Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 15, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California
and
30 Nonohe Place
Pāʻia, Hawaiʻi

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
4:00 p.m. - Pacific Time
1:00 p.m. - Hawaii-Aleutian Time
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
City Manager
Hans Uslar
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
 Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand: dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay).  Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. 30 minutes per item – Public Appearance and Public Hearing items b. 15 minutes per item – All other items (including, but not limited to, Consent, Closed Session, Presentations, and Requests to Agendize)
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the July 15, 2025
2 party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

Teleconference Notice
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), this City Council meeting will include teleconference participation by Councilmember Jean Rasch from the remote location listed above, which shall be accessible to the public pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.3.

AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. PST/1:00 p.m. HST
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month 2025 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Presentation by Mayor Williamson on his Sister City Visit to Isola delle Femmine, Sicily, Italy (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

3. Receive Presentation on Residential Parking Permit Program Updates (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
General Public Comments
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Consent: Approval of Minutes

4. May 23, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. May 28, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. June 17, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. June 25, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Consent: Award of Construction Contracts

8. Awarding a Construction Contract in the Amount of $983,389.00 to Sweetwater Construction, Inc. for the Wharf 1 Immediate Repairs Project (Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination was filed on February 20, 2020) July 15, 2025
3 Consent: Ordinances
An ordinance is a law adopted by the City Council and codified in the City Code. Through the adoption of an ordinance, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other laws not in conflict with state or federal law. An ordinance generally becomes effective 30 days after approval at a second reading.

9. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Adopting an Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 3, Section 25-3.03(d)(3) to Authorize the Assistant City Manager to Delegate Investigation Duties Related to Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation / Abusive Conduct / Bullying Policy Complaints (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Repeal Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

12. Approve the May 2025 Update of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

13. Approve an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (ReGen Monterey) and Member Agencies Regarding Compliance with Organic Waste Recycling and Food Recovery Laws (SB 1383) to include FY 2025-2026 Costs of $43,178 for These Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Authorize the Following Actions Related to the Jacks Park Improvement Project: (1) Submission of a Land Water Conservation Fund Grant Application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Jacks Park Improvements Project and, If Awarded, Execute Grant Agreement; (2) Accept $150,000 in Grant Funds from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation; (3) Amend Resolution 25-060, the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, to Add this Project; and (4) Appropriate Grant Funds (Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

15. Adopting an Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project and Authorization to Proceed with Project Implementation (Adopt Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report)

16. 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) July 15, 2025
4 End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

17. Adopt the City of Monterey Local Road Safety Plan (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

Closed Session (Afternoon)
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

18. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

United Public Employees of California, Local 792 v. City of Monterey (State of California Public Employment Relations Board Case No. SF-CE-2241-M) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Recess
Reconvene
EVENING SESSION AGENDA: 7 p.m. PST/4:00 p.m. HST
No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m. unless agreed upon by Council.

General Public Comments, Continued
Any person who did not offer a general public comment in the afternoon session may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Announcements from Closed Session
Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

19. 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) Council Comments
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)
July 15, 2025
5 City Manager Reports
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

Adjournment
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments and materials provided to the Council become part of the public record. Members of the public who comment in any fashion on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings.

Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance.

Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including disabled people in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact [email protected] or (831) 646-3935.

Notification 30+ hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Prepared By: Vickie Rahman, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month 2025 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize the month of July as
Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Monterey and
celebrate the value of parks and recreation in our
community.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to acknowledge the people and services delivered by the City of Monterey
by recognizing the contributions of its workforce. Parks and Recreation Month 2025 is an appropriate
recognition by the City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14,
Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section
15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to
activities which have the potential
Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
recognize July as Parks and
Recreation Month in Monterey to
celebrate its value in the
community.
 Parks and Recreation Month 2025
marks the 40th anniversary of the
initiative, emphasizing unity and
collaboration under the theme “Build
Together Play Together.”
 Parks and recreation programs
enhance community health,
inclusivity, and quality of life through
diverse resources and activities.
 The City of Monterey’s Parks and
Recreation Department plays a vital
role in advancing health equity,
disaster relief, and fostering
community connections.
 Recognizing Parks and Recreation
Month honors the contributions of
professionals who shape thriving,
inclusive, and sustainable
communities.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №11/24
for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the month of July as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Monterey.

DISCUSSION:

Proclaiming July as Park and Recreation Month is an opportunity for the City of Monterey to officially acknowledge the importance of parks and recreation and the benefits it provides to the entire community.

Launched in 1985, this year marks the 40th anniversary of Park and Recreation Month, celebrated each July to highlight the value of parks and recreation in building strong, vibrant, resilient, inclusive, and unified communities. This month is dedicated to recognizing park and recreation professionals and how they improve the lives of tens of millions of people, making a lasting impact in communities across the country. Park and recreation programs are essential to community health and well-being and help cultivate lifelong friendships, memories and family bonds that people hold dear decades later.

This year's theme is “Build Together Play Together,” which celebrates the power of unity in community collaboration and the role of parks and recreation in bringing people together. The theme invites and encourages individuals, local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to work in harmony. Additionally, it highlights that when communities come together to shape, build, support, and grow their parks and recreation programs, it benefits everyone through play, connection, and shared experiences. Together, we’re building and maintaining accessible, inclusive and sustainable parks and recreation programs that deliver powerful benefits to our community.

The City of Monterey’s Parks and Recreation Department is essential to the quality of life and economic strength of the City, providing beautiful natural and developed resources for recreation, fitness, wellness, relaxation, and play for the community and visitors alike. It serves as a key factor in advancing health equity, improving individual and community-level health outcomes, and enhancing quality of life. Thousands of people of all ages enjoy the City’s multitude of parks, ballfields, disc golf course, sports courts (tennis, volleyball, and basketball), playgrounds, beach areas, a dog park, recreation trail, a skate park and campground, as well as a diverse assortment of programs and services at the community centers and the Sports Center.

The services that park and recreation professionals provide are central to building thriving communities, from protecting open spaces and natural resources, to helping promote mental and physical health by providing activities and resources for all people, to participating in Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 №11/24
disaster relief with Forestry emergency response and temporary assistance centers. Park and Recreation Month encourages everyone to reflect on the exponential value parks and recreation professionals bring to communities.

Monterey’s strong sense of community is beautifully embodied in the theme, “Build Together, Play Together.” The leadership of the City Council, the interest and oversight of our Parks and Recreation Commission, the dedication of City employees, and the support of the community have created a model City recreation and parks program that is recognized across the State.

Parks and Recreation professionals play a key role in shaping Monterey’s sense of community, promoting inclusivity, and creating spaces where everyone feels they belong. Let’s honor their contributions, dedication, passion, and lasting impact on our City this Parks and Recreation Month.

An oral report will be presented at the meeting.

DH/vr
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
e: Parks and Recreation Commission
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. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation declaring
July 2025 as Parks and Recreation Month
WHEREAS, the Monterey City Council recognizes and proclaims the month of July 2025 as Parks and Recreation Month throughout the City of Monterey; and,
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation is an integral part of the City of Monterey with 37 parks, a beautiful campground, historic cemetery, coastal recreation trail, beaches and green spaces, outdoor fields and courts, the Monterey Sports Center, and four community centers; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation promotes health and wellness and ensures all community members have equitable opportunities to be active, improve health outcomes and enhance quality of life; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation encourages time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being, alleviating illnesses such as depression and providing a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation promotes physical activity, active lifestyles, and enables people to connect with one another through programs offered at local parks, community centers, and the Monterey Sports Center; and,
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation is a leading provider of nutrition services with holiday food distributions, weekly meals and fresh produce for seniors, and healthy eating workshops for all ages; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation activities are critical to childhood development such as youth sports, out-of-school-time programming with camps and programs, and environmental education at Camp Quien Sabe and Whispering Pines Day Camp; and,
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation increases the community’s economic prosperity through tourism, increased property values, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation ensures the ecological preservation and beauty of Monterey and serves as a core support system with essential and adaptable infrastructure that is resilient in the face of natural disasters and climate change and is fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of July 2025 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Monterey.

Dated: June 2025

Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation by Mayor Williamson on his Sister City Visit to Isola delle Femmine, Sicily, Italy (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from Mayor Williamson on his recent personally-funded visit to one of Monterey’s sister cities, Isola delle Femmine, Sicily, Italy.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Receiving a presentation on Mayor Williamson’s visit to Isola delle Femmine is within the City Council’s purview.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct costs for the City to receive the
presentation and no City funds were used for the Mayor’s trip in June 2025 to Isola delle Femmine.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 Mayor Tyller Williamson visited Isola
delle Femmine, Sicily, from June 2–
5, 2025, as part of Monterey’s Sister
City relationship.
 The visit was personally funded,
with no City funds used, and had no
fiscal implications for Monterey.
 The Sister City relationship
highlights the cultural and historic
ties between Monterey and Isola
delle Femmine, home to many
Monterey residents of Italian
heritage.
 Mayor Williamson met with key
officials, including Isola delle
Femmine Mayor Nevoloso, Palermo
Mayor Lagalla, Sicily President
Schifani, and Archbishop Isacchi.
 Mayor Williamson will deliver a
presentation to the City Council
about his visit to Sicily.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 10 №10/24
15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to receive the presentation. However, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Isola delle Femmine in Sicily is the birthplace of many people of Italian heritage that have lived in Monterey and a large group of people who currently reside in Monterey who are originally from Isola delle Femmine or whose ancestors came from the community. The City of Monterey formally established a Sister City relationship with Isola delle Femmine on August 15, 20170F 1 .

From June 2nd – 5th, 2025, Mayor Tyller Williamson traveled to Sicily for a Sister City visit with Isola delle Femmine Mayor Orazio Nevoloso and delegates. He met with several officials, including Palermo Mayor Roberto Lagalla, President of Sicily Renato Schifani, and Archbishop Gualtiero Federico Isacchi.

Mayor Tyller Williamson will provide a summary of his visit to Sicily to the Monterey City Council.

NR
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
1 Resolution No. 17-141
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 11 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cristie Steffy, Parking Superintendent
SUBJECT: Receive Presentation on Residential Parking Permit Program Updates (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Updates.

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.

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The RPP updates support the City’s goals of equitable
access to public resources, sustainable transportation
and efficient parking program management. The RPP
program updates could help balance parking demand by
exploring opportunities to consolidate permit zones,
transition to virtual permits and introduce permit fees to make the program more responsive to resident needs,
easier to administer, and financially sustainable.

Agenda Report Highlights
 Residential Parking Permit program
updates aim to modernize
operations, improve equity, and
ensure financial sustainability.
 Transitioning to virtual permits and
online management is under
evaluation to simplify processes and
enhance enforcement.
 Permit fees are being considered to
recover costs, with discounted rates
for low-income households.
 Requalification and consolidation of
existing zones are proposed to align
with updated program goals and
improve effectiveness.
 Special area policies, including
Cannery Row and Casanova Oak
Knoll, are being reviewed to
address unique parking challenges.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 12 №11/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications to receiving a presentation on the RPP program updates.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could opt to receive the content in a written report instead of a presentation; however, Staff recommends receiving the presentation as scheduled.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
The first RPP Program was established in Monterey in 1985 to help protect residential neighborhoods from external parking impacts, such as overflow from nearby commercial districts, visitor attractions, or schools. Over time, the program expanded to include 18 separate zones. The current program has become outdated and increasingly difficult to administer and does not recover the costs associated with its operation.

The City has contracted with Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) to undergo an in-depth analysis of the City’s RPP program and related municipal codes to provide guidance for the future of residential parking in Monterey. This effort will result in a Residential Parking Action Plan, which will propose key strategies to improve program efficiency, enhance equity, and ensure long-term financial sustainability.

As part of this effort, the City has proactively engaged the community to help shape the program’s future. Outreach efforts began with Community Town Halls in 2021 and included resident surveys to gather feedback. Most recently, a citywide survey was launched in January 2025, and a Community Town Hall meeting was held on March 27, 2025 to discuss potential RPP program updates including transitioning to virtual permits, online permit management and permit fees to make the program more responsive to resident needs. The meeting was livestreamed and recorded to maximize public access. In addition, the Parking Division has created a dedicated project page on the Have Your Say Monterey site to provide access to all relevant information, resources, and opportunities for community input on the RPP program.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 13 №11/25
These ongoing engagement efforts reflect the City’s commitment to ensuring the RPP Program updates reflect community needs and also incorporate best management practices. Major components of RPP Program updates include:

Implement a New RPP Petition Process
Staff are reviewing updates that align with best practices and enhance program consistency.

One area under review is the process for establishing new RPP zones. Currently, petitions are submitted block by block, which can result in a patchwork of zones that may not reflect broader parking impacts. Best practice models often suggest a minimum zone size (e.g., four contiguous blocks) to ensure more cohesive and effective implementation.

The current threshold of 50% plus one of affected households is used to initiate new RPP requests. Some cities increased this threshold (e.g., to 80%) to ensure stronger community consensus before any parking restrictions are adopted. Additionally, new RPP zones could only be officially designated if they meet the 70% occupancy threshold and at least 50% of eligible households actively purchase permits.

These considerations aim to ensure that the RPP Program reflects actual parking challenges, is applied more consistently, and remains responsive to residents’ needs and priorities.

Online Permit Management
Staff is evaluating a transition to a license plate–based system to eliminate physical permits, allow online purchasing and management, and improve enforcement efficiency. This system is widely used in other cities and is considered best practice for modernizing permit programs and increasing the program’s efficacy.

Survey results indicate strong community support for modernization, with only 16% of respondents opposed moving to an online system. This approach is being considered to simplify the user experience, reduce administrative burden, and ensure the program is easier to access, manage, and enforce.

Introduce Permit Fees
A permit fee structure, with discounted rates for qualifying low-income households, will ensure the RPP program is financially sustainable and better aligned with the costs of administration and enforcement of the program.

There are two primary permit fee structures that can be considered for the RPP program: a flat per-permit fee or an escalating fee model in which costs increase with each additional permit per household.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 14 №11/25
RPP Permit Fees in Nearby Cities
City Annual Permit Fee
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA $33 each
Salinas, CA $25 each for the first two permits | $20 for third permit | $15 for fourth permit | $10 each for fifth and sixth permits
Pacific Grove, CA $15 each
Santa Cruz, CA $30 each
Monterey, CA Free
Example of escalating fee structure:

Set Permit Limits
To better align with best practices and manage on-street parking demand, Staff is reviewing the potential benefits of limiting the number of permits per eligible resident or household. Currently, resident decal permits can be issued without a clear cap, which can lead to more vehicles than available curb space, especially in high-demand areas. This can create congestion and reduce access for residents that the program is intended to support.

Setting permit limits helps align parking supply with demand, promote more equitable access and ensures that the program functions effectively in areas with limited on-street capacity. This approach is under consideration as part of broader efforts to ensure the program reflects actual parking conditions and community priorities.

Requalification and Consolidation of Existing RPP Areas As part of the broader RPP program update, existing zones would have the opportunity to demonstrate continued interest and participation by undergoing a requalification process.

Rather than applying the proposed 80% petition threshold and occupancy requirements under consideration for new zones, existing zones would follow a requalification pathway based on the Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 15 №11/25
existing 50% plus one petition threshold, along with a requirement that at least 50% of eligible households purchase permits under the revised program.

This process provides a fair and practical way to align existing zones with modernized program goals, while giving residents the opportunity to opt into the updated RPP program, which may include new elements such as permit fees.

The requalification effort would also include an evaluation of the current 18 RPP zones and explore opportunities to consolidate fragmented or non-contiguous areas, helping to improve program effectiveness and address enforcement challenges.

Adjust Policies for Special Areas
Certain RPP zones experience unique external impacts that may require more tailored policy adjustments to better align RPP regulations with the specific needs and impacts of these special areas.
 Cannery Row: Cannery Row is a mixed-use commercial area where residential permit holders are currently allowed to park for free in paid on-street spaces. While this provides a benefit to residents, it also allows them free parking in a high-demand area where turnover and availability are important to supporting local businesses. To better balance residential access with commercial demand, alternative approaches should be explored to prevent the displacement of on-street paid parking.
 Casanova Oak Knoll: Casanova Oak Knoll is a residential neighborhood impacted by parking intrusions due to its proximity to the Monterey County Fairgrounds. The neighborhood has a special event-based RPP program implemented in 1987 with restrictions that are vaguely defined. The outdated program currently issues four free physical permits per household on a five-year cycle. To address ongoing concerns and improve program clarity, staff is considering updates to the event-based RPP program.

These potential changes would aim to define special event criteria, apply consistent permit rules, allow for cost recovery, and improve enforcement efforts. These considerations are intended to reduce parking intrusions in the Casanova Oak Knoll neighborhood and would involve engagement with residents to ensure the program reflects community needs.  10th Street Business Permits: The Commercial Employee Parking Program currently serves 13 businesses with 79 free, non-expiring permits issued. In contrast, there are 62 timed parking spaces on 10th Street, which is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. To better manage demand and reduce neighborhood impacts, Staff is exploring alternative parking solutions on nearby streets to distribute employee parking more evenly and preserve availability on 10th Street for customers. Additionally, introducing a permit fee for employee parking permits could help recover program costs, improve administrative efficiency, and support enforcement efforts.
 Sloat Street – Department of Defense (DoD) Permits – Currently, the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) issues DoD permits to students and faculty, allowing them to park on East Sloat Street. These permits are honored and enforced by the City and there is no cost to NPS to use City-managed parking resources to accommodate NPS spillover demand. This presents an opportunity to explore possible permit limits, cost recovery measures, and Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 16 №11/25
consider reallocating Sloat Street parking resources for 10th Street employee parking permits as a potential solution.

