock Crosswalk

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 150, Packet Page 708 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
10 / 16

50.51% 50

62.63% 62

24.24% 24

16.16% 16

61.62% 61
Q9 As a Bicyclist, Which safety improvements do you recommend for the locations you have chosen above?
Answered: 99 Skipped: 69
Total Respondents: 99
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Painted Bike
Lanes
Lane
Delineators/Fle
xible Bollards
Bicycle
Detection at
Traffic Signal
Bicycle Signal
Continuous
Bike-Lane

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Painted Bike Lanes
Lane Delineators/Flexible Bollards
Bicycle Detection at Traffic Signal
Bicycle Signal
Continuous Bike-Lane

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 151, Packet Page 709 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
11 / 16

19.33% 23

36.97% 44

39.50% 47

42.86% 51

36.97% 44

26.05% 31
Q10 As a DRIVER, Which safety improvements do you recommend for the locations you have chosen above?
Answered: 119 Skipped: 49
Total Respondents: 119
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Retroreflective
Backplate
Signal
Mini Roundabout
Stop Sign
Protected
Left-Turn Phase
Speed Feedback
Sign
Raised Median
and Narrow
Lanes

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Retroreflective Backplate Signal
Mini Roundabout
Stop Sign
Protected Left-Turn Phase
Speed Feedback Sign
Raised Median and Narrow Lanes

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 152, Packet Page 710 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
12 / 16

71.95% 118

3.66% 6

0.61% 1

15.85% 26

6.10% 10
Q11 Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Answered: 164 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 164
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
White or
Caucasian
Hispanic or
Latino
Black or
African
American
Native
American or
Alaska Native
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacifi...

Middle Eastern
Prefer not to
answer
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
White or Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
Native American or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Middle Eastern
Prefer not to answer
Other (please specify)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 153, Packet Page 711 Q11 “Other (please specify)” responses
• Why this question?
• why does it matter?
• Should not make any difference!
• Asian Indian
• color shouldn't matter, know the laws, educate the people • USA
• Both Asian & Black
• this has NO bearing on the issues
• American Citizen…
• Turkish

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 154, Packet Page 712 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
13 / 16

0.00% 0

8.43% 14

18.07% 30

41.57% 69

12.65% 21

1.20% 2
Q12 How old are you?
Answered: 166 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 166
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 18
18 to 34
35 to 49
50 to 64
65 or older
I prefer not
to answer
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 18
18 to 34
35 to 49
50 to 64
65 or older
I prefer not to answer
Other (please specify)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 155, Packet Page 713 Q12 “Other (please specify)” responses
• why does it matter?
• NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 156, Packet Page 714 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
14 / 16

46.06% 76

39.39% 65

0.61% 1

12.73% 21

1.21% 2
Q13 What is your gender?
Answered: 165 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 165
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Female
Male
Non-binary
I prefer not
to answer
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Female
Male
Non-binary
I prefer not to answer
Other (please specify)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 157, Packet Page 715 Q13 “Other (please specify)” responses
• why does it matter?
• AGAIN NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 158, Packet Page 716 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
15 / 16
Q14 What is the zip code where you reside?
Answered: 166 Skipped: 2

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 159, Packet Page 717 Q14 Responses
Home Zip
Code
Number of
Respondents
93940 138
93950 5
93955 5
93933 3
93901 2
93907 2
93908 2
93953 2
93405 1
93921 1
94940 1
93940-6022 1
93940-6811 1
93950-5152 1
"None of
your
business!"
1 Total 166

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 160, Packet Page 718 Identifying Safety Challenges for City of Monterey
16 / 16
Q15 Is there anything else related to safety you would like to share to this survey?
Answered: 94 Skipped: 74

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 161, Packet Page 719 Q15 Responses
• Roundabouts are a great model to follow .
• Electric bikes are a huge issue for pedestrians especially on Rec Trail. Lack or respect- very fast.
• Finish the construction.
• Thank you. I very frequently visit Fisherman's Wharf and the Custom House Plaza. Parking around Heritage Harbor, especially on Olivier, Scott and Van Buren is extraordinarily difficult.
• MPD enforcement of rules of the road. We are aggressively monitored by Traffic Enforcement who marks vehicles who park longer than 72 hours. Let’s devote even a fraction of resources towards moving violations. • Need more bus routes ro reduce traffic congestion.
• Thank you!
• Dry Creek Road should have sidewalks on both side of the street • Nothing we can do about stupid people looking at their phones while walking/driving...
• The green painted bike in Pacific Grove and Monterey are really slippery with any kind of moisture or rain Also better Bike lanes on Mark Thomas road and Josselyn canyon road.
• There should be less lights and more roundabouts
• I appreciate this survey to gather info. I'm in the board of the Monterey Bay Racing Team and am available to provide more input/insights. I can be reached at www.mbrt.bike
• The areas and interventions proposed in this scope of work do not address the issues that affect me
• Continue to maintain and improve the excellent bike path that exists. This infrastructure is a huge asset to our area and must be preserved. • Please do NOT Paint bike lanes, the paint by design causes safety issues when wet or covered in some debris (especially wet leaves) They are more slippery and require more maintenance to be less safe than regular asphalt. • My God! NO MORE GREEN PAINT unless you how stupid slippery it is when wet. Obviously the City missed input from actual cyclists for that one.