These updates aim to retain the original intent of the RPP program of protecting neighborhood access from outside parking intrusions while addressing current administrative and fiscal challenges of maintaining the existing programs. These opportunities support broader City goals including equity, accessibility, transparency, and economic sustainability.

In partnership with Dixon Resources Unlimited, staff will continue developing a comprehensive Residential Parking Action Plan. This effort will incorporate community input gathered to date, best practices, and findings from the RPP program analysis. Staff will return in the fall with formal recommendations and the draft Action Plan for City Council review and consideration.

AR/cs
e: Neighborhood 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. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 17

MINUTES

COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AND

SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
Friday, May 23, 2025
2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present:

Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: Barber
City Staff Present: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, City Engineer, Engineering Assistant,
Management Analyst, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. Recording Secretary Barrera called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Public Appearance

1. Receive a Presentation on the Draft Local Road Safety Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received Presentation
Engineering Assistant Garcia gave a presentation and answered Councilmembers’ questions.

Public comment was received from an unidentified speaker, who asked the City to work with the State on safety concerns at the Highway 1 exit to Munras Avenue; Dr. Ri Chang, who emphasized the need for bicycle infrastructure improvements; and MaryAnn Vultaggio, who expressed concerns about traffic safety on Jefferson Street and Franklin Street.

The Council emphasized the importance of public input, data-driven decision-making, and continuous updates to the plan to improve road safety for all users. Suggestions were made to staff on topics including education and enforcement efforts on speeding and turning violations; collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions; and collection of driver data.

2. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing and Approving One or More Locations for Rainbow Crosswalks (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued to June 3, 2025 (3-1-1, with Councilmember Smith voting no and Councilmember Barber absent)
Management Analyst Ackermann gave a presentation and answered Councilmembers’ questions.

Public comment in opposition was received from: Alan Beanfield, Charlene Carter, Rina Tringali, Peter Kaiser, Luis Osorio, Rick Heuer, Kathy Anderson, Rick Aldinger, Carol Sassel, Nelson Vega, Tom Casas, Robert McKay, Gary Cursio, Tom Reeves, Lori Mazzuca, Eloise Shim, and Andrea Olsen. Reasons cited by commenters in opposition included concerns about fiscal responsibility and the need to prioritize infrastructure issues; perceived divisiveness and Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 18 Council Special Meeting and
Special Closed Session
Friday, May 23, 2025
2 lack of community involvement and support; the need for recognition of and fairness for other groups; and safety concerns such as the sidewalk causing potential distractions for drivers and pedestrians. It was stated that funding for any such crosswalk should be through private contributions.

Public comment in favor was received from: Nadine Anderson, Tina Rau, Meganne Yeoman, Sarah Epperson, Kate Daniels, two (2) unidentified speakers, Melissa, P.K. Diffenbaugh, Taylor Merritt, Gabe Sanders, Andy Owen, Esther Malkin, Luca Oake, Chinyere Ogbonna, Jan Shriner, and Brian McCarthy. Reasons cited by commenters in favor included the importance of creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for marginalized groups; the visibility and sense of belonging and safety that such a crosswalk would provide for the LGBTQ+ community and young people. It was suggested that the intersection of Alvarado and Pearl Streets be the location for a rainbow crosswalk, and that the community could fundraise for its installation.

The Council discussed the matter. In favor of approving a rainbow crosswalk, personal experiences were shared and it was emphasized how important visibility was for marginalized voices, including the LGBTQ+ community and in particular its youth. It was stressed that the crosswalk would be consistent with the City’s values of inclusivity and would send a welcoming message to residents and visitors alike. The potential life-saving impact of the crosswalk was highlighted and it was stated that preventing one suicide would make the crosswalk worth the investment. It was suggested that the Council consider approving the project contingent on private contributions, and that outreach to business districts be conducted.

In opposition to approving a rainbow crosswalk, concerns about the process were expressed, stating that the item had been rushed and lacked sufficient community outreach and input, and that it could create a precedent for other groups to request crosswalks. It was stated that there were safety concerns and the potential for distractions for drivers and pedestrians, and further research was requested, including about potential impacts for visually challenged individuals. It was suggested that the City explore alternative ways to celebrate diversity, such as art installations in public spaces.

It was proposed to continue the item to the next regular meeting, allowing time for further outreach to business districts, additional research, and more community input.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued the matter to the June 3, 2025 regular Council meeting:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Williamson
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Closed Session
Due to the late hour, and because City staff indicated that one of the individuals involved in the closed session items had already been informed that the discussion might be postponed, the Council proposed tabling the two closed session matters until they could be heard at a later date. Public comment was not received.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 19 Council Special Meeting and
Special Closed Session
Friday, May 23, 2025
3 On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council tabled closed session items 3 and 4:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Williamson
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber

3. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 1 Old Golf Course Road (Hyatt Regency Monterey) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Tony Lombardo (Representing FWREF Monterey, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from May 6, 2025 and May 20, 2025
Action: Tabled (4-0-1, with Councilmember Barber absent)

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Erica Barrera
Recording Secretary
Tyller Williamson
Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 20

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AND

SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, May 28, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Library Director, Public Works Director, Administrative Assistant, Police Chief, Assistant Human Resources Director, Assistant Library Director, Housing Manager, Property Manager, Planning Manager, Parks Manager, Recreation Manager, Streets and Utilities Manager
AFTERNOON SESSION:

Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Administrative Assistant Tulett called the roll as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.
1 Receive a Presentation and Approve the 2025 & 2026 City Council Action Items Schedule (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Presentation Received; directed staff to incorporate Councilmember suggestions and bring back for approval at a future Council meeting.

Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager, gave the presentation, reviewed the list of City Council Action Items Schedule, explained the coding on the spreadsheet that reflected where the items were in process and/or whether or not the item would require Council approval, and answered Councilmember questions.

Councilmember Garcia left room at 4:56 pm and returned at 4:59 pm. Mayor Tyller left room at 5:00 pm and returned at 5:02 pm. Councilmember Smith left room at 6:14 pm and returned at 6:17 pm.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes May 28, 2025
2 The Council discussed the presentation and asked questions of the Assistant City Manager to seek clarification on listed action items as well as those not captured, and the difference between shaded boxes without a check mark, shaded boxes with check marks and clear boxes.

Feedback and questions from Council, and response from staff were provided on the following topics, in no particular order: public input on the website refresh; gathering public input to update the tree ordinance and share public information on safety and the upcoming fire season; consideration of a volunteer program; consideration of a smoking ban in multi-unit housing structures; renewal of Measure G (sales tax approved by voters in March 2020); infrastructure financing options; Highway 68 safety; changing Alvarado Street to a pedestrian-only pathway; opportunities for broader recruitment strategies for attracting and retaining employees; updating the City’s sign ordinance; a “dig once” policy regarding undergrounding; a discussion of the need for “overflow” council meeting dates each month; economic development as it relates to the North Fremont Business District; highlighting the need for a plan for caring for the Laguna Grande Park; and reopening of or potential opportunities for the Casanova-Oak Knoll Park Center.

Public Works Director Renny provided a brief update on Public Works projects, indicating that funding have been allocated to begin the Highway 68/Skyline Forest study in the new Fiscal Year, and provided information relating to the Residential Parking Permit Program, implementation timelines, and how the community can provide feedback.

Community Development Director Cole answered questions and provided information on projects her staff are working on relating to various housing programs and homelessness services, including new laws that must be implemented. Other topics included economic development, the Local Coastal Plan, zoning ordinance updates, Fort Ord and Highway 68 Plans, and use of outside resources to assist with departmental workload challenges, including new workload due to statutes recently signed into law. Council recognized the difficult and ongoing work done by the Community Development staff as the “gold standard” of other local organizations and congratulated them on receiving the American Planning Association’s “Planning Excellence” Award for the Northern California Area.

In the interest of time, public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker. Public comment was received in the Chamber from: Mabel Lernoud, who requested the council consider an ordinance for an indoor smoking ban in multi-unit residential units; Jeff Whitmoyer, who spoke about the City’s flag ordinances; and Rick Heuer, who spoke about the water allocation rights in the City. Zoom comments were received from: Esther Malkin, who thanked the staff for their hard work on the priorities list with a reduced staff force; and Diane C. also thanked the City staff for their hard work and dedication.

On a motion introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, requested staff take input from council and public and bring the item back at future meeting.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson 2 Provide Direction on Appointments Process for, and Composition of Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Tabled to a future meeting (date uncertain)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes May 28, 2025
3 Council discussed the lack of time for the item. Mayor suggested it be tabled for a future meeting as he and Councilmember Barber had other commitments and could not extend the meeting.

Public Comment was received from: Elizabeth Janisch, who spoke in support of making the proposed changes to the process for appointing positions to the Boards, Commissions and Committees; Mike Sovereign, Rene Kimzey and Shelley Schmidt, who do not support reducing the number of boards, commissions or committees or the number of appointees; Shelley Schmidt, who also spoke about maintaining the separation between the NCIP and the Neighborhood Associations; Lori Mazzuca and Chelsea Lenowska, who shared frustration with the length of the current meeting and the fact the item was tabled to a future meeting and the item will not be heard.

On a motion introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, to table the item to a future meeting, date unknown.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Councilmember Barber left the Chamber at 6:32 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

There was a brief discussion on whether or not there would be sufficient time for both closed session items due to time constraints and prior commitments.

Public Comment on item 4 was received from Kevin, a crematorium operator with Keystone America, Inc., who requested a 10-year extension on the current lease as a benefit to the City as well as providing time for the desired improvements.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:37 p.m. Mayor Williamson left the Chamber at 6:37 p.m.

3. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 1 Old Golf Course Road (Hyatt Regency Monterey) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Tony Lombardo (Representing FWREF Monterey, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from May 6, 2025, May 20, 2025, and May 23, 2025 Action: On a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with Mayor Williamson and Councilmember Barber absent, confidential direction was given to property negotiators

4. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: Crematorium at El Encinal Cemetery, Fremont Street and Camino Aguajito; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Michelle Price (Keystone America, Inc., dba The Paul Mortuary, a subsidiary of Service Corporation International); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes May 28, 2025
4 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from May 20, 2025 and May 23, 2025
Action: On a vote of 3 in favor, none opposed, with Mayor Williamson and Councilmember Barber absent, confidential direction was given to property negotiators
Adjournment
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Linda Tulett Tyller Williamson
Administrative Assistant Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 24

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith (left at 10:04 p.m.), Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Library & Museums Director, City Clerk, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Building Official, General Services Superintendent, Parks Supervisor, Acting Assistant Fire Chief, Police Lieutenant, Harbormaster, Assistant Library Director, Firefighter, Senior Administrative Analyst (Fire) AFTERNOON SESSION (4:00 p.m.)
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:0 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY25 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized awardees
The Council recognized Seaman Elise Risen, from the U.S. Navy; Lance Corporal Ashton Ellzey, from the U.S. Marine Corps; Sergeant Samuel Garcia, from the U.S. Marine Corps; and Sergeant Jocelyn Matta, from the U.S. Marine Corps. Each awardee made brief remarks. Public comment on this item was not received.

2. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries in 2025 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized employees
The Council recognized, and their Department Heads made brief remarks praising, Park Maintenance Leadworker Garcia, Custodian Bonilla, Police Services Assistant Nehme, and Police Sergeant Welch, for achieving the milestone of 20 years each of service to the City. Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who expressed gratitude to City employees.

General Public Comments
Based on the number of people expressing interest in speaking, Mayor Williamson limited public comments to two minutes per speaker. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Jim Burns, India Weeks, Olivia Miller, Ross Pounds of Monterey Firefighters Community Foundation, Jesse Morgan, Lorna Moffat, Bryan Rosen, and Nina Beety.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
2 Mayor Williamson noted that Item 19 in the evening would be recommended for continuation to a future meeting.

Consent Agenda
On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Items 3 and 13:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Proclamations

3. Proclamation Recognizing Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) General Manager and CEO Carl Sedoryk for his 25 years at MST (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Honored Mr. Sedoryk
The Council recognized Carl Sedoryk, General Manager and CEO of Monterey-Salinas Transit ("MST"). Mr. Sedoryk made brief remarks thanking the Council and City staff for supporting MST.

The Council and Mr. Sedoryk announced the upcoming groundbreaking ceremony for the SURF! busway.

Public comment was received from Jesse Morgan, who commended Mr. Sedoryk for his work; and Bryan Rosen and Lorna Moffat, who both objected to the recognition, citing various alleged issues relating to Mr. Sedoryk's performance at MST.

The Council made remarks commending Mr. Sedoryk and wishing him the best in the future.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council issued the proclamation:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Approval of Minutes

4. May 20, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved

5. June 3, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Consent: Ordinances

6. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Adopting an Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading

7. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 3, Section 25-3.03(d)(3) to Authorize the Assistant City Manager to Delegate Investigation Duties Related to Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation / Abusive Conduct / Bullying Policy Complaints Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
3 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading

8. 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Repeal Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading
Consent: Resolutions

9. Authorize a $1 License Agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory for Use of East Mooring Blocks for Sunflower Sea Star Research and Restoration (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-061 C.S.

10. Distribute Awards of $199,132 in State of California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Funds and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Agreements with Downtown Streets, Inc., Gathering for Women - Monterey, and Community Human Services to Assist Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-062 C.S.

11. Authorize Appropriating $270,227.46 in Donated Funds to the Library Trust Fund Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-063 C.S.

12. Authorize the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to Buy Back Cemetery Lot 11 in Block 63 for $2,872.75 payable to Mr. Eugene Balance and Cemetery Lots 36 and 37 in Block 217 for $5,745.50 payable to Mr. Scott Hutchins. (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-064 C.S.

13. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a New Agreement to Provide Fire and Ambulance Services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Amend the FY 25-26 Position Control List and FY25-26 Adopted Budget (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-065 C.S.

Fire Chief Miller gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Olivia Miller, who asked the City to look at ways to keep the community safer, and Ross Pounds of Monterey Firefighters Association, who spoke in support of the agreement.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-064 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
4 Consent: Other

14. Approve the City of Monterey’s Response Letter to the 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety” (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved letter
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

15. Proclamation Apologizing to the Dutra Street Indigenous Residents and their Descendants in Monterey and Acknowledgement of Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) – Continued from June 3, 2025 Action: Presented proclamation
City Manager Uslar gave a verbal presentation and Mayor Williamson read the proclamation aloud.

Public comment was received from: Rudy Rosales, tribal leader, who thanked the Council for the apology and shared with the Council and public a description of his former neighborhood at Dutra Street and his family's experience when they were displaced; Karen Brown, Ann Jacobson, Philip Laverty, and Tom Reeves, who all thanked the Council for this first step of apology and remembrance; and Nina Beety, who stressed that there was more to be done. Bobette McDonald Torres, another former Dutra Street resident, was recognized.

The Council expressed support for the proclamation, acknowledgment of and deep regret for the historical wrongs, and their respect for the significance of Dutra Street, its former inhabitants, and the land. They made statements in recognition of the speakers' patience and grace. It was emphasized that the City's resources must be managed with sensitivity and respect for Indigenous peoples’ history, and that a broader conversation was still needed about what it meant to live in and enjoy Monterey knowing that it belonged to native people who cared for, protected, and cherished this land. It was stated that this was a first step toward more action. Members shared stories and histories of their own cultural and ancestral backgrounds.

There was a brief discussion about the hyperlocal scope of the proclamation and it was determined that there were opportunities for additional ways to recognize indigenous people more broadly but that it was important for this particular apology to be specific to the City's actions relating to the historical Dutra Street neighborhood.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council issued the proclamation:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Recess
The Council recessed at 6:01 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 28 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
5 Reconvene
The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Rasch led the Pledge.

Mayor Williamson noted that Item 19 would be recommended for continuation to August 5, 2025.

Evening Session Items
Public Hearing (Evening)

16. Approve Ruby Falls Fund, LLC’s Request to Extend Expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map for Ocean View Plaza Project Located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565 and 570 Cannery Row for One (1) Year (Map is a component of and implements a Project previously analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-066 C.S. (4-0-1, Smith absent) This item was heard third in the evening, after Item 19. Community Development Director Cole gave a verbal presentation.

Public comment was received from: Bob Evans, who urged the Council not to extend the vesting tentative map, with concerns including in relation to blight, overuse of City's administrative resources, predicted sea level rise impacts, need for affordable housing, and lack of Coastal Commission support; and Bob Faulis of Ruby Falls Fund, who supported the extension, citing ongoing maintenance efforts, plans for the site's development, and challenges with the Coastal Commission.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Mayor Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-066 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
The Council made brief remarks acknowledging the concerns raised during public comment, it was stated that the extension had been supported in order to allow the project to move forward, in part due to the potential to provide much-needed housing, with the understanding that it would have to return to the Council for deeper discussion and public input at a future date.

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

17. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 29 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
6 This matter was heard second in the evening, after Item 18. City Attorney Davi briefly noted that there was nothing new to report beyond the update that had been included in the agenda report.

Public comment was received from Bob Faulis, who provided a brief update on the project.

Adjourn to City Council Meeting
The Ocean View Community Services District Board of Directors adjourned back to the City Council meeting.

Public Appearance (Evening)

18. Provide Direction on: (1) the Process for Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees; (2) Whether to Combine the Architectural Review Committee with the Planning Commission; and (3) Whether to Combine the Historic Preservation Commission with the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Tabled from May 28, 2025
Action: Directed staff to return to Council with: 1) Legislation combining the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission; 2) An amendment to the Council's Governance Resolution, in order to form a Standing Subcommittee consisting of the Mayor and Vice Mayor that would be charged with conducting board and commission interviews and making appointment nominations; and 3) Providing the Council with greater detail about the potential to combine the Historic Preservation Commission and Museums and Cultural Arts Commission
This item was heard first in the evening session at the request of the Council. City Clerk Klein gave a verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received.

Regarding how boards, commissions, and committee interviews and nominations should be conducted, comment was received from: Rick Heuer, Lee Whitney of the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee, Tom Rowley of Fishermans Flats Homeowners and Residents Association, Pat Venza of Monterey Vista Neighborhood Assocation, Bob Faulis, and Curt Tipton of the NCIP Committee, all in favor of more than one Councilmember being involved in the process and there being more transparency and public input; Marta Kraftzeck, Bob Evans of the MCAC, and Lori Mazzuca, all in favor of Option B (full City Council interviews and nominates applicants); Nickie Bach, in favor of either Option B or Option C (a standing Council subcommittee interviews and nominates applicants); Mike Brassfield of the Planning Commission, Chinyere Ogbonna of the NCIP Committee, and Ray Meyers, all in favor of Option C; Tom Reeves of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, in favor of Option B or Option C/D (a standing Council subcommittee interviews and nominates applicants, with separate NCIP subcommittees that would include the appropriate districted Councilmember), and with neighborhood associations having input; Hans Jannasch of the NCIP Committee, Nina Beety, and Lori Mazzuca, all in favor of neighborhood associations being involved in selecting NCIP Committee members; and Kent Glenzer and Esther Malkin, who both expressed concern about why a longstanding practice was suddenly being questioned under the present Mayor’s leadership. Speaker comments made in favor of both Option B and Option C expressed the desire for a method with full transparency that would allow residents to participate. Comments in opposition to Option B expressed concern that some applicants could be uncomfortable coming in front of the full Council.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 30 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
7 Regarding potential consolidation of committees and commissions, comment was received from:

Rene Kimzey of the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission ("MCAC"), in opposition to combining the MCAC and Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC"); Rick Heuer, Curt Tipton of the NCIP Committee, and Nina Beety, who all expressed concern about combining the Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") and Planning Commission ("PC"); Tom Rowley of Fishermans Flats Homeowners and Residents Association, and Bob Faulis, who both expressed hesitation about any combination of appointed bodies; Mike Brassfield of the Planning Commission, who acknowledged there could be efficiencies in combining boards, and stressed the importance of preserving local governance; Sandra Freeman of the Planning Commission, and Bob Evans of the MCAC, both in favor of combining the ARC and PC but hesitant about combining HPC and MCAC; and Bob Bluth, Chair of the Planning Commission, who spoke in support of combining the ARC and PC. Comments made in opposition to combining boards included concerns: that the MCAC and HPC had different focuses and goals, about unknown future demands for architectural review when water might someday become available for development, and that streamlining favored business over the community. It was stated that if the ARC and PC were combined, some architectural expertise should be required on the PC.

Comments in favor of combining boards included remarks observing: that the PC and ARC had a strong overlap in skills, experience, and focus; that the combination of ARC and PC could result in increased efficiency, cost savings, and alignment with state housing requirements; and that the PC had the capacity to handle the additional workload; and that more objective design standards might result in more affordable housing. During public comments, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 8:02 p.m. to 8:03 p.m.

On question, Community Development Director Cole provided further context about State law changes, which she said kept moving in the direction of development review checklists and objective design standards, not discretionary revew processes. She asserted that the PC could handle the ARC workload and that it would streamline operations. She provided an example of a new mixed-use project and the more drawn-out permitting and approvals process that would take place under the present-day City Code. Regarding the future availability of water for development, she emphasized that it would be wise for the City to put together good planning and design standards in the intervening time to prescribe what the City would like to see built in the future.

The Council discussed the matter.

Regarding how boards, commissions, and committee interviews and nominations should be conducted, it was stated that the public should be able to access information and participate in the process. It was stated that the City’s neighborhood associations were respected for their role in the community but that not all of them functioned in the same way or achieved the same amount of outreach or connection in the community, and that the process needed to be truly inclusive of all Monterey residents and their diversity. Regarding logistics of process, it was stated that providing excess notice such as one proposal for two weeks worth of notice of interviews is not feasible. It was stated that interviewees should be able to interview remotely using technology such as Zoom.

One proposal discussed was to leave the interviewing process with the Mayor but incorporate the ability for public participation. Another proposal was that a subcommittee be formed of the Mayor and Vice Mayor to conduct interviews and put forward appointment nominations in public meetings. It was noted that this would be balanced because the Mayor was an at-large seat representing the whole City, and that the Council's practice was to rotate the Vice Mayor seat.

Another proposal included separate subcommittees for the NCIP Committee, consisting of two Councilmembers plus one member of the applicable neighborhood association, who could participate in a non-voting role. On question, Councilmembers who were in office in 2019, when the appointments policy changed from the previous subcommittee interview model to the current Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 31 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
8 Mayor-only interview model, provided insight on that Council decision and how the former Mayor had gathered community feedback on appointments. On the one hand it was suggested that the Council's governance policy could be evaluated on an annual basis, and on the other hand it was stated that it would be more efficient only to look at the policy when/if an issue arose.

Regarding potential consolidation of the HPC and the MCAC, it was noted that the members of these bodies who had provided input were not in favor of combining them. Concern was expressed about challenges due to the statutory need for members with appropriate training and backgrounds for evaluating matters such as Mills Act designations and for specific grant qualifications. It was inquired whether Mills Act determinations could potentially be made by the PC. On question about whether any MCAC activities could be taken over by the Board of Library Trustees, City Attorney Davi noted that the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Board of Library Trustees were laid out in the Charter. It was stated by the Council that based on available information, it would be premature to make a decision on combining these two bodies.

Regarding potential consolidation of the ARC and the PC, it was stated that this would increase efficiency and it was noted that there had been clear support expressed by members of these bodies as well as by City staff. On question, City Manager Uslar and Community Development Director Cole informed the Council that preparing updated plans and zoning code to make this change would take a few months’ time. It was requested by the Council to hear from staff what Community Development work would be done faster resulting from this combination.

Regarding neighborhood associations' role in the interview and nominations process, it was stated that as long as all members of the public, whether individuals or neighborhood association presidents, had equal and full access to information and interviews took place at noticed meetings where the public could comment, everyone would be heard equitably.

Councilmember Barber left the Chamber between 9:00 p.m. and 9:01 p.m.

Remarks were made addressing the appointments to the NCIP Committee that had been made the prior year, and it was stressed that the appointments process was conducted thoroughly and transparently. It was stated that some criticism about the current process and recent appointments seemed personal and it was noted that the current process had been put in place years before under a different Mayor and Council. It was recommended that former members show courtesy and professionalism and consider welcoming and assisting new members in their roles.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Rasch, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to direct staff to bring forward an amendment to the Council's Governance Resolution, in order to form a Standing Subcommittee consisting of the Mayor and Vice Mayor that would be charged with conducting board and commission interviews and making appointment nominations.

The Council discussed the motion. On question, City Attorney Davi noted that anyone on the Council could legally attend a meeting of the subcommittee as long as they did not participate.

Concern was expressed that transparency would primarily only increase for the Vice Mayor. It was briefly considered by the Council to incorporate the prescription of standardized interview process procedures, but this was withdrawn in the interest of proceeding efficiently with the existing motion. It was briefly considered by the Council to allow the subcommittee members to appoint a designee, but this was withdrawn based on guidance from legal counsel.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 32 City Council Minutes June 17, 2025
9 On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council directed staff: to bring back legislation combining the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission; and to provide the Council with greater detail about the potential to combine the Historic Preservation Commission and Museums and Cultural Arts Commission:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council recessed at 10:04 p.m. and reconvened at 10:13 p.m. During the recess Councilmember Smith left the meeting and was absent for the remainder of the meeting.

19. Approve Changes to Rental Assistance Program (RAP) Guidelines (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Continued to August 5, 2025 (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) This item was heard at the end of the evening, after Item 16. Mayor Williamson noted that staff had requested to continue the item to the Council regular meeting on August 5, 2025.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued the matter to August 5:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Council Comments
Mayor Williamson briefly announced that he had enjoyed his Sister City visit to Isola delle Femmine, Sicily, Italy, and would provide further details to the Council and public soon.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Uslar noted that City Hall would be closed on June 19, 2025 in honor of the Juneteenth memorial holiday.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 33

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Rasch, Williamson

Absent: Garcia, Smith
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Engineering Assistant, Administrative Assistant (City Clerk's Office), Administrative Assistant (Engineering) Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

Public Hearing (Afternoon)

1. Open a Public Hearing to Confirm Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Area and Receive Protests Related to the Collection of the Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 and Authorize the Assessment if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 25-067 C.S. (3-0-2, Councilmembers Garcia and Smith absent)
Engineering Assistant Hennings gave a brief verbal presentation. Public comment was not received.

City Clerk Klein, Administrative Assistant Tulett, and Administrative Assistant Portillo performed the count of the sealed ballots.

City Clerk Klein announced that the result of the count was that the proportional weight of the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment exceeded the proportional weight of the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment, and that therefore a majority protest did not exist.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-067 C.S.:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Williamson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Smith
Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 City Council Minutes June 25, 2025
2 2. Open and Public Hearing to Confirm Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 Area and Receive Protests Related to the Collection of the Assessment Proposed in Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 and Authorize the Assessment if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 25-068 C.S. (3-0-2, Councilmembers Garcia and Smith absent)
Engineering Assistant Hennings gave a brief verbal presentation. Public comment was not received.

City Clerk Klein, Administrative Assistant Tulett, and Administrative Assistant Portillo performed the count of the sealed ballots. During the count, one (1) signed Calle Principal District 00-1 ballot was found to have no vote marked either in favor or in opposition, and was therefore unable to be counted. Seven (7) ballots for Alvarado Street District 85-1 were found in sealed envelopes marked for Calle Principal District 00-1, after the Alvarado Street District 85-1 public hearing had already concluded, and were therefore not counted.

On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-068 C.S.:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Williamson
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Smith
Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 4:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Max Rieser, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Awarding a Construction Contract in the Amount of $983,389.00 to Sweetwater Construction, Inc. for the Wharf 1 Immediate Repairs Project (Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination was filed on February 20, 2020)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the
Wharf 1 Immediate Repairs Project (CIP2501)
(“Project”) which are available in the office of the
City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public
Works Director, or their designee, the authority to
approve all amendments and addenda thereto as
necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Bid
to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder,
Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$983,389.00;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to
execute the contract upon the receipt of the
information required by the Project plans and
specifications; and

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 20%
for unforeseen construction contingencies for
timely completion of the Project
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
approve a $983,389 construction
contract with Sweetwater
Construction, Inc. for urgent repairs
to Wharf I.
 The project will address serious
structural damage, including timber
pile repairs, concrete foundation
fixes, and handrail replacements.
 Environmental mitigations, such as
marine wildlife protection and
hydro-acoustic testing, will
minimize ecological impacts during
construction.
 Efforts will be made to limit
disruptions to businesses and
public access, with impactful work
scheduled after Labor Day.
 Available funding of $1,590,366.46
ensures the project’s estimated
total cost of $1,278,405.70 is
covered, including a 20%
contingency for unforeseen issues.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 36 №11/25
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Two (2) bids were received and opened by the Finance Director’s designee on June 17, 2025 as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
Sweetwater Construction, Inc. $983,389.00
Power Engineering Construction Company $1,748,899.00
Engineer’s Estimate $1,500,000.00
The basis of award for this project is the Total Bid.

Estimated Construction Cost:

Total Bid $983,389.00
Construction Contingency (20%) $196,677.80
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $1,180,066.80 Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 98,338.90 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $ 1,278,405.70 Available Funding Sources:

CIP2501 $1,590,366.46
This Project has an available funding balance of $ 1,590,366.46.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Monterey City Council on January 21, 2020 (Resolution No. 20-009 C.S.). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072; a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from April 24, 2019 to May 27, 2019 (CEQA Section 15073), during which all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City's website (State Clearinghouse Number 2019049147). The IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources; mitigation measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. No comment letters were received during the public review period, but two comment letters were received after its conclusions: 1. California Coastal Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 37 №11/25
Commission on June 14, 2019, and 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 5, 2019. The letters provided comments regarding public access, duration and time of construction activities, sensitive biological resources, and water quality, to which response letters were provided. The Notice of Determination was filed on February 20, 2020.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this Project, however this is not recommended since the proposed Project implements repairs to serious damage identified in the 2024 condition assessment as needed to perform as a high-priority and urgent project.

DISCUSSION:

Wharf I, also known as Old Fisherman’s Wharf, was established in the mid-1800s. It initially served as a freight unloading dock and later became a hub for sardine transportation. The City took over ownership in 1913, and throughout the 20th century, the Wharf's purpose evolved.

Today, Wharf I features a main boardwalk, various concession buildings, finger piers, and docking and mooring structures, with both City-owned and tenant-operated facilities. It serves as top destination for visitors from around the world and provides a wide array of award-winning dining, shopping, deep-sea fishing trip, whale watching tour, bay cruises, a glass bottom boat, marine life, strolling, fishing and sailing.

The wharf is maintained through a structural maintenance program which inspects and assesses the condition to implement repairs in three to five year cycles. The 2024 condition assessment performed by Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc. (Foth) concluded that the wharf is overall in “poor” condition. Poor is defined by the American Society of Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 130 - Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment (ASCE WFI 130) as: "Major deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency." These conditions are in general alignment with previous inspection results. Typical damage found includes widespread marine borer damage (ocean critters burrowing) to timber structural elements and piles causing loss of section/material, deterioration/cracking of concrete encased piles, concrete bracing, beams found on the outer segment of the wharf, timber rot due to water damage, and asphalt degradation over the timber deck found throughout.

While the wharf is in overall “poor” condition, specific damage is categorized as “serious” which is defined as “advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected the load-bear capacity of primary structural components. Local failures are possible and loading restrictions may be necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a highpriority basis with urgency.” Although no immediate load restrictions were determined necessary at this time, there are piles and other elements that must be repaired with urgency. If the critical repairs are deferred any longer it may result in load restrictions or partial closures.

This project will repair forty-one (41) timber piles utilizing fiberglass wraps that are filled with marine concrete, known as “piles sleeves” or “jackets”, to restore the pile’s diameter and loading capacity. It also includes concrete pile foundation repairs, beam and post repairs, repair and replacement of the handrails at Concession 21 and 22 on the end of the finger pier, and pile replacement (via pile driving) adjacent to the “Guest” dock on the northwest end of the wharf.

The latter operation will be the most impactful due to noise from pile driving as well as Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 38 №11/25
temporary limited access to the dock but once implemented, would allow continued use of larger vessels to dock, such as the Western Flyer, at this location during favorable tidal conditions.

This project will include the necessary mitigations to appropriately perform construction and minimize impacts to life in Monterey Bay. The City’s Marine Wildlife Protection Plan for the structural maintenance program governs much of how and when work can take place. Protected or sensitive species such as nesting birds, eelgrass and black abalone will be surveyed by qualified biologists prior to construction. Various construction best management practices will be in place throughout the work to prevent debris from entering the Bay. Pile driving activities will have a marine mammal observer and buffers zones around the area of work. An additional requirement is “hydro-acoustic testing” during pile driving which will monitor the decibels of sound created all to limit the impacts of the repair work.

Efforts will also be made to limit impacts to businesses and public access. The in-water work, including the pile “jackets”, take place from boats with diving equipment and minor noise from small tools is the primary impact from these operations. The work that is more impactful, such as pile driving and work from the deck like on Concessions 21 & 22, will take place after Labor Day to allow the busier summer months to go minimally interrupted. The Fisherman’s Wharf Association is aware of the upcoming work and staff will continue coordination as the project moves forward.

The project plans and specifications were developed by Foth and City Staff and are available for public review in the office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7).

The City advertised the project on May 20, 2025 for bid proposals, and on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the City received four (2) bids. The lowest responsive, responsible total bid was submitted by Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $983,389.00. Sweetwater Construction is a marine construction contractor who has successfully performed work for the City, including Wharf II Critical Repairs and Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022. Staff are comfortable with their ability to perform the work successfully.

Staff recommends a 20% contingency on this project. Recent projects, such as Wharf 2 Deck Repairs, have only revealed the full extent of damage on the wharves during construction when surface material is removed. When new areas of damage are discovered that were not visible when the plans were prepared or during the inspections, they must be addressed before final restoration. Given the nature of unforeseen conditions on the wharves and recent experience, staff recommends a 20% contingency.

MR/ap
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Evaluation Tab
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. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 39 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $983,389.00 TO SWEETWATER CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE WHARF 1 IMMEDIATE REPAIRS

PROJECT
WHEREAS, on the 17th day of June 2025, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received two (2) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Wharf 1 Immediate Repairs Project (CIP2501) (“Project”); WHEREAS, Sweetwater Construction, Inc. and Power Engineering Construction Company submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Bid; WHEREAS, Sweetwater Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $983,389.00;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account CIP2501 to complete the project; WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Monterey City Council on January 21, 2020 (Resolution No. 20-009 C.S.). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072; a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from April 24, 2019 to May 27, 2019 (CEQA Section 15073), during which all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City's website (State Clearinghouse Number 2019049147). The IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources; mitigation measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. No comment letters were received during the public review period, but two comment letters were received after its conclusions: 1. California Coastal Commission on June 14, 2019, and 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 5, 2019. The letters provided comments regarding public access, duration and time of construction activities, sensitive biological resources, and water quality, to which response letters were provided. The Notice of Determination was filed on February 20, 2020.;

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. Approving the plans and specifications for the Wharf 1 Immediate Repairs Project (CIP2501) (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 40 granting the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Sweetwater Construction, Inc., in the amount of $983,389.00;

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 20% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

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. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 41 City of Monterey
Finance Department
Rafaela King, Finance Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - WHARF 1 IMMEDIATE REPAIRS (CIP2501)

Page 1 ends

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
WHARF 1 IMMEDIATE REPAIRS (CIP2501)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: June 17, 2025 at 2:00 pm
Tuesday, June 17, 2025

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Sweetwater Construction
Inc
$983,389.00
Power Engineering
Construction Co
$1,748,899.00
TABLE 1
Vendor Total
Sweetwater Construction
Inc
$983,389.00
Power Engineering
Construction Co
$1,748,899.00
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 42 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

ADOPTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGES TO

FEES, CHARGES, AND ASSESSMENTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, AB 2257, effective January 1, 2025, added Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 making two helpful changes to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implement Act. These statutes establish a clearly defined process to contest a new or increased fee or assessment that the ratepayer must follow to be eligible to bring a lawsuit contesting the fee or assessment. The benefit of this new law only applies if the City adopts a policy triggering its application.