Connect Fremont. Get a multi-mode corridor on Josselyn Canyon Road. • Please make bikers and pedestrians a priority, not cars. This will not only help boost the tourism economy, but improve the health of your citizens and lower carbon emissions. Make it safer for bikers by making protected bike lanes and by making a system of connected bike paths so when you leave the coastal trail to different parts of the city you still feel safe. • See above

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 162, Packet Page 720 • It would be helpful to have more officers patrolling Lighthouse Ave, & Del Monte Ave during commuting hours, morning and evening.
• Traffic taming needed on Foam off Lighthouse and LIGHTS at ped Xwalk at Dickman & Foam (at Scholze Park Senior Center). thank you. • If the improvements to bike lanes are adopted I will bike much more often • Thanks for doing this work!
• With the future housing units on Garden Rd, we need bike lanes and a real sidewalk there so that those residents can get to the businesses on Fremont, etc, without driving. By all means, it's time to find ways to make it easier to navigate the city without cars. We were not built for all this car traffic. The trolley in the summer is a wonderful idea and has been helpful, and this system should be expanded.
• One-way streets need better signage for tourists.
• Said it all above- enforce the laws of noise ordinance, speeding, red-light running and motorized vehicles on the rec trail.
• MPD needs to start writing more traffic violations.
• Remove bike lane to nowhere on N. Fremont - I've only seen 1 cyclist use it, multiple vehicles hit it and many driver's confused by the extra lanes/lights.

Sorry but the old way with a bike lane on the right side of the road just works better.
• need more traffic control officers and speed feedback signs • Start repairs in the neighborhoods!!!!! They are really bad.....drive around and experience them and the damage they do to cars/tires!!! • Casanova Ave desperately needs sidewalk & lighting on the 500 block and roundabouts to reduce speeding
• Improved lighting on the rec trail at night
• Thank you!
• When main bike path on Fremont is damaged I feel the cost is so high to repair that it should be ground safe but left alone and go back to plants only this is a huge cost to the tax payers and not realized and actually an ugly eye sore to many many people
• Feels like no enforcement for the creative loud exhausts racing through the tunnel and New Monterey.
• tourists often feel unconstrained
• Overgrowth from homeowner's landscaping also impacts whether sidewalks adjoining their property are ADA accessible.
• I hope the city doesn’t build another bike lane like Fremont St. and I hope it doesn’t waste more money and hire Kimley Horn for this study.. Simple

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 163, Packet Page 721 things like police presence monitoring a site would work without the city having to turn Monterey into a South San Jose.
• Recommendation: restrict left turns onto Lighthouse Ave during rush hour for some of the cross streets like McClellen and Hoffman to prevent gridlock and residents can get home.
• Good idea to wear light colored/reflective clothing after dark. Please no all black w/hoodie.
• Lighthouse is a mess after 3 pm. I know that's unavoidable, due to the tunnel.

More responsive pedestrian "buttons" would be good.
• Sign the monterey marina exit flow better. Exiting across the rec trail by the brewery in a car at night is brutal
• Slowing cars or finding alternative ways for us to move around our city helps reduce our vehicle emissions, leading to longer healthier lives for our citizens and our planet. Also please consider using automated speeding detectors that would mail a ticket to car owners whose license plates are captured when they are driving too fast, and follow up when people don't pay the fine. • Can’t think of anything now
• Daily speeding and extremely loud cars on lighthouse Avenue to the point where they are almost as loud as emergency vehicle sirens. When these racers go by, I can’t even hear people if I’m talking on the phone or watching a movie. This has been a problem for far too long.
• Disconnected pedestrian routes force people to cross the street more often (or at unsafe locations). For example, the sidewalk along Camino El Estero is on the opposite side of the street from the crosswalk across Fremont.

Perhaps we could have a large, decorative pedestrian overpass over Fremont (large enough for ramps for bikes and wheelchairs). People could enjoy views of Lake El Estero and Laguna Mirada while safety crossing Fremont • Diagonal overhead bridges for pedestrian crossing in high traffic zones. \ / / \ • I feel very safe biking and walking in Monterey … thank you for all your efforts!
• Thank you
• Streetscaping - safer places for people of all transportation modes to commute for work and pleasure around Monterey.
• None, thank you for the consideration and work.
• There is NOT enough room for a roundabout at Hwy 68 & Josselyn Cyn Road!!!!
• Figure out bikes, electric and gas bikes, scooters. Unlicensed and running stop signs and traffic lights. Some going up to 30 m.p.h... • Get a budget for the main road repairs. Real repairs, not patches. I know work times are tough but needed.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 164, Packet Page 722 • Rather than lights and signs, consider safety in design. • Time to address the presidio traffic … divert from the neighborhood to Hwy68.

Opening access to 68 would resolve the mess on Lighthouse Ave and the neighborhood’s frustrations.
• We need speed bumps on Major Sherman Lane.......PLEASE !! • No thank you for sharing it.
• There needs to be a similar survey or listening session for the rec trail. So many older persons complain about how they do not feel safe on the rec trail and are scared to be run over or knocked over by a bike. It’s been unpopular to do a use study and think outside the box when it comes to making changes/ updates to the rec trail. Another issue is there should be more consistency throughout the full length of the rec trail. Rules are different in the Monterey section compared to the PG section. For visitors, it’s all confusing and they just do whatever they want. At the end of the day, without enforcement of the signs/ speed limits or physical barriers designating a walk side and a bike side, there will continue to be issues. I think this should be studied and looked into, as it comes up every year by older persons and persons with disabilities and seems to be ignored or considered a non issue.