WHEREAS, According to the author of AB 2257,1 Assemblymember Lori Wilson, the intent of AB 2257 is to
“…build upon Proposition 218’s existing procedural requirements by creating a clear and robust mechanism for customers to raise questions, concerns, comments, and criticisms of a proposed rate structure. The agency’s governing body would have the benefit of hearing the evidence, which would include objections and the agency’s responses, and apply its reasoned discretion and expertise. This is especially valuable in ratemaking cases in which evidence and policies are highly technical. The process would serve to foster better informed administrative decisions, which benefit the objector, the public agency, and ratepayers that the agency serves. It would also help agencies develop more defensible rates and build rapport and trust with their ratepayers.

WHEREAS, the City agrees with the intent as stated by Assemblymember Wilson, and intentionally drafted this ordinance to be broader than AB 2257, while applying AB 2257’s procedures, to capture all fees, charges, and assessments levied by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2257 Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 43 2 project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption. Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 1, sections 1-1 through 1-8.3 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 1, sections 1-1.00 through 1-1.10.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 1, Administrative Citations, Sections 1-9 through 1-9.12 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 1, Administrative Citations, Section 1-2.00 Through 1-2.13.

SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 2, Administrative Orders, Sections 1-9 through 1-9.12 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 2, Administrative Orders, Section 1-2.14 Through 1-2.34.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 3, Uniform Lien and Special Assessment Procedures, Sections 1-12 through 1-12.3 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 3, Uniform Lien and Special Assessment Procedures, Section 1-3.00 through 1-3.03.

SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 4, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments on Real Property is added to read as follows:
“Sec. 1-4.00 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
A. Scope. The duty to exhaust administrative remedies imposed by this section extends to:

1. any fee or charge subject to articles XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution,

2. any assessment on real property levied by the City, and

3. the methodology used to develop and levy such a fee, charge, or assessment.

B. “Hearing” as used in this section means the hearing referenced in paragraph 4 of subsection D of this section.

C. Duty to Exhaust Issues. No person may bring a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with the California Constitution or other applicable law for any new, increased, or extended fee, charge, or assessment levied by the City, unless that person submitted to the Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 44 City Clerk a timely, written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment specifying the grounds for alleging noncompliance. The issues raised in any such action or proceeding shall be limited to those raised in an objection unless a court finds the issue could not have been raised by objection by those exercising reasonable diligence.

D. Procedures. The City shall:

1. Make available to the public any proposed fee, charge, or assessment to which this section is to apply no less than 45 days before the deadline for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to submit an objection pursuant to paragraph 4 of this subsection D.

2. Post on its internet website a written basis for the fee, charge, or assessment, such as a cost of service analysis or an engineer’s report, and include a link to the internet website in the written notice of the Hearing, including, but not limited to, a notice pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 4 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

3. Mail the written basis described in paragraph 2 of this subsection D to a ratepayer or property owner on request.

4. Provide at least 45 days for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to review the proposed fee or assessment and to timely submit to the City Clerk a written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance. Any objection shall be submitted before the end of the public comment portion of a Hearing on the rate, charge or assessment.

5. Include in a written notice of the Hearing, a statement in bold-faced type of 12 points or larger that:
a. All written objections must be submitted to the City Clerk by the end of public comment period at the Hearing and that a failure to timely object in writing bars any right to challenge that fee, charge, or assessment in court and that any such action will be limited to issues identified in such objections.
b. All substantive and procedural requirements for submitting an objection to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment such as those specified for a property-related fee under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 6(a) or for an assessment on real property under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 4(e).

E. Council Consideration; City Responses. Before or during the Hearing, the City Council shall consider and the City shall respond in writing to, any timely written objections. The City Council may adjourn the Hearing to another date if necessary to respond to comments received after the agenda is posted for the meeting at which the Hearing occurs. The City’s responses shall explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed fee, charge, or assessment in response to written objections, including any reasons to reject requested amendments.

F. City Council Determinations. The City Council, in exercising its legislative discretion, shall determine whether:

1. The written objections and the City’s response warrant clarifications to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment.

2. To reduce the proposed fee, charge or assessment.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 45 4 3. To further review the proposed fee, charge, or assessment before determining whether clarification or reduction is needed.

4. To proceed with the Hearing, to continue it, or to abandon the proposal.” SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is 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 this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION 9: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 10: 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 _______, 2025, 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. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 46 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24
AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 25-3.03(d)(3)

TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE INVESTIGATION

DUTIES RELATED TO HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION/ABUSIVE

CONDUCT/BULLYING POLICY COMPLAINTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008, the Monterey City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3416, amending City Code Section 25-3.03 to Update the Harassment Policy; WHEREAS, Section 25-3.03 affirms the City of Monterey’s commitment to providing all current and prospective employees with a work environment that is free of discrimination and harassment, prohibits retaliation of any kind against individuals who report a violation of the Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy, and outlines how investigations and disciplinary actions are handled;
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance authorizes the Assistant City Manager to delegate investigation duties to a private investigator or outside counsel. The Human Resource Director is authorized to delegate investigative duties pursuant to City Code section 25-3.03(e), and it is the intent of the City to grant the same power and flexibility to the Assistant City Manager.

Allowing the Assistant City Manager to delegate investigative duties will improve efficiency of the investigative process, especially in complex cases; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 25, Article 3, 25-3.03(d)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 47 “Complaint Regarding Human Resources Director. Any time the Human Resources Director is the accused perpetrator of an incident of discrimination, harassment, abusive conduct/bullying or retaliation under the definitions of this policy, the complaint shall be made to the department head or Assistant City Manager, who shall assume the investigatory role and may delegate the duties described in subsection (e) to a private investigator or outside counsel, who shall make recommendations to the City Manager for the disposition of the complaint.”
SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 48 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

AMENDING THE SIDEWALK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE

REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIR VERIFICATION UPON CHANGE IN

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code section 5600 et seq. provides that the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks rests on the abutting property owner, regardless of who created the sidewalk defects;
WHEREAS, earlier this year the City updated its sidewalk ordinance and among the updates was a provision adding a real property transfer inspection and compliance provision.

This concept has proven difficult to administer due to short staffing in the Public Works Department. The intention of this ordinance is to repeal the process set forth in Section 32-29 without changing the duty of real property owners to inspect and repair sidewalks consistent with the other provisions of Chapter 32, Article 4;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

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: Chapter 32, Article 4, Section 32-29 is hereby repealed.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 49 2 circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 6: 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 _______, 2025, 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. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 50 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kevin Anderson, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: Approve the May 2025 Update of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2022-0103- DWQ (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the May 2025 update of the City of Monterey Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) as required by
the SWRCB Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ;

2. Authorizing the Public Works Director, or their designee, to implement the SSMP and to make minor modifications as
needed to maintain compliance with regulatory
requirements; and

3. Authorizing the Public Works Director, or their designee, to submit the SSMP to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) online database in accordance with
SWRCB reporting requirements.

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action supports the City’s continued compliance with state regulatory requirements for wastewater collection systems and advances the City’s goals related to environmental stewardship, infrastructure maintenance, and public health protection.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT)
APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
adopt the updated Sanitary
Sewer Management Plan
(SSMP) to comply with State
Water Resources Control Board
Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ.
 The updated SSMP includes
enhanced protocols for
operation, maintenance,
emergency response, and asset
management to improve system
performance and environmental
protection.
 The City’s sewer system serves
over 27,000 residents and
includes 99 miles of sewer
mains, lift stations, and
thousands of service
connections.
 Adoption of the SSMP ensures
regulatory compliance, eligibility
for state funding, and alignment
with regional wastewater
management efforts.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 51 №11/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None with respect to the practices already implemented by the City; any updates to protocols and practices will occur within existing staff and on-call consultant resources utilizing Sanitary Sewer Funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because City of Monterey’s proposed Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update involves data collection and research to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment, including sensitive areas.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment.

These protocols are intended to prevent any cumulative impact.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. No significant effect on the environment is anticipated.

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 City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. No impact to scenic highways is anticipated.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment.

The protocols and inspections are not anticipated to impact hazardous waste sites.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 52 №11/24
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. No impact to historic resources is anticipated.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to adopt the updated SSMP. However, doing so would place the City in noncompliance with State regulations, potentially resulting in enforcement action or loss of eligibility status for state grants or loans.

DISCUSSION:

The SSMP is the guiding document related to City operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and sewage spill (or, sanitary sewer overflow, “SSO”) prevention and response in support of the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs).

The City of Monterey owns and operates a sanitary sewer collection system that services a population of approximately 27,273 persons (California Department of Finance, 2025) through approximately 99 miles of gravity sewer mains, 1.5 miles of force mains, 7 lift stations, and over 2,300 manholes. This infrastructure serves over 9,000 residential, commercial, and institutional sewer service connections. Monterey’s Collection System conveys wastewater to the Monterey One Water (M1W) Agency for treatment.

In 2006, the SWRCB adopted a statewide General Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) to reduce the frequency and severity of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and ensure proper system operation. The WDR was updated in December 2022 with the adoption of Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ, which includes expanded requirements for documentation, monitoring, staff training, asset management, climate resilience, and system evaluation.

In May 2024 the City hired a consultant to audit its existing SSMP and found that updates were needed to the program and plan overall. City staff revised the SSMP per the recommendations made in the final audit report.

Under the updated WDR, all publicly owned sewer systems must revise and certify their SSMPs every six (6) years, with the next update for the City of Monterey due by August 2, 2025. In response, Public Works staff have completed a comprehensive update of the City’s SSMP, incorporating:
 Revised legal authorities, organizational roles, and staffing responsibilities;  Enhanced operation and maintenance procedures, including use of use of Infor Public Sector (IPS8) asset management system;
 An updated Sewer Emergency Response Plan (SERP);
 A refined Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program with Fat, Oil & Grease (FOG) program enhancements; and
 A full update of the City’s Capital Improvement and Capacity Assurance Planning elements, including reference to the 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan.

The SSMP update also aligns with regional efforts through M1W, including source control, public outreach, and inspection services. The updated document is organized in accordance Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 53 №11/24
with the eleven (11) required SSMP elements under the 2022 WDR and is publicly available on the City’s website.

Adoption of the updated SSMP by City Council is a requirement for certification in the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) and ensures that the City maintains eligibility for regulatory compliance and potential state infrastructure funding.

AR/ka
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Updated Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP)
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. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 54 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING THE MAY 2025 UPDATE OF THE SANITARY SEWER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP) IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. 2022-0103-DWQ (EXEMPT FROM CEQA, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 15306, CLASS 6) WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a sanitary sewer collection system that services a population of approximately 27,273 persons (California Department of Finance, 2025) through approximately 99 miles of gravity sewer mains, 1.5 miles of force mains, 7 lift stations, and related appurtenances serving residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional users; WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ on December 6, 2022, which reissued and updated the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for sanitary sewer systems, originally adopted in 2006; WHEREAS, the updated WDRs require that each publicly owned sewer system with more than one mile of pipeline develop and maintain an updated Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that complies with enhanced requirements for system operation, maintenance, monitoring, reporting, capacity assurance, asset management, emergency response, and stakeholder communication;
WHEREAS, in May 2024 the City hired a consultant to audit its existing SSMP, and found that updates were needed to the program and plan overall; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has prepared an updated SSMP dated May 2025 that meets the requirements of Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ and reflects current policies, procedures, infrastructure data, and best management practices;
WHEREAS, the updated SSMP has been reviewed by City staff, including the Public Works Department, and includes input from regional partners such as Monterey One Water; WHEREAS, the updated SSMP supports the City’s commitment to providing safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible wastewater collection services, and ensures continued compliance with State and Regional Water Board requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because City of Monterey’s proposed Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update involves data collection and research to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 55 environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment, including sensitive areas.

These protocols are intended to prevent any cumulative impact.

The protocols and inspections are not anticipated to impact hazardous waste sites.

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 City proposes to update maintenance protocols and inspections for the operation of the City’s sewer system; these protocols are intended to protect the environment. No impact to historic resources is anticipated.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monterey as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves the May 2025 update of the City of Monterey Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) as required by the SWRCB Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ;
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 56

2. The Public Works Director, or their designee, is authorized to implement the SSMP and to make minor modifications as needed to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements; and

3. The Public Works Director, or their designee, is authorized to submit the adopted SSMP to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) online database in accordance with SWRCB reporting requirements.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2025, 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. 12., Item Page 7, Packet Page 57 ATTACHMENT 2
City of Monterey
Sewer System Management Plan
Certified June 2025
Revised May 2025
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 8, Packet Page 58 ATTACHMENT 2
Contents
Contents.........................................................................................................................................................i Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................i Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ii Element 1: Goal and Introduction ................................................................................................................1 Element 2: Organization ...............................................................................................................................5 Element 3: Legal Authority .........................................................................................................................10 Element 4: Operations and Maintenance Program ....................................................................................17 Element 5: Design and Performance Provisions .........................................................................................26 Element 6: Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP).....................................................................................29 Element 7: Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program ....................................................................................30 Element 8: System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance and Capital Improvements ........................................44 Element 9: Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications .........................................................47 Element 10: SSMP Program Audits............................................................................................................54 Element 11: Communication Program.......................................................................................................56 Appendices
Appendix 1: Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ Appendix 2: Legally Responsible Official (LRO) Memo
Appendix 3: Organizational Chart (Public Works Dept. & Community Dev. Dept.) Appendix 4: SSO Chain of Communication
Appendix 5: Monterey City Code Chapter 30 Sewers and Sewage Disposal Appendix 6: M1W Ordinance No. 2023-01
Appendix 7: Sewer System Map and Sewer System Map by Relative Install Date Appendix 8: CCTV Inspection Program Summary
Appendix 9: Hot List Areas and Maintenance Schedules
Appendix 10: Sewer Root Foaming Map (2016)
Appendix 11: Sewer Line Creek Crossing Maps
Appendix 12: Sewer Lift Station Inventory Map, Data Table, Critical Parts, and M1W Maintenance Agreement Appendix 13: City Sewer Critical Parts, Equipment, Vendors/Suppliers, and Mutual Aid Lists Appendix 14: Standard Details for Sewer Improvements
Appendix 15: SSO Spill Response Protocol
Appendix 16: Fat, Oil, and Grease (FOG) Program Documentation Appendix 17: 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP)
Appendix 18: Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study (2011)
Appendix 19: Sewer Lift Station and Force Main Condition Assessment (2010) Appendix 20: SSMP Update Log
Appendix 21: Operation & Maintenance SOPs
i
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 9, Packet Page 59 ATTACHMENT 2
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP Best Management Practice
CalOES California Office of Emergency Services
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Monterey
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FOG Fats, Oil, and Grease
FSE Food Services Establishment
GIS Geographic Information System (GIS)
GPS Global Positioning System
HMA Hot List Maintenance Area
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
LRO Legally Responsible Official
M1W
(formerly MRWPCA)
Monterey One Water (new name of Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, formerly MRWPCA)
MCHD Monterey County Environmental Health Department
NSA Monterey U. S. Naval Support Activity Monterey
OES (or CalOES) Office of Emergency Services
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PLSD Private Lateral Sewage Discharge
POM U. S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey
ppm Parts per million
RWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 3) SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SECAP Sewer Evaluation and Capacity Assessment Plan
SERP Sewer Emergency Response Plan
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SUMP Sewer Utility Master Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
WDRs SWRCB Waste Discharge Requirements (Used herein to reference regulations in Orders No. 2006-0003-DWQ, WQ 2013-0058-EXEC. & 2022-0103-DWQ)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 10, Packet Page 60 ATTACHMENT 2
ii
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 11, Packet Page 61 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
1 | P a g e

SSMP ELEMENTS
Element 1: Goal and Introduction
The purpose of this Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) is to document the City of Monterey’s proactive and comprehensive approach to managing its sanitary sewer system in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ, adopted December 6, 2022.

The City of Monterey’s SSMP establishes goals and procedures to:
 Properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system.  Reduce the frequency and severity of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).  Mitigate the impacts of any SSOs that may occur.

The SSMP supports the City’s mission to provide safe, effective and environmentally responsible wastewater collection services, and reflects a commitment to continuous improvement and regulatory compliance.

1.1 Regulatory Background
On December 6, 2022, the State Water Board adopted Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ, which reissued and updated the statewide WDR originally adopted in 2006 (Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ). These WDRs were subsequently amended with an updated Monitoring and Reporting Program under Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC. The 2022 Order includes updated requirements for SSMP development, implementation, auditing, and reporting for publicly owned sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility.