Please consider a focus group or survey or use study on the rec trail as it’s unclear when this was last done. And thank you for putting this together and for all that you do to help make Monterey a lovely place to live! :-) • I feel safer driving/biking/walking in the City of Monterey than most other places I travel in. Overall, Monterey gets a B+ from me in travel safety. • Thank you for reaching out!
• i’d like to see the bike path at Casa Verde not run right through the road. • Don't know how to fix drivers who disregard the laws completely. There are so few officers to patrol but more police presence might be a good deterrent. • I would like to see speed limits enforced. There is a great need to improve the sidewalks on Mindy’s, from Soledad to downtown. Many pedestrians use this route, but the walkways are uneven, broken up, ADA inaccessible for my family member, and very close to cars traveling along at a fast 40 mph. The speed limit on Mindy’s should return to a safer 35mph. Thank you for this opportunity to give my input.
• The street resurfacing was terrible for bicyclists -- uneven, poorly done. • The Rec. Trail should be separated into two distinct sections. Too many pedestrians walk in groups spanning the width of the path. • Really concerned about high speed Electric Bikes causing harm to those walking or riding regular bikes.
• none

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 165, Packet Page 723 • surprisingly FEW bicyclists in this town ;we need a serious dileniated bicycle way on 68, and over Carmel Hill,
• The design of intersections, signs, and signals is adequate except for Sloat/Del Monte. The area for most potential improvement is enhanced enforcement of traffic laws on streets and rec. trail.
• The sidewalk by Lighthouse along the Presidio is too narrow and unprotected from fast and heavy traffic.
• No
• Please work towards the bike paths proposed in "Monterey on the Move". I use and like the North Fremont bike path and look forward to further connections to it.
• Has the city considered widening Lighthouse Ave. sidewalks and adding more bulb-outs? Removing one lane towards PG could open up more space - maybe replace a lane with a dedicated bus/taxi only lane. I can't connect why Monterey has 4 high-capacity westbound lanes into PG between Foam and Lighthouse that experiences little traffic relative to only two eastbound lanes on Lighthouse where traffic is much worse. -Also, I would like to see the city make Alvarado pedestrian-first - no vehicles, except city, emergency, transit.

This could be great for businesses downtown.
• Yes. Traffic is not an issue you can take care of with another traffic light or bike lane. People do not observe the lights and regulations already in place.

There is NO ENFORCEMENT. People just do what they want. Monterey is an old city with old narrow historic streets. It is lovely. Tourists and residents alike need to follow the laws made for safety. They don’t.
• Lost tourists who change lanes suddenly to make last minute turns (eg Lighthouse/Foam split)
• We need police back on bike patrols, walking and interacting with the public and just more visible in general—
• Not at this time.
• No. Monterey is doing a superb job dealing with bottle necks and rush hours, including the Presidio. Good work, you all! If there is anything I'd like to see is having the Presidio reopened to general traffic. The security concerns are ridiculous, and the land was given to the city for permanent thoroughfare. But good luck with that, sadly said. Living in New Monterey, and former DLI employee.
• I think the experts should come up with the best solutions. And sidewalks weren’t listed as a pedestrian option.
• Stop being Racist, Ageist, MAINTAIN THE ROADWAYS, CUT THE WEEDS TO INCREASE VISIBILITY AND LOWER FIRE HAZARDS.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 166, Packet Page 724 • The speed limit is 35 to 30 mph on Del Monte Avenue but I am constantly seeing people drive 40 to 50 mph. I have seen delivery drivers going 50 mph in the rain. Lowering the speed limit won’t change anything. We need another light or something to slow people down. Not a roundabout. • Why is it that i can driver a short while and see several drivers break traffic laws, yet no police issuing tickets.
• More PD enforcement Cameras and violations sent tickets • More of the cross-street light signals on Lighthouse Ave should be "smart" lights (auto-change instead of timed for the cross-traffic) - also at Del Monte and Figueroa
• There should be a bike path on Lighthouse, but no clue how to connect that and the tunnel area. Good luck though! Hi Parker! (if you're the one taking these in) -Spencer A
• Haven’t seen traffic police (motorcycle) might be helpful if they/he were visible 8-9 am noon and 4-6 pm
• Thank you for offering it and requesting feedback
• The improvements suggested in 8, 9, and 10 miss the point and won't solve the real problems.
• No, thank you. But I would like to complain about the timing of the lights when turning left into the harbor parking area from Del Monte - they are really lengthy, even when no or few cars are in the cross street or wharf ready to cross Del Monte.
• Speed enforcement
• Properties should be required to cut back/remove foliage that blocks the views of drivers, pedestrians and bikers. Foliage blockage is everywhere in Monterey!
• Speed enforcement on rec trail, even if done sparingly • I do think Monterey is a fairly safe city, lots of signals, stop signs, warning, signs that unfortunately tourists and busy locals do not pay attention to. Not sure the city can do anything about that, aside from maybe putting in the video cameras on the traffic signals to catch people speeding, ignoring the red light and not giving pedestrians and bicyclists the proper right of way. thank you.
• No sponses

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 167, Packet Page 725 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: 1st Reading of the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Update (Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3) (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a first reading of an
ordinance amending the sidewalk vending regulations.

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 was signed into law on
September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with its provisions, which are codified in Government Code sections 51038 and 51039. In accordance with State law, additional local regulations were established by City Council in 2019 through Ordinance No. 3603. If the City Council does not adopt the proposed amendment, sidewalk vending will continue to be allowed in compliance with the existing City and State regulations.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering
amendments to the sidewalk
vending ordinance to align with SB
946 and address local concerns.
 Proposed changes include
adjustments to vendor spacing,
display height, operating hours,
and vending area dimensions.
 Staff disagrees with certain vendor
requests, such as vending along
the seawall and Custom House
Plaza, citing safety and congestion
concerns.
 The ordinance revisions anticipate
SB 635, which may prohibit
criminal background checks for
vendors, and include provisions for
Spanish accessibility.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 726 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No changes to applicable fees are proposed with this action. Therefore, no fiscal impact is anticipated.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project proposes minor alterations to the City Code to allow sidewalk vending that does not result in land use or density changes. 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 proposed sidewalk vending is temporary and will be conducted on City sidewalks. The environment is not particularly sensitive.

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 proposed ordinance will not result in a cumulative impact as the sidewalk vending is temporary and will occur on sidewalks.

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 proposed ordinance allows sidewalk vending. No significant impact is anticipated as the vending is temporary and will occur on sidewalks.

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 ordinance does not enable sidewalk vending on the City’s officially designated state scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The sidewalk vending is temporary and would be located on public sidewalks which are not listed 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 sidewalk vending would be a temporary use located on public sidewalks. As a result, no substantial adverse change is anticipated. The project does not involve ground disturbance; therefore, no impacts to archaeological or historical resources will occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose not to amend the existing sidewalk vending regulations. This would allow vendors to operate under the regulations currently in place.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 727 №10/24
DISCUSSION:

The City Council considered amendments to the City’s sidewalk vending ordinance on April 15, 2025 and passed the ordinance’s first reading:

Action: Passed draft Ordinance to a second reading, as amended to change the required distance between sidewalk vendors in Section 13(a) from 15 feet to 10 feet and to grant staff ministerial approval over determining the vendor registration process for the spaces at the mouth of the Wharf.

The second reading was scheduled for May 6, 2025. The City Council tabled the agenda item. Staff recommended this item be tabled so that staff could consult with an attorney group (Public Counsel) who specified that they represented the Monterey Vendor Association.

Staff met with Public Counsel on May 20, 2025 to discuss the ordinance and possible proposed changes. The City requested their changes by May 23rd and Public Counsel indicated they would anticipate responding by May 27th. After no response was received, City Attorney Davi sent a reminder email on June 6th for the information. On June 9th, Public Counsel Directing Attorney indicated that the Monterey Vendor Association would be communicating directly with the City by June 20th. On June 19th, the City received proposed changes from individual sidewalk vendors James Burns, India Weeks, Mira Nissin, Athena Zenizo, and Rafael Zenizo (Attachment 2). The following table summarizes the requested changes and city response.

James Burns and India Weeks
Requested Changes
City Response
Display Height - Allow displays up to
8’ in height. If a tent or canopy is
used, displays may extend to the full
height of the structure provided is safe
and stable.

Ordinance Section 8 was amended to
allow displays not less than 28” or
more than 60” off the ground. The
increased height allows for taller items
to be displayed. It does not allow the
full 8’ as requested; however, it does
provide flexibility for various types of
merchandise to be displayed.

Unattended Equipment – Vendors
must not leave tables or vending
equipment unattended before setup.

After setting up, vendors may leave
their area unattended for up to 60
minutes. Any table or structure left
unattended before setup may be
removed by city sanitation services.

Ordinance Section 10 currently specifies
that sidewalk vendors shall not leave
vending equipment or goods unattended
at any time. Any equipment or objects
used for sidewalk vending purposes
must be removed from public property
at 10:00 p.m. or by the hours of
operation imposed on other businesses
or uses on the same street, whichever is
least restrictive. Any equipment or
objects used for sidewalk vending
purposes left on City property outside of
permitted sidewalk vending hours will be
considered discarded and may be
immediately seized or disposed of by
the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 728 №10/24
James Burns and India Weeks
Requested Changes
City Response
Space Dimensions – On weekends,
vendors are permitted vending areas
of up to 12 feet by 12 feet, including
display and shade elements such as
umbrellas or tents.

City staff disagrees with this proposal
because it reduces the number of
potential vending spaces in the area
between the wharf parking lot and
Wharf 1, a highly desirable location
for vending. Staff is also
recommending that a walkway be
maintained between the seawall and
vending area (see Seawall Vending
discussion below).

Ordinance Section 12 establishes a
maximum vendor area of thirty two
square feet with a maximum width of
4 feet excluding the space vendor
own person occupies.

Structure Height – Items, displays or
shading structures may not exceed 8
feet unless housed in a tent or canopy
in which case the maximum height
may equal that of the structure itself.

Ordinance Section 13 currently
specifies that no sidewalk vendor
shall use or display any item,
equipment, or structure greater than
eight feet in height or that extends or
overhangs more than four inches.

Operating Hours and Setup –
Vendors may begin setting up no
earlier than 5:00 a.m. Setup must
begin immediately upon arrival.

Tables left unattended before setup
may be removed by the city. No
vendor may set up or leave vending
materials between 10:00 pm and 5:00
am.

Ordinance Section 13 specifies that
sidewalk vending hours are limited in
areas zoned for nonresidential use
will be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. or the hours of operation
imposed on other businesses or uses
on the same street, whichever is least
restrictive.

Vendor Spacing – Vendors must
maintain a minimum distance of 5 feet
between each other to promote
comfortable and accessible public
space.

Ordinance Section 15 was amended
to reduce distance between sidewalk
vendors from 15’ to 10’ as directed by
the City Council on April 15th.