Major updates in the 2022 Order include:
 Expanded documentation requirements.
 Enhanced electronic reporting and recordkeeping expectations.  Emphasis on climate change adaptation, asset management, and resiliency planning.  New mandates for capacity assessment and condition-based maintenance.  Requirements for staff training and certification.
 Updates to the SSMP audit and update frequency (every six years, with annual check-ins).

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 12, Packet Page 62 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
2 | P a g e

1.2 Sewer System Management Plan & Subsequent Update Schedule SSMP Update Due Dates
System
Name
WDID
Number
Original
Plan
Required
Due Date
Required Plan
Update Due
Date
Required Plan
Update Due
Date
Required Plan
Update Due
Date*
Required Plan
Update Due
Date*
Monterey
City CS
3SSO11524 8/2/2009 8/2/2014 8/2/2019 8/2/2025 8/2/2031
* Per Section 5.5 and Attachment E1, Section 3.11 of the General Order, Plan updates are due within six years after the required due date of the Enrollee's last Plan Update.

Audit Due Dates
WDID
Number
Original
Required
Plan
Audit
Due Date
Required
Plan
Audit
Due Date
Required
Plan
Audit
Due Date
Required
Plan
Audit
Due Date
Required
Plan
Audit
Due Date
Required
Plan Audit
Due Date
End of
Required
3-Year
Audit
Period**
End of
Required
3-Year
Audit
Period**
3SSO11524 8/2/2011 8/2/2013 8/2/2015 8/2/2017 8/2/2019 8/2/2021 8/2/2024 8/2/2027 ** Per Section 5.4 and Attachment E1, Section 3.10 of the General Order, the Audit Report is due within six months after the end of the required 6-year audit period.

1.3 Sewer System Asset Overview
The City of Monterey is an incorporated city in Monterey County, California. The city encompasses 8.6 square miles of land and 3.47 square miles of water (in the Monterey Bay). Per the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City of Monterey was 30,210 people. A 2024 rate study determined there were 6,560 residential connections, 2,435 commercial, 1 industrial, and 183 Other Public Agency connections. The City sewer infrastructure consists of 99 miles of gravity sewer mains and 1.5 miles of force mains, 7 lift stations, and over 2,300 manholes with pipe sizes up to 30-inches, that convey flows towards the Monterey One Water (M1W) wastewater treatment plant. It contains structures located in City easements on federally owned property at the U.S. Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSA Monterey) and the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (POM). The POM sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system is owned by the City of Monterey but was traditionally a separate system.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 13, Packet Page 63 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
3 | P a g e
Asset inventory is updated routinely and stored in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The GIS data is linked to the City’s work order and asset management system, Infor Public Sector v8 (IPS8), also known as Infor.

In the City of Monterey, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain the sanitary sewer lateral or private collection system that conveys wastewater from a property building drain to a public sewer main, including the connection to the main regardless of whether any part of the lateral is located on private property or within public right-of-way.

1.4 SSMP Structure and Implementation
This SSMP is structured to follow the 11 elements required under the 2022 Reissued WDR, ensuring comprehensive coverage of all regulatory requirements. Each element provides updated policies, procedures, and data to reflect current practices and to align with the expectations of the new Order. The 11 elements are outlined as follows:

1. Goal and Introduction

2. Organization
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 14, Packet Page 64 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
4 | P a g e

3. Legal Authority

4. Operation and Maintenance Program

5. Design and Performance Provisions

6. Overflow Emergency Response Plan

7. Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program

8. System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan

9. Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications

10. Internal Audits

11. Communication Program
The Legally Responsible Official (LRO) is currently the Public Works Director is a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and has the authority to ensure compliance, authority over management of the entire sewer system, and is authorized to make managerial decisions governing operations, capital improvements and ensuring long term environmental compliance.

Implementation of the SSMP is the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department, Streets & Utilities Division, and Engineering Division, in coordination with supporting departments and partner agencies as needed.

Ongoing monitoring, internal audits, and annual updates will ensure that the SSMP remains effective and current with system changes and evolving regulations. A comprehensive review and updates will be completed by the Engineering and Environmental Regulations team annually at the time the CIWQS annual report is being prepared.

The SSMP integrates many on-going City activities into this one formal document. Some of these activities are described in greater detail in other documents that are referenced in the SSMP. Applicable documents are kept at the Public Works Department Office located at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Room 7, Monterey, CA. This SSMP is also available online to the public at
https://monterey.gov/city_hall/public_works/engineering/environmental_regulations/sanitary_sewer_progra m.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 15, Packet Page 65 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
5 | P a g e
Element 2: Organization
WDR requirement: The City’s SSMP must identify organizational staffing responsible and integral for implementing the local Sewer System Management Plan through an organization chart or similar narrative documentation that includes:

The Legally Responsible Official (LRO) for the City of Monterey is Andrea Renny, Public Works Director. Her duly authorized representative is Andrew Easterling, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer.

A table listing the City-designated roles with the SWRCB and in the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Online SSO Database is below, and a memo of the same information is in Appendix 2.

Table 2.1 Positions Registered in the California Integrated Water System (CIWQS) Online SSO Database
Name Title CIWQS SSO
Database
CIWQS
Party ID
CIWQS Start
Date
Andrea Renny Public Works Director Legally Responsible
Official (LRO)
633905 07/07/2022
Andrew
Easterling
Deputy Public Works
Director/City Engineer
Legally Responsible
Official (LRO)
641855 12/01/2023
Kevin Anderson Engineering Project
Manager
Data Submitter 594210 01/23/2019
Karl Kreutzer Environmental
Regulations Analyst
Data Submitter 650755 05/06/2025
Rebecca Baggott Environmental
Regulations Analyst
Data Submitter 650758 05/06/2025
Table 2.2 Positions that Implement the City’s SSMP
WDR Element Positions(s)
Legally Responsible Official
(LRO) or Duly Authorized
Representative
Public Works Director

1. Goal and Introduction City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations

2. Organization City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations

3. Legal Authority City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Environmental
Regulations
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 16, Packet Page 66 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
6 | P a g e

4. Operation and
Maintenance Program
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations, Fleet and Streets Operation Manager, Fire Chief, Streets and
Utilities Supervisors, Harbormaster, Engineering Staff

5. Design and
Performance
Provisions
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations,
Engineering Staff

6. Overflow and
Emergency Response
Plan
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations, Fleet and Streets Operation Manager, Fire Chief, Streets and
Utilities Supervisors, Harbormaster, Engineering Staff

7. Sewer Pipe Blockage
Control Program
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations,
Engineering Staff

8. System Evaluation and
Capacity Assurance
Plan (SECAP)
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations

9. Monitoring,
Measurement, and
Program Modifications
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations

10. SSMP Program Audits City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations

11. Communication
Program
City Council, City Manager/Assistant City Manager,
Public Works Director, Environmental Regulations
Table 2.3 Contact Information City Council
Title Name Email Phone
Mayor - Dec. 2026 Tyller
Williamson
[email protected]
v
(831) 646-
3760
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 17, Packet Page 67 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
7 | P a g e
Councilmember,
District 1 - Dec.
2026
Kim Barber [email protected]
Councilmember,
District 2 - Dec.
2026
Ed Smith [email protected]
Councilmember,
District 3 - Dec.
2028
Jean Rasch [email protected]
Councilmember,
District 4 - Dec.
2028
Gino Garcia [email protected]
City Manager Office
Title Name Email Phone
City Manager Hans Uslar [email protected]
Assistant City
Manager
Nat
Rojanasathira
[email protected]
ov
(831) 646-
3760
Staff Directory
Title Name Email Phone
City Attorney Cristine Davi [email protected] (831) 646- 3915
Public Works
Director
Andrea Renny [email protected]
Deputy Public
Works Director/City
Engineer
Andrew
Easterling
[email protected]
(831) 646-
3921
Fire Chief Andrew Miller [email protected] (831) 646- 6957
Assistant Fire Chief Patrick Moor [email protected] (831) 646- 3905
Harbormaster Nichole
Rodriguez
[email protected] (831) 646-
3950
Streets & Utilities
Operation Manager
Jeff Glass [email protected]
Street & Utility
Supervisor
Ethan Callihan [email protected]
Street & Utility
Supervisor
Bart Bartoli [email protected]
(831)646-
3927
Engineering Project
Manager
Kevin Anderson [email protected] (831) 646-
3746
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 18, Packet Page 68 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
8 | P a g e
Environmental
Regulations
Analyst
Karl Kreutzer [email protected] (831) 242-
8774
Environmental
Regulations
Analyst
Rebecca
Baggott
[email protected] (831) 646-
3751
Chief of Inspection
Services/Building
Official
Lori Williamson [email protected]
v
(831) 242-
8746
Figure 2.1: Organizational Lines of Authority

2.1 The chain of communication for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a complaint or other information, including the person responsible for reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water Board and other agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, and/or State Office of Emergency Services (OES)).

SSO reports typically begin with a call from an observer to the City of Monterey or 911 dispatchers.  During business hours the City sewer spill telephone contact number is (831)646-3921 or 911.  After City business hours the contact number is the City Non-Emergency Number (831)646-3914 or 911.

Monterey City Council -City
Manager/Assistant City Manager - City
Attorney
Public Works
Director/City
Engineer
Harbormaster
Streets & Utility
Operation
Manager
Street & Utility
Supervisor
Engineering
Projects Manager
Environmental
Regulations
Analyst
Community
Development
Director
Chief of Inspection
Services/Building
Official
Fire Chief/Assistant
Fire Chief
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 19, Packet Page 69 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
9 | P a g e
The full Chain of Communication process is outlined in Appendix 4 of this SSMP.

During the SSO response process, the following actions are taken to verify reports and protect public health and the environment:

1. Initial response during business hours: Public Works Department - Streets and Utilities Division receives calls from an observer or emergency dispatchers. Staff collect the location of concern and a description of the issue and dispatch a response crew to investigate.

2. Initial response after hours: The Monterey Fire Department responds to the reported location, confirms whether an SSO has occurred, and notifies the Public Works On-Call response crew for sewer utility support.

3. Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP): Once an SSO is verified, the Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP) outlined in Appendix 15 of the SSMP.

4. Regulatory Notifications: Per the WDRs, City Fire or Public Works notifies California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) within two (2) hours of the City becoming aware of a Category 1 SSO greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons discharged to a surface water or spilled in a location where it probably will be discharged to surface water.

CalOES notifies multiple agencies, including the Monterey County Health Department (MCHD), though City Fire or Public Works staff typically contact MCHD directly, as well.

5. SSO Report Preparation (CIWQS): Upon completion of containment and clean-up, the Public Works Engineering and Environmental Regulations Divisions initiate the draft CIWQS SSO Report for LRO review and certification.

Information is collected from field crew(s) to inform the CIWQS report, which may include a Fire Incident Report and/or Streets and Utilities Work Order, photos and field notes.

If federal or emergency agencies are involved, coordination with the Harbor National Response Center (NRC) may also occur.

The Public Works Department is the lead agency responsible for implementing the SSMP and responding to SSOs. The Streets and Utilities Division maintains and operates the sewer collection system. These staff provide 24/7 response coverage for sewer-related incidents.

In addition, the Streets & Utilities, Engineering and Environmental Regulations Divisions will collaborate for system CCTV inspection, mapping, design, hydraulic analysis, and capital project programming. Sewer spill reporting is prepared by Public Works and may be completed in coordination with Fire Incident information and Harbor National Response Center (NRC) when emergency or federal response services are involved.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 20, Packet Page 70 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
10 | P a g e
Element 3: Legal Authority
WDR requirement: Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to:

3.1 Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system from inflow and infiltration (I&I); unauthorized stormwater; chemical dumping; unauthorized debris; roots; fats, oils, and grease; and trash, including rags and other debris that may cause blockages.

The City’s authority to prevent these discharges is established in the City Code Chapter 30 Sewers and Sewage Disposal (Appendix 5) Section 30-1.2(b)(2) requires property owners to maintain sewer laterals in a manner that prevents the entry of ground water or surface waters into the conveyance. Similarly, the City is responsible for maintaining its public sewer system to minimize infiltration and inflow.

City Code section 30-2 incorporates by reference the Monterey One Water (M1W) Ordinance 2023-01 (Appendix 6).. M1W Ordinance 2023-01 section 2.01.2 prohibits inflow through direct or indirect connections to the collection system.

In additionCity Code section 30-1.8 requires that property owners must remove any abandoned sewer lateral, which does not serve a habitable property for a period of over three months. All documents are available at Monterey.gov and can be obtained from the Public Works Department and City Clerk Office.

To address FOG discharges from food service establishments, the City passed and adopted Ordinance No. 3357 C.S. (July 5, 2005) adding Chapter 30 Article 3 to the Municipal Code. This article sets forth requirements for the installation, maintenance, and use of grease traps and interceptors. Historically, M1W provides contract inspection services to several member agencies, including the City of Monterey, to help implement these programs. This regional approach, led by M1Ws Source Control Division, leverages economies of scale, ensuring a consistent and cost-effective method to meet the regulatory requirements of both the Sewer Pipe Blockage Control and Stormwater Management Programs.

M1W Ordinance 2023-01, Section 1.02 (Appendix 6) also incorporates national pretreatment requirements under 40 CFR 403.5, specifying that stricter applicable federal or local standards will apply. M1W reserves the right to enforce stricter discharge limits than those set by the national program. These standards are adopted by reference in City code.

Legal authority will be periodically reviewed as changes to requirements or City policies warrant. This activity will be initiated by Public Works and/or Community Development staff and will include consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and any outside agencies necessary to assure proper legal authorities are in place to implement and enforce this program.

Any violation of the City’s ordinance will be enforced by the City. Depending upon the nature of the violation, the Chief Building Official, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Code Enforcement Officer, and/or the City Attorney may be involved.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 21, Packet Page 71 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
11 | P a g e

3.2 Collaborate with storm sewer agencies to coordinate emergency spill responses, ensure access to storm sewer systems during spill events, and prevent unintentional cross connections of sanitary sewer infrastructure to storm sewer infrastructure.

The City of Monterey actively collaborates with regional and local storm sewer system agencies to ensure effective coordination during emergency spill response events and to maintain the integrity of both sanitary and storm sewer systems.

During an emergency sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), access to the storm drain system is critical for containment, mitigation, and prevention of discharges to surface waters. The City’s Public Works Department works closely with the Cities of Pacific Grove, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, and other applicable agencies to facilitate immediate coordination during such events. This includes establishing shared communication protocols, joint response efforts, and ensuring physical access to storm drain infrastructure when needed.

To prevent unintentional cross-connections between the sanitary and storm sewer systems, the City incorporates the following preventative and response measures:
 Routine inspections of the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, including through CCTV inspection programs;
 System mapping and GIS coordination to identify and address any potential or existing crossconnections;  Design standards and plan review procedures that clearly delineate storm and sanitary sewer infrastructure during development or repair projects;
 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination training with emergency responders and utility crews to ensure awareness of infrastructure layouts and response protocols;  Participation in regional planning efforts related to stormwater and wastewater management.

In the event of an SSO that could affect or involve the storm sewer system, City staff follow the protocols outlined in the Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP), which includes communication with external stormwater agencies and immediate measures to isolate or redirect flow where possible.

By maintaining these collaborative relationships and proactive practices, the City ensures that emergency response efforts are coordinated, cross-connections are avoided, and both public health and water quality are protected.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 22, Packet Page 72 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
12 | P a g e

3.3 Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed; The City of Monterey requires that all sanitary sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed in accordance with applicable standards and codes.

Sewers and connections are governed by the California Plumbing Code, which has been adopted by the City.

The design and construction of sewer laterals, including those located on private property, must comply with Chapter 7 of the California Plumbing Code and are subject to inspection by City staff based on location of the lateral.
 The portion of the lateral from the building to the street right-of-way is inspected by the City Building Inspector under a valid plumbing permit.
 The portion of the lateral from the street right-of-way to the point of connection to the sewer main, including trench backfill and pavement and sidewalk restoration, is inspected by the Public Works Inspector under an encroachment (street opening) permit, as required by City Code Chapter 2 Article 6 - Street Excavations.

Sewer mains are typically designed by City Engineering staff or by consultants hired by the City. For improvements within private subdivisions that will be turned over to the City, the design must be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to construction. Public Works Inspectors inspect all sewers that are to be dedicated to the City. To support proper construction practices, the City provides standard details of sewer laterals and mains which are available from the Public Works Department and included in Appendix 14 of this SSMP.

3.4 Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public Agency;
The City has identified 160 laterals that are maintained by the City. These are either public buildings, or private buildings that have a clause written in the lease agreement that the City will maintain the sewer lateral. The City of Monterey ensures access to portions of the sewer lateral that are owned or maintained by the City for the purposes of maintenance, inspection, and repair.

To ensure access to City owned laterals, the City relies on the following mechanisms:
 Easements and Public Right-of-Way: Sewer laterals within the public right-of-way are accessible to City staff and contractors for maintenance and emergency response. These rights are granted under the City’s authority to manage and maintain public infrastructure withing the right-of-way.  Encroachment permitting: Any work by private property owners or contractors within the right-of-way includes surface improvements such as pavement, landscaping, retaining walls, or sidewalks, is regulated through the City’s encroachment permit process. This process ensures that installations do not impede access to sewer infrastructure and that the City retains the ability to perform maintenance or repair work when needed.
 Routine and emergency access: City Public Works crews routinely inspect and maintain publicly owned portions of the lateral using trenchless technologies, closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection, and Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 23, Packet Page 73 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
13 | P a g e
hydro-jetting. In the event of a sewer overflow or backup, emergency crews are dispatched with authority to access and service the public portion of the lateral.  Coordination with Property Owners: When repairs or inspections require temporary access through private property (i.e.. To reach a cleanout at the property line), the City communicates directly with property owners to coordinate access and ensure minimal disruption. In such cases, a Right-of-Entry agreement may be issued by the Public Works Department ensuring that the property will be left in the existing or better condition than when entering..
 Access under Wharves: City Harbor may facilitate access under wharves by providing boats, floating pontoons, or constructing catwalks beneath the wharf for access.

These procedures help ensure reliable access to publicly maintained sewer laterals segments while supporting timely maintenance, inspection, and repair activities to protect the integrity of the system and prevent sanitary sewer overflows.

3.5 Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures.

The City of Monterey actively enforces its sewer ordinances, service agreements, and any other legally binding procedures to ensure proper use, maintenance, and protection of its sanitary sewer system.

Enforcement actions are carried out under the authority established in the Monterey City Code, primarily Chapter 30 – Sewers and Sewage Disposal, and related chapters including Chapter 32 – Streets and Sidewalks, and the adopted California Plumbing Code.

Violations subject to enforcement include, but are not limited to:
 Illicit discharges such as fats, oils, and grease (FOG), chemicals, stormwater, or debris;  Unauthorized or improper sewer connections;
 Failure to maintain private sewer laterals in a condition that prevents inflow and infiltration;  Noncompliance with sewer construction or permitting requirements;  Obstruction of access to sewer facilities located within the public right-of-way.

The enforcement process is administered by multiple departments depending on the nature of the violation:
 The Public Works Department is responsible for enforcement related to sewer maintenance, construction, and system protection.
 The Community Development Department (including Code Enforcement and Building Inspection) oversees violations related to private property, plumbing permits, and lateral conditions.  The City Attorney’s Office may assist in enforcement actions that require legal proceedings or interpretation of municipal code.
 For violations related to grease control or pretreatment standards, the City coordinates with Monterey One Water (M1W), who can provide inspection services and make recommendations on corrective actions.

Enforcement actions may include verbal and written notices, correction orders, administrative citations, permit revocations, cost recovery for damages or City response, and legal action when necessary. The City also Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 24, Packet Page 74 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
14 | P a g e
reserves the right to suspend or terminate sewer service in cases of severe or repeated violations that endanger public health, the environment, or infrastructure.

3.6 Obtain easement accessibility agreements for locations requiring sewer system operations and maintenance, as applicable.

The City of Monterey identifies and maintains access to all sanitary sewer system assets, including those located on private property or within easements. For locations requiring regular operation and maintenance access, the City obtains and documents easement accessibility agreements, as applicable. These agreements ensure legal and physical access for City staff and contractors to perform inspections, maintenance, and emergency response activities. Easement locations are mapped in the City’s GIS and asset management systems, and accessibility needs are reviewed during planning, condition assessments, and capital improvement project development. Coordination with property owners is ongoing to ensure unobstructed access and compliance with the City’s sewer system maintenance responsibilities.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 25, Packet Page 75 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
15 | P a g e
Table 3.1: Summary of Legal Mechanisms for Public and Private Sewer System WDR Requirement Monterey City Code or M1W (MRWPCA)
2023-01 Ordinance Section
a. Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system from Inflow & Infiltration (I/I), unauthorized storm water, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris; roots; fats, oils, and grease; and trash, including rags and other debris that may cause blockages etc.).

City Codes:
 Chapter 30, Section 30-1.2, 30-1.7,
Article 3, & 30-2, Section 30-6g
M1W Ordinance No. 2023-01:
 Section 2.01 through 2.10, & Section

2.10.2(f)
b. Collaborate with storm sewer agencies to coordinate emergency spill responses, ensure access to storm sewer systems during spill events, and prevent unintentional cross connections of sanitary sewer infrastructure to storm sewer infrastructure Not available in City Code or M1W Ordinance
No2023-01
c. Require that sewer components and connections be properly designed and constructed;
City Codes:
 Chapter 9, Articles 1.0 and 1.5
 Chapter 30, Section 30-2, 30-6.e, &
30-8 Permittee required to construct,
modify, improve, or enlarge any
sanitary sewer collection facilities.

M1W Ordinance No 2023-01
 Section 2.11:
d. Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Enrollee; City Codes:
 Chapter 9, Articles 1.0 and 1.5
 Chapter 30, Section 30-1.6, 30-2,30-
5e, 30-6, & 30-9.2
M1W Ordinance 2023-01
 Section 4.05.8, 4.06, 4.07, 4.13
e. D.13(iii)(e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances. City Codes:
 Chapter 30, Section 30-1, 30-1.7, 30-
2, &30-9.1
M1W Ordinance No 2023-01:
 Articles 6 & 7
f. Obtain easement accessibility agreements for locations requiring sewer system operation and maintenance, as applicable
Not available in City Code
M1W Ordinance No 2023-01:
 Section 7.08
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 26, Packet Page 76 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
16 | P a g e
Element 4: Operations and Maintenance Program
WDR requirement: The Plan must include the items listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee’s system.

The City of Monterey maintains a proactive and systematic operation and maintenance (O&M) program to ensure the reliability and performance of its sanitary sewer system. This program supports regulatory compliance, public health protection, and the minimization of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The City continually evaluates and updates its O&M practices based on system performance, asset conditions, and new regulatory requirements.

4.1 Updated Map of Sanitary Sewer System
The City maintains an up-to-date Geographic Information System (GIS)-based map of the sanitary sewer system.

This map includes:
 Gravity line segments and manholes
 Pumping stations
 Pressure pipes
 Applicable stormwater conveyance facilities
 Sewer system service area boundaries
The GIS data is updated regularly based on capital improvement projects, field inspections, and asset verifications. Mapping updates are managed by the Engineering Division in coordination with the Streets & Utilities Division, and Environmental Regulations team. Digital access to the map is available to field crews, engineers, and managers through mobile and desktop platforms.

The City provides access to the system maps to State and Regional Water Board staff upon request or during inspections. Data is available to the public to view at https://monterey.gov/services/gis.php

4.2 Preventive Operation and Maintenance Activities
The City uses a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to schedule and document preventive maintenance (PM) and inspection activities. Preventive maintenance is prioritized based on asset conditions, location-specific risks, and historical performance.

Key components of the PM program include:
 Routine cleaning and inspection of all sewer lines on a scheduled basis.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 27, Packet Page 77 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
17 | P a g e
 Higher-Maintenance Areas (HMA) of known problem areas, including locations with recurring root intrusion, grease accumulation, or historical blockages.  Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) inspections of sewer mains and manholes to identify defects, assess structural conditions, and prioritize repairs.
 Root control through mechanical root cutting and chemical root treatment, as appropriate.

All inspection and maintenance data are logged in the CMMS and GIS attributes, including observations of root intrusion, debris accumulation, pipe condition, and recommendations for follow-up action. Areas prone to SSOs or maintenance issues are flagged for increased monitoring.

4.3 Training
The City of Monterey provides regular training for all staff and contractors involved in sewer system operations, maintenance, and emergency response. Training ensures that personnel are familiar with regulatory requirements, standard procedures, and best practices.

Training topics include:
 Requirements of the SWRCB General Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ  Implementation of the City’s Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP), including response protocols and practice drills
 Spill volume estimation methods for accurate and timely reporting  Use of the CIWQS Online SSO Reporting System, including data entry procedures and reporting timelines
Training records are maintained by the Streets & Utilities Division, and Engineering Division, and refresher courses are conducted at regular intervals or as regulatory requirements change.

4.4 Equipment Inventory
The City maintains a current inventory of sewer system maintenance and repair equipment, including:
 Vacuum trucks and hydro-jetting units
 CCTV inspection cameras and software
 Mechanical root cutters
 Portable generators and bypass pumping equipment
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 28, Packet Page 78 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
18 | P a g e
 Traffic control equipment
 Pipe, couplers, precast manholes, covers, frames, risers.

The equipment inventory also includes critical spare parts, such as pump components, replacement valves, manhole frames and covers, and emergency repair materials. Critical items are stocked to reduce response time and maintain service continuity during failures or emergencies.

The Utilities Division routinely assesses equipment condition and availability to support uninterrupted maintenance and emergency response operations.

Figure 4.1: M1W Service Area and M1W Pump Station Map (2024) The City owns seven (7) lift stations with corresponding force mains. Lift stations are operated and maintained under contract by M1W maintenance staff. The system includes sizes ranging from 6-inch diameter to 36-inch diameter lines. The system is comprised primarily of VCP, with sections of PVC and HDPE pipe installed with newer construction and rehabilitation and replacement projects. With the exception of lift stations, all operations and maintenance activities are conducted by City Staff. This SSMP Element 4 outlines the work that is conducted to accomplish the optimal operation and maintenance of the City’s collection system. The table below shows an inventory of current wastewater conveyance pipelines.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 29, Packet Page 79 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
19 | P a g e
Table 4.1: Existing Pipeline Inventory by Diameter
Diameter Length
(inches) Feet Miles
Type Gravity Force Main Gravity Force
Main
4-6 250,244 5,529 47.4 1
8 188,409 2,632 35.7 0.5
9 - 18 65,835.9 0 12.5 0
19 - 36 9,389.8 0 1. 8 0
Totals 513,878.7 8,161 97.3 1.5
System
Total
522,039.7 98.9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 30, Packet Page 80 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
20 | P a g e
Figure 4.2: Sanitary Sewer Collection and Conveyance System Map The City owns 7 wastewater lift stations that are operated under contract with the Monterey One Water (M1W). Lift Station locations are shown below.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 31, Packet Page 81 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
21 | P a g e
Figure 4.3: Lift Station Overview Map
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 32, Packet Page 82 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
22 | P a g e
Figure 4.4: Storm Water Drainage System Map
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 33, Packet Page 83 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
23 | P a g e
Figure 4.5: High Maintenance Areas Map
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 34, Packet Page 84 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
24 | P a g e
Element 5: Design and Performance Provisions
WDR Requirement: The Plan must include the following items as appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee’s system:
 Updated Design Criteria and Construction Standards and Specifications  Procedures and Standards
The City of Monterey ensures that all sanitary sewer system infrastructure is designed, constructed, repaired, and rehabilitated to meet current and future performance, safety, and regulatory standards. This element outlines the City’s approach to maintaining and applying up-to-date design criteria, construction standards, and quality assurance procedures that support long-term system reliability and compliance.

5.1 Updated Design Criteria and Construction Standards and Specifications New Sanitary Sewer Systems
The City of Monterey has adopted the 2022 California Plumbing Code as the governing standard for the installation of all new sanitary sewer systems, including lift stations and other appurtenances, as well as for the rehabilitation and repair of existing sewer systems. In addition, the City references well-established and universally recognized design resources such as Metcalf & Eddy’s Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse and the Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Utilizing these widely accepted standards promotes consistency, quality, and uniformity in the planning and implementation of public works projects across the region.

To support consistent application and interpretation of construction practices, the City also maintains Standard Details for Public Works Improvements, available both in Appendix 14 of this SSMP and online at https://monterey.gov/city_hall/community_development/building___safety/city_standard_details/index.ph p.

These standard details serve as a reference for City staff, design consultants, and contractors to ensure consistent construction practices across projects involving the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure.

Rehabilitation and Repair of Existing Sanitary Sewer Systems Currently, the design and construction standards for rehabilitation and repair of sewer systems are developed on a project-specific basis by the City’s Public Works Department. This approach allows the City to tailor rehabilitation strategies to the specific conditions, materials, and performance requirements of each project.

Examples of recent project-specific standards and technical specifications include (see Appendix 14 for detailed documentation):
 April 2014 Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Package 4 – Pump Station Upgrades  September 2015 Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Packages 3 and 5 – D and F Rated Pipe Rehabilitation; and Package 6 – Manhole Rehabilitation
These specifications have been developed as part of the City’s comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Collection System Rehabilitation Program and provide a technical foundation for future projects.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 35, Packet Page 85 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
25 | P a g e
To further support consistency, the City adopted an updated, comprehensive set of design and construction standards in January 2020 (Appendix 14). These standards consolidate best practices from recent projects and become the default reference for all applicable City sewer projects. This formal standard incorporates design elements to ensure adequate component-specific hydraulic capacity, as required under Element 8 of this SSMP, and is integrated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and development review process.

5.2: Procedures and Standards
The City of Monterey ensures the integrity and performance of its sanitary sewer infrastructure through formal inspection and testing procedures for all newly constructed, installed, repaired, and rehabilitated system components. These procedures are coordinated by the Permit and Inspection Services Office, a division of the Community Development Department, in partnership with the Public Works Department. Together, these departments are responsible for reviewing construction plans and inspecting all phases of work for compliance with local and state codes.

Regulatory Oversight and Permitting
All new buildings and renovations requiring a Building Permit must comply with Chapter 7 of the California Plumbing Code, which establishes comprehensive requirements for the design and installation of private sanitary sewer systems. This includes sewerage within the building as well as systems extending to the property line. Notably, Section 710 governs the installation of private ejector pump systems.

Permits for the installation, testing, and inspection of new or rehabilitated sewer laterals are required through the City of Monterey Permits and Inspection Services Division. Private laterals must adhere to Chapter 7 of the Plumbing Code and are subject to inspection prior to backfill.

Sewer Main Testing and Inspection
Sewer mains and other public sewer infrastructure are installed and tested in accordance with industry standards defined in the City’s technical specifications. Public Works Inspectors oversee inspection of projects performed by City-hired contractors. For City in-house repair work, trained Streets and Utilities Division personnel follow established construction procedures, with quality verified through CCTV inspections performed post-construction.

City Code Requirements and Public Resources
The City of Monterey has also adopted local amendments to the California Plumbing Code through Section 9-2 of the Monterey City Code. One key amendment to Section 710.1 requires any building with its lowest fixture located less than two feet above the rim of the nearest uphill manhole to be equipped with a backwater valve, a relief vent, and a cleanout approved by the Permits and Inspection Services Office.

To inform and assist residents, the City provides public resources such as the “Preventing Sewage Backups at Home” brochure and an online backwater valve look-up tool on https://monterey.gov/city_hall/public_works/engineering/environmental_regulations/sanitary_sewer_progra m/index.php, which allows property owners to determine whether a backwater valve is recorded at their address.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 36, Packet Page 86 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
26 | P a g e
These inspection procedures, code enforcement efforts, and public education tools together ensure that both private and public components of the sewer system are properly installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards—thereby safeguarding system reliability and protecting public health.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 37, Packet Page 87 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
27 | P a g e
Element 6: Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP)
WDR Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ Attachment D, section 6 requirement: The Plan must include an up-todate Spill Emergency Response Plan to ensure prompt detection and response to spills to reduce spill volumes and collect information for prevention of future spills. The Spill Emergency Response Plan must include procedures to:
(a) Notify primary responders, appropriate local officials, and appropriate regulatory agencies of a spill in a timely manner;
(b) Notify other potentially affected entities (for example, health agencies, water suppliers, etc.) of spills that potentially affect public health or reach waters of the State; (c) Comply with the notification, monitoring and reporting requirements of this General Order, State law and regulations, and applicable Regional Water Board Orders; (d) Address emergency system operations, traffic control and other necessary response activities; (e) Contain a spill and prevent/minimize discharge to waters of the State or any drainage conveyance system;
(f) Minimize and remediate public health impacts and adverse impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State;
(g) Remove sewage from the drainage conveyance system;
(h) Clean the spill area and drainage conveyance system in a manner that does not inadvertently impact beneficial uses in the receiving waters;
(i) Implement technologies, practices, equipment, and interagency coordination to expedite spill containment and recovery;
(j) Implement pre-planned coordination and collaboration with storm drain agencies and other utility agencies/departments prior, during, and after a spill event; (k) Conduct post-spill assessments of spill response activities; (l) Document and report spill events as required in this General Order; and (m)Annually, review and assess effectiveness of the Spill Emergency Response Plan, and update the Plan as needed.

A comprehensive, standalone SERP is included in Appendix 15 of this SSMP, and can be found electronically at the following link to the City website:
https://monterey.gov/city_hall/public_works/engineering/environmental_regulations/sanitary_sewe r_program/index.php
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 38, Packet Page 88 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
28 | P a g e
Element 7: Sewer Pipe Blockage Control Program
The City of Monterey consistently has over three hundred (300) food service establishments (FSEs) within its jurisdiction that may generate fat, oil, and grease (FOG). The breakdown of types of FSEs is graphically portrayed below, which is based on numbers of FSEs sorted by FSE type. The primary goal of the City of Monterey’s FOG Control Program is to decrease the amount of FOG entering the sanitary sewer system to minimize the risk of SSOs. This program is found in City Code Chapter 30, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article 3 Maintenance and Use of Fat, Oil and Grease Pretreatment Equipment (Appendix 5).

Figure 7.1: Types of FSEs in the City of Monterey FOG Control Program Background
In the early 2000’s under Waste Discharge Requirements Order No R3-2002-0078, City Public Works Engineering Division worked with M1W (formerly MRWPCA) source control program staff to develop a source control program for grease control locally. Grease from commercial sources was found to be an issue contributing to blockages and overflows of the regional sanitary sewer system. The primary source of wastewater containing oil and grease and contributing to SSOs was determined to be generated from commercial FSE sources, contributing in the I,000's-I0,000's mg/L; whereas, on average, grease concentrations in residential wastewater flows were found to range from 15-250 mg/L. Consequently, early City and regional FOG efforts focused on commercial FSEs.

In March 2005, the City entered into an agreement with M1W (formerly MRWPCA) to implement an inspection and source control program, during which they sized and inspected all FSE grease control equipment in the City.