Seawall Vending – Sidewalk vending
is allowed along the seawall provided
that it does not obstruct pedestrian
flow or emergency access.

City staff disagrees with this proposal
because maintaining a walkway
directly adjacent to the ocean is an
important public objective as detailed
below.

Ordinance Section 20 prohibits
sidewalk vending on the sidewalk
between the Harbormaster’s Office
located at 250 Figueroa Street and
Wharf 1 within 12’ of the walkway
railing or rock causeway.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 729 №10/24
James Burns and India Weeks
Requested Changes
City Response
As documented in the City’s
Ordinance, the City’s Harbormaster’s
Office located at 250 Figueroa Street
north to Wharf 1, which is less than
1/2 mile long and is a major tourist
area receiving approximately four
million visitors each year. This area is
adjacent to the beach, the marina, the
recreation trail, State-owned property
where sidewalk vending is prohibited,
and the City’s Waterfront Parking Lot.

This area offers residents and visitors
a clear view of the scenic Monterey
Bay and the marina, offering scenic
vistas and wildlife viewing, including
harbor seals, sea otters, sea lions,
birds, and sometimes whales.

California State Historic Landmark #1
(Custom House) is located adjacent to
this congested area and it draws
additional people to the vicinity and
multiple festivals take place in Custom
House Plaza. Users of the Waterfront
Parking Lot, which has 433 regular
spaces, 10 ADA spaces, 11 bus/RV
spaces and 1 compact space, must
be afforded access to the wharf, the
beach, and the bay. Based on the
physical characteristics of the area,
additional sidewalk vending
regulations are necessary because
the equipment and actives that
accompany vending, including tables,
displays, and interacting with
pedestrians is incompatible with the
confines of this space and poses a
risk of accidents and injury to walkers,
runners, bicycle riders, and visitors as
they attempt to navigate the path
congested with vendors.

Recreation Trail Access – Vending is
allowed adjacent to the Monterey Bay
Coastal Recreation Trail. The trail
must be clearly and lawfully marked
as a Class I bike path.

The City can mark the trail and 25’
setback from the Recreation Trail
centerline. This effort does not need
to be codified.

Planter Spacing for Public Safety –
Planters will be repositioned to line
the bike path at 14’ intervals or be
arranged in coherent evenly spaced
City staff needs to maintain flexibility
on planter location to respond to site
issues. The planters also green the
paved area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 730 №10/24
James Burns and India Weeks
Requested Changes
City Response
rows to ensure safety and prevent
cyclists form veering into pedestrian
walkways.

Custom House Plaza – Sidewalk
vending is permitted on city property,
including the light-colored bricks
around the Custom House Plaza
unless the area is actively in use for a
permitted festival.

City staff disagrees with this proposal.

Ordinance Section 21 does not allow
sidewalk vending in, on, along or
within 25 feet on either side of the
centerline of the Monterey Bay
Coastal Trail within the City of
Monterey.

As documented in the City’s
Ordinance, the City’s Harbormaster’s
Office located at 250 Figueroa Street
north to Wharf 1, which is less than
1/2 mile long and is a major tourist
area receiving approximately four
million visitors each year. This area is
adjacent to the beach, the marina, the
recreation trail, state owned property
where sidewalk vending is prohibited,
and the City’s waterfront parking lot.

This area offers residents and visitors
a clear view of the scenic Monterey
Bay and the marina, scenic vistas and
wildlife viewing, including harbor
seals, sea otters, sea lions, birds, and
sometimes whales. California State
Historic Landmark #1 (Custom
House) is located adjacent to this
congested area and it draws
additional people to the vicinity and
multiple festivals take place in Custom
House plaza. Users of the waterfront
parking lot, which has 433 regular
spaces, 10 ADA spaces, 11 bus/RV
spaces and 1 compact space, must
be afforded access to the wharf, the
beach, and the bay. Abased on the
physical characteristics of the area,
additional sidewalk vending
regulations are necessary because
the equipment and actives that
accompany vending, including tables,
displays, and interacting with
pedestrians is incompatible with the
confines of this space and poses a
risk of accidents and injury to walkers,
runners, bicycle riders, and visitors as
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 6, Packet Page 731 №10/24
James Burns and India Weeks
Requested Changes
City Response
they attempt to navigate the path
congested with vendors.

Weekend Reservation System – A
reservation system similar to the one
used in Santa Cruz, CA will be
implemented for weekends.

Participation may be limited to
between 20 and 25 vendors on
Saturdays and Sundays only.

Section 16 allows the City to develop
and implement a lottery or registration
process and guidelines for the area
between the Harbor Master’s Office at
250 Figueroa to Wharf 1.

Comprehensive Vending Map – The
City of Monterey is requested to
create and publish a comprehensive
map outlining all public areas deemed
viable and legal for sidewalk vending.

The City has prepared a generalized
map highlighting areas where
sidewalk vending is permitted in
public areas. Since the City’s
ordinance is permissive and allows
sidewalk vending in parks and
sidewalks where 4’ can be
maintained, it is impossible to develop
a detailed map that shows all public
areas.

Spanish Accessibility – The City is
requested to provide a sidewalk
vending application and translated
version of this ordinance in Spanish to
ensure full accessibility.

The City will provide an application
and ordinance in Spanish.

Additionally, SB 635 is pending, and if approved, will prohibit the City from collecting criminal background information. The ordinance revisions consider the possibility of SB 635 passing, and it rescinds portions of the existing ordinance requiring background checks should SB 635 become law.