In April 2005, the City sent letters to 300 food service facilities introducing the grease program and upcoming 6%
3%
23%
5%
2%
60%
Café/Bakery
School/Church/Gym/Hall
Grocery/Deli/Theater/Ice
Cream/Coffee shop/Juice/Bar
Hotel/Catering
Live-In Facility
Restaurant
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 39, Packet Page 89 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
29 | P a g e
inspections. This work was completed by M1W in 2005. In July 2005, the City subsequently developed and adopted Ordinance 3357, establishing Code to address the installation, maintenance, and use of grease devices in the City. This was one year before the adoption of the 2006 WDRs. By May 2006, M1W staff compiled all prior City FSE FOG records for the City.

With the Council 2007 approval of Council Resolution 07-078, the City Plans and Public Works Department in coordination with M1W jointly administered the FSE source control and facility upgrade program until 2011. The Council also subsequently approved Resolution 07-079, setting a fee/surcharge for all FSEs granted a waiver from having to install a grease interceptor; this action recognized that only installing a grease trap would cause the City to incur grease inspection, sewer system grease maintenance and vehicular costs, as well as SSO cleanup costs.

In 2010, the City amended Chapter 30, through Ordinance 3446 to identify the California Plumbing Code in addition to M1W codes for pre-treatment equipment sizing, to clearly define when an exception to a waiver fee may be granted, and other program refinements learned from implementation. From 2011 to 2016 the City managed the FOG Program through the Plans and Public Works Department. In July 2016 per City Council Resolution 16-141, the City again funded a joint agreement with M1W Source Control Program to perform FOG inspection services at FSEs. Most recently, in April 2025 the City updated the MOA with M1W to continue inspection services through 2030. The City anticipates continuing this regional joint effort with M1W into the future to effectively inspect FSEs within the City and assist with FOG program compliance.

FOG program documentation is found in Appendix 16, and includes a FSE Inspection Form, Grease Interceptor Waiver Eligibility Checklist, FOG Program Exemption, Grease Trap Hardship Waiver, Grease Trap Waiver Fee Exemption, and the M1W FY24-25 MOU for regional education and outreach.

7.1 Implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG:

In 2005, the City of Monterey joined with other local agencies through the Southern Monterey Bay Dischargers Group to develop a regional public education program for residential users of the system. The Group currently maintains the clogbusters.org website, which features resources, information, and awareness advertisements in English and Spanish. This program may be modified yearly as conditions warrant.

A Public Education and Outreach Program is implemented regionally by M1W for the ten partner entities:

1. City of Salinas

2. Seaside County Sanitation District

3. Marina Coast Water District

4. City of Monterey

5. City of Pacific Grove

6. Castroville Community Services District

7. California American Water

8. Pebble Beach Community Services District

9. Carmel Area Wastewater District
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 40, Packet Page 90 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
30 | P a g e

10. County of Monterey
The public education campaign has historically consisted of annual outreach, which has included and continues to include television, local newspaper, and on-line advertisements, a Facebook page, and the dedicated website www.ClogBusters.org. Information is available to the public in English and Spanish, and some of those outreach materials include:
 Cooking Oil Recycling Information (GreenWaste Recovery Pickup and Monterey Regional Waste Management District) location information;
 How You can Help Prevent Sewer Clogs, screenshots
 Put Your Sewer on a Fat-Free Diet
 Recycle Turkey Fryer Oil
 Don’t Flush Clog-Forming Material
 Get Your Sewer Lateral Checked
 Plant Trees Away from Sewer Lines
The contract and WDR Grease Public Outreach Plan are re-negotiated by the City with M1W each fiscal year. A copy of the regional memorandum of understanding and WDR Grease Public Outreach Plans are available from the City Public Works Department or M1W and included in Appendix 16 of this SSMP. The current agreement for FY 2024/25 has incorporated the language and requirements to be consistent with the 2022 WDRs.

The City also maintains a FOG webpage on the City website Monterey.gov. Public FOG education and outreach information available there includes the following.  Grease Pretreatment Program FAQ
 Grease Trap and Interceptor Manufacturers/Suppliers, Installers, and Haulers  Grease Trap and Interceptor Maintenance Log
 Grease Interceptor Sizing Matrix
 How to Clean a Grease Trap
 Grease Trap Operation
Grease Interceptor Operation

7.2 A plan and schedule for the disposal of pipe-blocking substances generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of substances generated within a sanitary sewer system service area.

The City does not own or operate a FOG disposal facility; however, FOG is received locally for disposal at the M1W regional treatment plant. Current contact information for the plant and liquid waste disposal rates are found on the M1W website at montereyonewater.org.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 41, Packet Page 91 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
31 | P a g e
FOG generated by the FSEs is required to be appropriately disposed of periodically at a frequency that meets the City Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article 3, Section 30-9 to 30-11. This section of the code specifically requires Section 30-11(k)(1):

Maintenance: Traps and interceptors shall be properly maintained in efficient operating conditions by periodic removal of accumulated grease. No collected grease shall be introduced into any public or private drainage or sewerage piping.

One seasonal source of FOG is turkey fryer grease during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. M1W distributes flyers and communicates on the Clog Busters website with locations that will receive the turkey fryer grease for proper handling and disposal. Contact information (address and phone numbers) for pumping and/or waste hauling contractors in Monterey County that haul FOG to facilities’ such as M1W is available on the City FOG website at monterey.gov. Restaurants currently contract with a variety of grease haulers for removal of both recyclable and unrecyclable materials.

7.3 The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG;
The legal authority prohibiting discharges to the collection system and identify measures to prevent FOG-caused SSOs is a joint effort between the City of Monterey Municipal Code and the M1W Ordinances. The purpose of Chapter 30, Article 3, Installation, Maintenance and Use of Fat, Oil, and Grease Pretreatment Equipment, is to establish requirements which govern the installation, maintenance, and use of grease interception devices for FSEs in the City.

City Code in Chapter 30 Section 30-2, incorporates all the terms, conditions, and requirements of the M1W Ordinance (i.e. 2023-01) that governs the discharge of any wastewater in any part of the City. City Code Sections 30-9.1 gives legal authority to both the City and M1W to administer and enforce M1W regulations within the city. A copy of M1W Ordinance No. 2023-01 is available in Appendix 6; it clarifies that it is an Ordinance establishing regulations for the interception, treatment, and disposal of sewage and wastewater.

The table below summarizes where the City and M1W have jointly established the legal authorities to prohibit FOG discharges and where measures are identified to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG.

Table 7.1: Summary of Grease Removal Device Design, Installation, and Maintenance Requirements WDR Requirement Monterey City
Municipal Code
Section or M1W
2023-01 Ordinance
Section
Specific Language
Definition of food
service establishments
(FSEs)
City – Chapter 30,
Section 30-9.4(a)
Definitions
“Food Service Establishment” means an
establishment that prepares and/or sells food for
consumption either on or off the premises or washes
utensils or dishes on premises that would contribute
grease to the sewer system, including, but not
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 42, Packet Page 92 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
32 | P a g e
limited to, restaurants, sandwich shops,
delicatessens, bakeries, cafeterias, markets, bed and
breakfast inns, motels, hotels, meeting halls,
caterers, retirement and nursing homes or pizzerias.

The term, as used in the chapter, does not refer to
food stores or establishments that do not prepare
food on premises and do not process food in a
manner which contributes grease to the sewer
system.

Prohibit FOG
discharges to
collection system –
General Prohibition
City – Chapter 30,
Section 30-11(k)(1)
No collected grease shall be introduced into any
public or private drainage or sewerage piping.

Prohibit FOG
discharges to
collection system –
Specific Prohibition to
Sewer Collection
System and
Wastewater
Treatment Plant.

M1W – 2.10.2(f) No person shall discharge any wastewater:

Containing oil and grease of animal, vegetable,
petroleum or mineral origin in such quantities to
cause or to contribute significantly to 1) disruptions
in sewer lines and other collection system
components; 2) interference with treatment plant
operations; or 3) exceedances for plant NPDES
permit limitations. Significant dischargers of oil and
grease shall implement best practicable technologies
for reducing the oil and grease content of their
discharges.

Prohibit FOG
discharges to
collection systemSpecific Prohibition,
Dilute Oily Wastes
M1W – 2.01.2.8 The following pollutants shall not be introduced to the Treatment Works or community sewer: any
trucked or hauled pollutants (residential septage,
chemical toilet wastes, dilute oily wastes, and salt
brine solutions are accepted at the Treatment Plant
and are jointly regulated under M1W Liquid Waste
Ordinance 2015-01 and Ordinance 2023-01.

Identify measures to
prevent SSOs and
blockages caused by
FOG
City – Chapter 30,
Section 30-10
Requirement for grease traps, grease interceptor, or
other device. A food service establishment or any
other business discharging grease, oil, or other
similar material shall have an operable grease trap,
grease interceptor or other comparable device(s) as
determined by M1W, the City Engineer, and/or the
City’s Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official to be an adequate substitute for a grease trap or
grease interceptor.

Identify measures to
prevent SSOs and
blockages caused by
FOG
M1W – 2.01.2.3 Specific Prohibitions: 3. The following pollutants shall not be introduced into the Treatment Works or
community sewer: solid or viscous pollutants in
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 43, Packet Page 93 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
33 | P a g e
amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in
the Treatment Works resulting in interference.

Identify measures to
prevent SSOs and
blockages caused by
FOG
M1W – 2.10.2.f No person shall discharge any wastewater:
containing oil and grease of animal, vegetable,
petroleum or mineral origin in such quantities to
cause or to contribute significantly to: 1) disruptions of sewer lines and other collection system
components; 2) interference with treatment plant
operations; or 3) exceedances of plant NPDES
discharge limitations. Significant dischargers of oil
and grease shall implement best practicable
technologies for reducing the oil and grease content
of their discharges.

7.4 Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping and reporting requirements:

Table 7.2: The table below summarizes where the City and M1W have jointly established the legal authorities to meet the above FOG Program requirements.

WDR Requirement Monterey City
Municipal Code
Chapter or
M1W 2023-01
Ordinance Section
Specific Language
FSE to Install Grease
Removal Device
City Code Chapter
30-10(a)
A food service establishment or any other business
discharging grease, oil or other similar material shall have an operable grease trap, grease interceptor or
other comparable device(s) as determined by M1W
and the City Chief Inspection Services/Building
Official to be an adequate substitute for a grease
trap or grease interceptor. A properly sized
interceptor or trap shall be considered first, in
conformity with the sizing chart set forth in the
M1W Regional Grease Program of M1W. Should
space limitations or other exceptional
circumstances prevent their installation, M1W may
grant exceptions to the requirement of grease traps
or grease interceptors in this section.

Grease Removal
Devices – Design
Standards
City Code Chapter
30-9.3,
30-9.3 Conflict between these provisions and
California Plumbing Code or M1W Ordinances. In
the event of any conflict between the provisions of
this chapter and the California Plumbing Code or
M1W Ordinances, the provisions of this chapter
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 44, Packet Page 94 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
34 | P a g e
City Code Chapter
30-10[c]
City Code Chapter
30-11[e](4)
shall prevail. All provisions set forth by the Agency
not in conflict with this chapter shall remain in full
effect.
30-10[c] Sizing Formula. The size of a grease trap or
grease interceptor shall be as determined by the
M1W. Notwithstanding the foregoing, grease traps
required by this chapter shall be no smaller than an
80-gallon capacity trap unless otherwise approved
by the Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official.
30-11[e](4) General regulations and procedures.

Location of Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors.

If they are not designed in accordance with Uniform
Plumbing Code (UPC) Section 711 and/or Appendix
H, they must be designed by a professional
engineer, must be consistent with the standards of
this chapter, and must be approved by City Chief
Inspection Services/Building Official.

Grease Removal
Devices – Maintenance
City Code Chapter
30-11(k)(1)
Maintenance. Traps and interceptors shall be
maintained in efficient operating conditions by
periodic removal of the accumulated grease. No
collected grease shall be introduced into any public
or private drainage piping.

Grease Removal
Devices – Best
Management Practices
(BMPs)
City Code Chapter

31.5-12 (a) [excerpt]
City Code Chapter

31.5-15(d)

31.5-12 Prohibition of Discharges. (a) No person or
entity shall discharge or cause to be discharged into
the municipal storm drain system or waters of the
state, any materials, including but not limited to
pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that
may cause or contribute to a violation of applicable
water quality standards, other than storm water…
[examples of prohibited discharges include various
wastewater types and leakage from food service
facilities and activites]

31.5-15(d) Responsibility to Implement Best
Management Practices. Notwithstanding the
presence or absence of requirements promulgated
pursuant to subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this
section, any person or entity engaged in activities or
operations, or owning facilities or property which
will or may result in pollutants entering storm water,
the storm drain system, or waters of the state or U.S.
shall implement BMPs to the extent they are
technologically achievable to prevent and reduce
such pollutants. The owner or operator of a
commercial or industrial establishment shall provide
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 45, Packet Page 95 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
35 | P a g e
City Code Chapter

31.5-16
reasonable protection from accidental discharge of
prohibited materials or other wastes into the
municipal storm drain system, or waters of the state
or U.S. Facilities to prevent accidental discharge of
prohibited materials or other wastes shall be
provided and maintained at the owner or operator’s
expense.

31.5-16 Requirement to Eliminate Illegal Discharges.

Notwithstanding the requirements of §31.5-22
herein, the Director may require by written notice
that a person or entity responsible for an illegal
discharge immediately, or by a specified date,
discontinue the discharge and, if necessary, take
measures to eliminate the source of the discharge to
prevent the occurrence of future illegal discharges.

Grease Removal
Devices – Record
Keeping and Reporting
City Chapter 30,
Section 30-11(k)(3)
[March 2010]
All food service establishments or businesses
required under this chapter to install and maintain a
grease trap or grease interceptor shall maintain a
maintenance record for the grease trap or grease
interceptor. This record shall include the date, the
name of the person who performed cleaning and
the disposal site of the waste. The record shall be
posted in a conspicuous location and be available
for review by the City’s inspector or authorized
representative at each routine inspection and at
such other time as necessary for the City to
determine whether a particular establishment may
be performing maintenance contrary to the
provisions of this chapter.

7.5 Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance; A summary of the current FOG program follows and contains information on the program’s inspection and enforcement legal authorities and staffing.

Commercial Program
The City of Monterey’s existing grease control program is managed jointly with the M1W Source Control Program for FY 2024/25 through FY 2029/30. FSEs will be inspected at a frequency of approximately 10 per month. This will establish approximately bi-annual inspections for priority FSEs.

The City Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official reviews plans for commercial establishments for required grease control equipment upgrades any time a new business license is issued, an application for a Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 46, Packet Page 96 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
36 | P a g e
remodel is received, or a change of ownership is filed. The City Engineer or Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official determines the grease control equipment necessary for the facility, if any.

New Businesses and Change of Ownership
When a new food service facility applies for a business license, a copy of that license is automatically routed to M1W so that they can update their records. The City of Monterey Revenue Division notifies M1W of all new business licenses, including change of ownership of existing businesses.

Redevelopment (Additions and Remodels)
Any time a business applies for a Building Permit for a remodel or addition, the City Permits and Inspection Services Division reviews the plans for potential upgrades to grease control equipment. The City then adds any necessary requirements to the City Building Permit and inspects the business grease facilities for compliance.

No Grease Control Equipment Installed
If during an inspection of a food service establishment, the City or M1W Source Control Inspectors find that grease control equipment is not installed, the business is required to upgrade to current standards.

Businesses are not “grandfathered” under the existing M1W Regional Source Control Program. M1W regulatory requirements under “Monitoring and Reporting Program Number R3-2002-0078 for Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Agencies Tributary to Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Monterey County” Section VIII. A, requires the following:
“(A)The grease control program shall identify sections of the sewer system subject to grease blockages and establish a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; “ “(B)The program shall develop and implement source control measures, for all sources of grease and fats discharged to the sewer system, for each section identified in (A) above. “ Under these requirements, the City of Monterey requires food services establishments with a reasonable potential to discharge fats, oils, and grease (FOG) to install or upgrade grease removal equipment.

Grease interceptors will be the preferred method of source control. Interceptors must be installed within 360 days of receipt of a sizing letter from the City or M1W. If an interceptor installation is infeasible, a waiver may be granted by the City. If a waiver is granted, the food service establishment will be required to pay a monthly grease surcharge waiver fee (i.e. “waiver fee) to compensate the City for expenses related to FSE grease abatement activities, such as jetting of hot list areas and grease outreach.

The City is responsible for enforcement as outlined by City Municipal Code, Chapter 30. The table below summarizes where the City and M1W have jointly established the legal authorities to inspect grease producing facilities. Beginning July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2018, FSEs identified by the City will receive an inspection.

Table 7.3: Summary of FOG Control Program Inspection and Enforcement Legal Authorities Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 47, Packet Page 97 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
37 | P a g e
WDR Requirement Monterey City Code
Chapter or
M1W 2023-01
Ordinance Section
Specific Language
Authority to inspect
grease producing
facilities
City Code Chapter 30
Section 30-2 and
Section 30-9.1
 Chapter 30, Section 30-2. Regulations and
Standards; City Sewer System; Enforcement
Authority. The M1W (Agency) or the city of
Monterey are hereby authorized and
empowered to administer and enforce said
regulations within the City.
 Chapter 30, Section 30-9.1. Enforcement of
Article 3, FOG Article. Provisions of Article 3
are enforced by any duly authorized
employee or agent of the city or by the duly
appointed representative of the M1W.

Enforcement authority shall be as laid out in
Section 30-2.