In conclusion, staff recommends the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 32 of the Monterey City Code amending the sidewalk vending regulations as drafted.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 32 of the City Code

2. Email from India Weeks and James Burns, June 19, 2025

3. Letter from Public Counsel dated April 28, 2025
e: Sidewalk Vending Licensees
Neighborhood Associations
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, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 7, Packet Page 732 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

SIDEWALK VENDING ORDINANCE UPDATE
(MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 32, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, since 1936, Monterey City Code section 32-3 has generally prohibited the use of public property for transacting commercial business. Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 was signed into law on September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with its provisions, which are codified in Government Code sections 51038 and 51039;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3606 on December 3, 2019, recognizing that sidewalk vending provides important entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities to low-income and immigrant communities, contributes to a dynamic public space, and increases access to desired goods and culturally significant food and merchandise;
WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that the act of vending on sidewalks and other areas of the public right-of-way has the potential for increased safety hazards, such as, but not limited to, inhibiting the ability of disabled individuals and other pedestrians to follow a safe path of travel; interfering with the performance of police, firefighter, and emergency medical personnel services; encouraging pedestrians to cross mid-block or stand in roadways to purchase food and other items; and creating obstacles and contributing to congestion for pedestrian, vehicle, and bicycle traffic;
WHEREAS, restrictions on sidewalk vending are needed to accommodate vendors and their equipment, while also safe-guarding the flow of pedestrian movement on sidewalks and in the public right-of-way, and ensuring no interference with the performance of police, firefighter, and emergency medical personnel services;
WHEREAS, Cannery Row area is a popular tourist attraction in the City with over 5.7 million visitors per year with the average number of pedestrians in the area topping one thousand beginning at 11 am on weekdays and 10 am on weekends and holidays. Additionally, the Monterey Bay Aquarium is located on Cannery Row and has an annual average attendance of 1.8 million visitors;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based on the heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic and physical characteristics of the sidewalks in the Cannery Row area, the presence of vendors on sidewalks along Cannery Row between David Avenue and Hoffman Avenue between the hours of 11 am - 6 pm Monday through Friday and 10 am - 9 pm on weekends and Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 8, Packet Page 733 2 holidays would obstruct such sidewalks thereby jeopardizing the safe and convenient circulation of the large number of pedestrians and motorists who utilize the streets and sidewalks in Cannery Row;
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Fairgrounds are located within the City’s North Fremont Business District and periodically hosts major events, including the Monterey Jazz Festival, the California Roots music festival, and the Monterey County Fair; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based on the physical characteristics of the sidewalks adjacent to the Monterey Fairgrounds and its respective parking area, the presence of vendors on sidewalks along Fairground Road between Garden Road and Airport Road before, during, and after major events would obstruct such sidewalks thereby jeopardizing the safe and convenient circulation of the large number of pedestrians and motorists who utilize the streets and sidewalks in areas adjacent to the Monterey Fairgrounds; WHEREAS, in order to promote mobility and safety of pedestrians and vehicles at all times, the City Council has determined that prohibiting persons from engaging in sidewalk vending two hours before, during, and two hours after, major events at the Monterey Fairgrounds is necessary to preserve and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail, an 18-mile, regional, multi-purpose trail, is a unique natural resource and recreational opportunity that should be preserved for the public’s recreational use and enjoyment and protected against commercial activity that would unreasonably interfere with the scenic and natural character of the trail;
WHEREAS, the nearby Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary prohibits the discharge of balloons into the Sanctuary as they present a hazard to both wildlife and the marine environment. Additionally, foil balloons lead to multiple power outages in the state of California each year due to the balloons coming into contact with overhead power lines; WHEREAS, City of Monterey Parks employees have to spend additional hours to clean areas where water balloons, glitter, confetti, and streamer spray, also known as aerosol string, have been used due to the many small pieces left in the parks. These items are also often made of plastic, which does not biodegrade;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting the sale of helium balloons, water balloons, plastic glitter, confetti, and streamer spray, also known as aerosol string, by sidewalk vendors will protect wildlife, the marine ecosystem, and the public; WHEREAS, the inherent nature of sidewalk vending and the ability of such vendors to move quickly from place to place in the community, including near parks, schools, and other places frequented by children, warrants imposing certain regulatory measures, including requiring background checks, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community; Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 9, Packet Page 734 WHEREAS, in January 2023, SB 972 took effect and updated the California Retail Food Code to exempt some sidewalk vending operations from the requirement to obtain a health permit and the City Code needs to be updated to reflect this change; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail, which is a Class 1 multiuse path, is heavily used by both visitors and locals and that vending on or along the Trail would jeopardize the safe and convenient circulation of the large number of pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who utilize the trail; WHEREAS, since the enactment of Ordinance 3606, the City has observed health and safety issues related to sidewalk vending, and it has received complaints regarding safety, aesthetics, congestion of public spaces, among other complaints, resulting from sidewalk vending activity. In particular there are concerns with sidewalk vending operations interfering with the flow of runners, bikers, and pedestrians on the recreation trail, and obstructing oceanfront views and coastal access. Given this, there is a need for additional regulation of sidewalk vendors on public property that are directly related to objective health, safety, and welfare concerns created by competing uses of sidewalks by residents, visitors, and sidewalk vendors. The Council further finds and declares that regulations on sidewalk vending in City parks, open spaces, and beach access areas are necessary to ensure the public’s use and enjoyment of natural resources and recreational opportunities and are necessary to prevent an undue concentration of commercial activity that unreasonably interferes with the scenic and natural character of the parks, open spaces, and beach areas. In addition, umbrellas, shade structures, and display items that are higher than eight feet can more easily catch the coastal wind and pose safety concerns;
WHEREAS, the City’s Harbormaster’s Office located at 250 Figueroa Street north to Wharf 1, which is less than 1/2 mile long and is a major tourist area receiving approximately four million visitors each year. This area is adjacent to the beach, the marina, the recreation trail, state owned property where sidewalk vending is prohibited, and the City’s Waterfront Parking Lot. This area offers residents and visitors a clear view of the scenic Monterey Bay and the marina. This area offers scenic vistas and wildlife viewing, including harbor seals, sea otters, sea lions, birds, and sometimes whales. California State Historic Landmark No. 1 (Custom House) is located adjacent to this congested area, and it draws additional people to the vicinity and multiple festivals take place in Custom House Plaza. Users of the Waterfront Parking Lot, which has 433 regular spaces, 10 ADA spaces, 11 bus/RV spaces and one compact space, must be afforded access to the Fisherman’s Wharf, the beach, and the Monterey Bay. Based on the physical characteristics of the area, additional sidewalk vending regulations are necessary because the equipment and activities that accompany vending, including tables, displays, and interacting with pedestrians is incompatible with the confines of this space and poses a risk of accidents and injury to walkers, runners, bicycle riders, and visitors as they attempt to navigate the path congested with vendors;
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public peace, health, safety and/or welfare of the community, is a valid exercise of local police power and is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 10, Packet Page 735 4 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a Municipal Code amendment to modify sidewalk vending regulations in areas with existing sidewalk vending regulations, which would not result in any changes in population density or traffic patterns. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. No significant impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

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

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

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). No impact will occur because there would be no improvements or damage to 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. Hazardous waste sites will not be impacted because no construction is proposed.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code section 32-3.01, Sidewalk Vending – Definitions, is hereby amended to insert the following definitions in alphabetical order, and the existing definitions are to be re-lettered in alphabetical order:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 11, Packet Page 736 “Above-ground structure” means any structure affixed to a sidewalk, including a streetlight, tree well, parking meter, utility structure, utility box, bike rack, mailbox, trash can, elevator, kiosk, newspaper rack, picnic shelter, bench, wall, sign pole, traffic signal pole, signal pushbutton pole, planter, and stairs.”
“Beach access point” means public stairways, ramps, and other physical access points to the beach.
“School” means an institution of learning that offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education Code or that is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of Education. This definition does not include a vocational or professional institution or an institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university.”
SECTION 4: Monterey City Code section 32-3.02(b)(4) is hereby amended as follows:
“If the applicant will vend food products and if required by the California Retail Food Code, a valid Monterey County Health Department permit issued to the vendor and, if applicable, to the transport vehicle.”
SECTION 5: Monterey City Code section 32-2.02(b)(7) is deleted effective January 1, 2026 if Senate Bill 635 (Durazo) becomes law.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code section 32-3.03(b)(6) is deleted effective January 1, 2026 if Senate Bill 635 (Durazo) becomes law, and existing subsections (b)(7) and (b)(8) will be renumbered as subsections (b)(6) and (b)(7).

SECTION 7: Monterey City Code section 32-3.03(b)(6) is hereby amended as follows:
“Proof of a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the sidewalk vendor and naming the City as an additional insured against loss by reason of injury or damage that may result to persons or property from the negligent operation or defective construction of the sidewalk vending device, or from violation of this chapter or of any other law of the State or the United States. The insurance policy shall be in the sum as determined adequate by the City’s Finance Director, or designee, which said sum shall be listed on the sidewalk vending permit application. Such insurance shall further provide that the policy shall not terminate or be canceled without 30 calendar days’ advance written notice to the City.”
SECTION 8: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(f) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not display any goods for sale on the ground. Displays may not be less than 28 inches or more than 60 inches off the ground. Sidewalk vendors shall not display any goods for sale on any above-ground structure.”
SECTION 9: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(g) is amended as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 12, Packet Page 737 6 “Sidewalk vendors shall not connect to an external source of power, water, or any other utilities located on public property.” SECTION 10: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(j) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not leave vending equipment or goods unattended at any time. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes must be removed from public property at 10:00 p.m. or by the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes left on City property outside of permitted sidewalk vending hours will be considered discarded and may be
immediately seized or disposed of by the City.”
SECTION 11: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(k) is amended as follows:
“To facilitate the enforcement of this chapter, every sidewalk vendor must display their City-issued sidewalk vending permit on their pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance when
operating. Every sidewalk vendor must possess proof of
insurance required by this chapter when operating.”
SECTION 12: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(s) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vendor shall occupy a space exceeding 32 square feet, greater than eight feet in length, or four feet in width, including vending equipment but excluding the space the sidewalk vendors own person occupies.”
SECTION 13: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07 Sidewalk vending- General regulations, subsections (t) through (y) are added as follows:
t. No sidewalk vendor shall use or display any item, equipment, or structure greater than eight feet in height or that extends or overhangs more than four inches.
u. Sidewalk vending customer seating is prohibited.
v. No vending equipment may be attached to or contact any above-ground structure.
w. Sidewalk vending hours limitations in areas zoned for nonresidential use will be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 13, Packet Page 738 x. Roaming sidewalk vending is limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. for areas that are exclusively residential. y. Sidewalk vendors shall not use portable generators, outdoor wood burning ovens, charcoal barbecues, or gasoline or
kerosene.

SECTION 14: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08 Sidewalk vending- Specific regulations, is retitled as Monterey City Code section 32-3.08, Sidewalk Vending- Location regulations.

SECTION 15: Monterey City Code sections 32-3.08(a) and (b) are amended as follows:
“a. Stationary sidewalk vending shall not be located:

1. within 10 feet of any:

A. other sidewalk vendor;
B. driveway;
C. marked crosswalk; or
D. fire escape.

2. within 15 feet of any:

A. intersection;
B. building entrance;
C. loading zone, parking space or access ramp designed for individuals with disabilities;
D. fire hydrant;
E. red curb marking (no parking);
F. public restroom;
G. any decorative fountain, statute, monument, memorial, or art installation; or
H. curb ramp.

3. within 25 feet of:

A. outdoor dining or patio area;
B. any beach access point;
C. Municipal Wharf No. 1; or
D. Municipal Wharf No. 2.

4. within 100 feet of any:

A. vehicle entrance to any Fire Station, Police Department, Hospital, or any other structure dedicated to health and safety emergency matters; or
B. street or sidewalk closure.

5. within 500 feet of:

A. the property line of any school while children are going to or from the school, during a recess period, or within 20 minutes before or after the school’s opening or closing hours;
B. a permitted certified farmers’ market or any area subject to a special event permit for the duration of the permit; or C any freeway on-ramp or off-ramp as defined in the California Vehicle Code.
b. Stationary sidewalk vendors are prohibited from:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 14, Packet Page 739 8 1. vending in areas that are exclusively residential; or

2. vending within five feet of any above-ground structure.” SECTION 16: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(c) is amended as follows:
“(c) Sidewalk Vanding Location Allocation Process

1. Sidewalk Vending locations are available on a first-come first-served basis.

2. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the Community Development Director, or designee, is authorized to develop and implement a lottery or registration process and guidelines for the area between the Harbor Master’s office at 250 Figueroa to Wharf 1.”
SECTION 17: the first sentence of Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d) is amended as follows:
“In addition to the other applicable requirements of this chapter, sidewalk vending in City parks is subject to the following regulations, and in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of this chapter, this section shall govern sidewalk vending in City parks:”
SECTION 18: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(2) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vending in City parks may only occur during the park’s normal open hours.

Sidewalk vending is permitted between 8:00 a.m. and sunset in parks where there is no designated closing time.”
SECTION 19: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(5) is added as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not vend within 50 feet of another sidewalk vendor.” SECTION 20: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(e) is amended as follows:
“e. Sidewalk vending is prohibited on the sidewalk between the Harbor Master Office located at 250 Figueroa Street and Wharf 1 within 12’ of the walkway railing or rock causeway.

SECTION 21: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(g) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within 25 feet on either side of the centerline of Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail within the City of Monterey.” SECTION 22: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(i) is added as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within Simoneau Transit Plaza.” SECTION 23: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 24: If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 15, Packet Page 740 Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 25: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 16, Packet Page 741 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 17, Packet Page 742 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 18, Packet Page 743 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 19, Packet Page 744 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 20, Packet Page 745 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 21, Packet Page 746 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 22, Packet Page 747 ATTACHMENT 3
610 South Ardmore Ave | Los Angeles, CA 90005 | www.publiccounsel.org | 213 385 2977 April 28, 2025
Via U.S. Mail and E-mail
Honorable Mayor Tyller Williamson and Members of the City Council Monterey City Clerk's Office
580 Pacific Street, Room 6
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Unlawful Regulation Update of Sidewalk Vending in the City of Monterey Dear Honorable Mayor Williamson and Members of the City Council:

Public Counsel writes on behalf of Monterey Street Vendors with respect to the newly proposed updates to Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3. The updates fail to comply with California Government Code §§ 51036 et. seq. (hereby referred to as the “Safe Sidewalk Vending Act” or “SB-946”). In particular, the City’s impending enactment, implementation, and enforcement of the updated code and accompanying regulations that would:
(i) Limit vendor space to 32 square feet, a maximum of 8 feet in length, and 4 feet in width (amendment to Section 32-3.07(s))
(ii) Limit sidewalk vending locations and times of operation (addition of subsections (t) – (y) to Section 32-3.07).
(iii) Create “buffer zones” that further restrict vending locations (amendments to Sections 32-3.08(a) and (b)), and
(iv) Establish further restrictions on vending at parks as well as establish “no vending zones” in the city (amendments to Art. 1, Sections 14 – 20). (collectively, the “Unlawful Restrictions”) violate SB-946 and are unlawful, void, and unenforceable.

We hereby respectfully demand that the City Council move to reconsider the vote approving the proposed amendments and implement the remedies detailed in this letter.

I. Ordinance 3606 background and overview of proposed amendments The amendments to Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3 were proposed during the April 15, 2025 Regular Meeting of the City Council. The amendments were justified on grounds that a previous regulatory code was adopted and incorporated into Chapter 32 by the Council on the basis that “the act of vending on sidewalks… has the potential for increased safety hazards, such as, but not limited to, inhibiting the ability of disabled individuals and other pedestrians to follow a safe path of travel, interfering with the performance of police, firefighter, and emergency medical personal,… and creating obstacles and contributing to congestion…” City of Monterey Ordinance No. 3606 (adopted May 7, 2019), codified at Monterey Municipal Code § 32-3.00 et seq. Additional justification for the proposed amendments included “visual and physical access Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 23, Packet Page 748 July 10, 2025

Page 2 ends

Monterey City CouncilJuly 15, 2025

Monterey City Council
July 15, 2025