M1W – Section 4.07 4.07 - Inspection and Sampling – The Agency shall inspect the facilities of any user to ascertain whether the purpose of this Ordinance is being met, and all
requirements are being complied with. People or
occupants of premises where wastewater is created
or discharged shall allow the Agency's representative
ready access at all reasonable times to all parts of
the premises for the purposes of inspection or
sampling or in the performance of any of their
duties. The Agency shall have the right to set up on
the user's property such devices as are necessary to
conduct sampling or metering operations. Where a
user has security measures in force which would
require proper identification and clearance before
entry into their premises, the user shall make
necessary arrangements with their security guards,
that upon presentation of suitable identification,
personnel from the Agency will be permitted to
enter without delay for the purpose of performing
their specific responsibilities.

Authority to enforce
FOG Program
Requirements
City Code Chapter 30
Section 30-1, 30-1.7,
30-2, and 30-9.1.

M1W 2008-1 Article
6 and 7
City Municipal Codes:
 Chapter 30, Section 30-1. Connections to
City sewer system required. City Manager or
designee has authority to enforce.
 Chapter 30, Section 30-1.7. City Engineer
has authority to ensure that closure of
Sewer Laterals is properly completed.
 Chapter 30, Section 30-2. Regulations and
Standards; City Sewer System; Enforcement
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 48, Packet Page 98 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
38 | P a g e
Authority. The M1W (Agency) or the city of
Monterey are hereby authorized and
empowered to administer and enforce said
regulations within the City.
 Chapter 30, Section 30-9.1. Enforcement of
Article 3, FOG Article. Provisions of Article 3
are enforced by any duly authorized
employee or agent of the city or by the duly
appointed representative of the M1W.

Enforcement authority shall be as laid out in
Section 30-2.

M1W Article 6: Enforcement
M1W Article 7: Abatement

Below are the contacts for City and M1W Staff involved in the City’s current FOG Control Program (FY 2024/25 through FY 2029/30) and outlines their FOG Program roles and responsibilities.

Table 7.4: Summary of City FOG Program Staffing
Name and Title FOG Program Responsibilities Contact Information Andrea Renny
Public Works
Director/City Engineer
City of Monterey
 Public Works Director is responsible
for implementation of the City FOG
Program, as well as assisting the
Chief of Inspection Services/Building
Official in determinations related to
the FOG program.
(831) 646-3921
[email protected]
Lori Williamson
Chief of Inspection
Services/Building
Official
City of Monterey
 Chief of Inspection Services/Building
Official is responsible for permitting,
plan review/determining adequate
grease facilities necessary,
inspections, and enforcement per
City Municipal Code and in
coordination with the City Engineer,
and M1W Source Control Supervisor
 Inspecting newly installed grease
traps and interceptors to ensure that
the grease trap or interceptor is the
correct size and is installed properly.
(831) 646-3890
[email protected]
Karl Kreutzer
Rebecca Baggott
 The Environmental Regulations
Analyst is responsible for receiving
reports from the M1W Source
Control Supervisor and/or the
Source Control Inspector and
(831) 646-3921
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 49, Packet Page 99 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
39 | P a g e
Environmental
Regulations Analyst
Kevin Anderson
Engineering Project
Manager
City of Monterey
summarizing the results of the FOG
program and inspections.
 In coordination with the Public
Works Director, City Engineer Chief
of Inspection Services, and Building
Official, oversee the FOG program
outreach and education, preparation
and sending of Public Notification
Letters for new FSE M1W
inspections, scheduling, upcoming
inspections for existing FSEs and
follow-up with FSEs to ensure
compliance with City and M1W
requirements.

Jeff Glass
Fleet and Streets
Operations Manager
City of Monterey
 The Fleet and Streets Operations
Manager is responsible for
coordinating with the M1W Source
Control Supervisor and/or Source
Control Inspector to follow the City
Municipal Code enforcement
process.
 The Fleet and Streets Operations
Manager is responsible for the
management of FOG High
Maintenance Areas when future
FOG HMAs are identified.
(831) 646-3927
[email protected]
Tamsen McNaire
Source Control
Supervisor
Monterey One Water
The Source Control Supervisor is
contractually responsible for:
 Implementation of the contract
between the City and M1W to
conduct annual grease trap or
interceptor inspection of all
commercial properties and public
education.
 Assisting the City in the design,
planning and setup of the FOG
Program;
 Updates to the FSE Business
Location List;
 Directing the Source Control
Inspector in conducting initial,
annual and compliance reinspections;
 Notifying and resolving the City FOG
Program Compliance issues by
drafting violation letters, attending
(831) 883-1118
[email protected]
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 50, Packet Page 100 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
40 | P a g e
non-compliance meetings, and
updating the files for each FSE.

Juan Arreguin
Marshall Compton
Source Control
Inspectors
Monterey One Water
The Source Control Inspectors are
responsible for:
 Conducting FSE initial, annual, and
compliance re-inspections.
 Inspections include proper grease
trap/interceptor cleaning and
maintenance, and review of
maintenance records/log sheets.
 Answering FOG Program questions.
(831) 883-6173
[email protected]
[email protected]

7.6 An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; and
Generally, the City cleans the entire collection system approximately twice per year. The City has identified multiple high maintenance areas designated as ‘Hotlist’ in Appendix 9. Hotlist pipes are maintained on either a weekly or monthly basis by the Public Works Streets and Utilities sewer jet crew, and as determined necessary based on system conditions.

Eleven areas of the City require regular preventative maintenance due to heavy grease collection in the mains to prevent sewer overflows. Of those areas, currently five require weekly “jetting”, one requires biweekly jetting, and five require monthly jetting. The table below lists the areas that are currently cleaned on a weekly, biweekly, and monthly basis by virtue of FOG buildup alone.

Table 7.5: FOG Hot Spot Maintenance List
Hot List Area Jetting
Frequency
# Food Service
Facilities
Number In Compliance

1. Wharf I Weekly 11 7

2. Wharf II Weekly 3 2

3. Wave/Prescott Weekly 4 4

4. Cannery Row Weekly 20 18

5. Munras 2x
monthly
8 8

6. North Fremont Monthly 17 14

7. Dela Vina/Encina Monthly 0 0

8. Olivier Monthly 1 1

9. Calle Principal Monthly 3 3

10. Abrego/Fremont Monthly 8 8

11. Alvarado Monthly 21 20

7.7 Implementation of source control measures for all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each section identified above.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 51, Packet Page 101 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
41 | P a g e
The development and implementation of source control measures is developed by City Public Works, and the City coordinates with M1W and implements additional FOG source control measures as recommended by M1W inspectors. Further explanation as to City FOG source control measures is described in detail in subsections (a), (c), and (e) above.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 52, Packet Page 102 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
42 | P a g e
Element 8: System Evaluation, Capacity Assurance and Capital Improvements WDR Requirement: The Plan must include procedures and activities for:
 Routine Evaluation and assessment of system conditions;  Capacity assessment and design criteria;
 Prioritization of corrective actions; and
 A capital improvement plan
The City of Monterey conducts ongoing evaluation and condition assessment of its sanitary sewer system to identify and address components that may contribute to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), particularly those caused by hydraulic deficiencies. These evaluations include estimates of peak flows, including those that may result from SSO events, and the identification of bottlenecks or system components with limited capacity.

Project-specific hydraulic capacity analyses are used to assess the effects of residential, commercial, and industrial flows on system performance.

Historically, the City has referred to the 1988 Sewer Fee Study Update (Appendix 17) as a basis for understanding system capacity. This study accounted for build-out conditions forecast for 2003. However, due to long-term constraints on local growth such as limited water supply and declining population trends, the study’s assumptions have become outdated. As a result, the 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan (also included in Appendix 17) has been developed to replace the 1988 Study. The updated plan incorporates current land use data, population trends, wastewater flow monitoring, and updated growth projections to provide a more accurate basis for long-term planning and system investment. A copy of that report can be found on the City’s website at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/city_hall/public_works/engineering/environmental_regulations/sanitary_sewer_progra m/index.php
To assess system conditions, the City conducts closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspections of 10% of the sewer system annually, with the goal of achieving full system inspection every 10 years. The City may also employ additional inspection technologies, including acoustic inspection tools such as the Sewer Line Rapid Assessment Tool (SL-RAT), JetScan hydrojet-mounted cameras, and other advanced technologies. These tools help to rapidly identify potential defects, screen for maintenance needs, and prioritize more detailed evaluations.

Inspections are strategically prioritized based on environmental sensitivity and operational risk. Areas near surface waters, environmentally sensitive habitats, high-maintenance areas, locations with a history of SSOs, and areas adjacent to impaired waterbodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List receive higher inspection priority.

All inspection and evaluation activities are documented and archived by the City’s Public Works Department.

Work orders are managed through the Infor Asset Management system, which links inspection data, GIS locations, condition assessments, work history, and supporting documentation such as CCTV footage and inspection summaries.

The City also actively identifies and tracks sewer system assets that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts, including sea level rise, flooding, erosion, wildfires, and power disruptions. Assets located in low-lying coastal zones or near erodible channels are monitored closely. Mitigation strategies such as infrastructure relocation, or redesign will be developed and incorporated into future Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) as Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 53, Packet Page 103 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
43 | P a g e
appropriate.

Design criteria for system evaluation and new infrastructure projects follow standards discussed in Element 5:

Design and Performance Provisions. These criteria include references to the California Plumbing Code, Metcalf & Eddy's Wastewater Engineering, and the Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

For gravity sewers, the City standard is to achieve a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second and a peak flow depth-to-diameter ratio (d/D) of 0.5. For existing force mains, limited surcharging is permitted if the hydraulic grade line remains at least three feet below the nearest manhole rim and does not enter building laterals.

8.2 Capacity Assessment and Design Criteria
The City evaluates hydraulic deficiencies using a combination of CCTV data, inspection reports, historical SSO trends, and field observations. In support of previous planning efforts, the 2010 Bartle Wells Utility Fee Study (Appendix 18) and the 2010 Winzler & Kelly Force Main Condition Assessment (Appendix 19) provided foundational data on system deficiencies and were used to prioritize projects under earlier CIPs. These resources are now supplemented by the 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan, which includes updated hydraulic modeling of the collection system and identification of current and future system constraints.

In alignment with current WDR requirements, the City's capacity assessments account for dry-weather peak flows, design storm events, and infiltration/inflow contributions. The assessments are particularly attentive to the impacts of climate change, including more intense rainfall events, prolonged wet seasons, and resulting changes to infiltration and surface runoff. The City also evaluates the need for system redundancy, particularly in pump stations and key transmission lines, to ensure resiliency during emergency or peak flow conditions.

8.3 Prioritization of Corrective Actions
Corrective actions are prioritized based on the severity of consequences if a system failure or SSO were to occur. The City considers factors such as environmental sensitivity, proximity to surface waters or public spaces, historical performance data, condition assessment ratings, and vulnerability to climate-related events.

The City is in the process of adopting a structured prioritization matrix that will be applied in future CIPs to categorize and schedule projects based on urgency, risk, and anticipated benefit. This approach will also help the City proactively schedule operation and maintenance activities and align repair and rehabilitation projects with available resources and staff capacity.

8.4 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City initiated a citywide sewer rehabilitation project in 2014, which focused on repairing, replacing, and upgrading aging infrastructure. This effort was scheduled to be completed in 2019. Going forward, capital improvements will be guided by the findings and recommendations of the 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan and condition assessments documented through ongoing inspections and monitoring.

The City maintains and regularly updates a public-facing project schedule for sanitary sewer capital improvements on its website at Monterey.gov. This schedule is reviewed annually and includes milestones, project descriptions, and status updates. Funding for capital projects is sourced from Measure P and S sales tax revenue, sewer utility fees, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans, and other local capital funds.

Capital projects are implemented through close coordination between the City’s Engineering Division, Streets Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 54, Packet Page 104 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
44 | P a g e
and Utilities (Operations & Maintenance), and external consultants and contractors. The City also engages with other utility agencies and jurisdictions to coordinate trenching, construction timelines, and system interconnectivity.

Future CIPs will categorize projects based on their criticality—urgent, moderate, or long-term—and will include targeted completion dates. To ensure transparency and accountability, the City will maintain a change log or errata sheet within the SSMP that documents all updates, responsible parties, and revision dates. This will ensure that the information remains accurate and current throughout the life of the SSMP.

Figure 8.4: CIP Recommendations in the 2024 Sewer Utility Master Plan (SUMP) Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 55, Packet Page 105 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
45 | P a g e
Element 9: Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications The City monitors the implementation of the SSMP to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and improving the management of the wastewater collection system. The City applies an adaptive management approach that integrates monitoring, performance evaluation, and program updates into regular operations. This ensures the SSMP remains current, relevant, and capable of addressing evolving system needs and regulatory requirements. .

WDR Requirement: The Plan must include an Adaptive Management section that addresses Plan implementation effectiveness and the steps for necessary Plan improvement, including:
 Maintaining relevant information, including audit findings, to establish and prioritize appropriate Plan activities;
 Monitoring the implementation and measuring the effectiveness of each Plan Element;  Assessing the success of the preventive operation and maintenance activities;  Updating Plan procedures and activities, as appropriate, based on results of monitoring and performance evaluations; and
 Identifying and illustrating spill trends, including spill frequency, locations and estimated volumes.

9.1 Adaptive Management and Implementation Effectiveness The City maintains relevant data to guide decision-making and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities.

Implementation is monitored by designated staff across departments, and each SSMP element is regularly evaluated to assess performance. The table below outlines the relevant information tracked by the City and the roles responsible for each SSMP element:

Table 9.1: SSMP Elements, Roles & Responsibilities
SSMP Element SSMP Relevant Information Responsible Party

1. Goals and
Introduction
Monitors City goals for collection system
performance and SSO reduction
Public Works Director

2. Organization Maintains organizational structure, roles, and contact info
Public Works Director
and City Manager

3. Legal Authority Maintain updated applicable Municipal Code and M1W Ordinance
Public Works Director
and City Attorney

4. Operation and
Maintenance
Program
Oversees system maintenance and rehabilitation
planning
Public Works Director
and Fleet and Streets
Operations Manager

5. Design Standards Maintains sewer design criteria and technical standards
Public Works Director

6. SSO Response Directs emergency response and mitigation activities.

Public Works Director,
Fleet and Streets
Operations Manager,
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 56, Packet Page 106 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
46 | P a g e
and Environmental
Regulations

7. Sewer Pipe
Blockage Control
Program
Reviews annual FOG summary and program
results. Assesses and eliminates blockage
potential from root intrusion and flushable wipes.

Public Works Director,
Chief Building Official,
and Env. Reg. Analyst

8. System Evaluation
and Capacity
Assurance Plan
Review of lift station and SSO data for any wet or
dry weather capacity planning
Public Works Director
and City Engineer

9. Monitoring,
Measurement, and
Program
Modifications
Analyses SSOs and their causes over calendar
years. This is the most important trend to
document and the reason for the SSMP.

Public Works Director
and Environmental
Regulations

10. SSMP Program
Audits
SSMP Audit Reports will occur every three years
and program improvements and/or SSMP
updates will be made by the next audit
timeframe.

Public Works Director
and Environmental
Regulations

11. Communication
Program
Compile public outreach and stakeholder input. Public Works Director and Environmental
Regulations

9.2 Performance Monitoring and Key Indicators
Each SSMP element is monitored and evaluated through established data systems such as the Infor Asset Management software, CIWQS reporting, and GIS mapping. The City evaluates effectiveness through Performance Indicators including:
 Number and volume of SSOs
 Percent of planned maintenance completed
 Repeat SSOs by location
 Average SSO response time
 Condition ratings from CCTV
 Rehabilitation footage completed vs. planned
This data is used to track implementation success and guide updates to SSMP elements, maintenance practices, and capital improvements.

9.3 Schedule for Review and Evaluation
Based on 2024 audit recommendations, the City will adhere to the following schedule:
 Annually: Review performance indicators, analyze SSOs, evaluate O&M program success, and identify trends.
 Every 3 years: Conduct internal SSMP audit and determine if any elements need updating.  As needed: Update SSMP elements in response to performance findings, regulatory changes, or operational improvements.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 57, Packet Page 107 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
47 | P a g e
Updates and corrections will be logged with the date, change summary, and responsible staff. A Change Log will be maintained in Appendix 20.

9.4 Assess the success of the preventative maintenance program; The City’s Preventative Maintenance Program includes CCTV inspection, cleaning, visual manhole inspection, Lift Station maintenance, FOG Control, and HMA identification and maintenance. The City will review these operation and maintenance practices and compare them with SSO records. A summary of corrective actions for operations and maintenance will be developed upon each 3-year audit to reduce the causes of SSOs occurring in the associated calendar year.

9.5 Spill Trend Tracking and Reporting
The City analyzes SSO trends by year, location, cause, and volume. This helps to identify recurring issues and prioritize system improvements. SSO trends will be used to revise O&M activities and target improvements in Root Control and FOG mitigation strategies.

Table 9.2 Summary of City SSOs by Indicator per Year
Category 1
volume 1850 4115 11900 2900 3250 1540 90 655 800 3573
year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
count 4 6 5 3 3 3 2 4 1 5
Category 2
volume 1020 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0
year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
count 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Category 3
volume 1403 915 645 440 350 175 140 30 610 300
year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
count 9 9 5 2 4 3 5 3 6 2
Total 4273 5030 12545 3340 3600 1715 230 2685 1410 3893 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Count 14 15 10 5 7 6 7 8 10 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 58, Packet Page 108 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
48 | P a g e
Category
4 Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 20
year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
Figure 9.1 Total Spill Volume by Year
Figure 9.2 Total Number of Spills by Year
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total 4273 5030 12545 3340 3600 1715 230 2685 1410 3893 Category 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 20
Category 3 1403 915 645 440 350 175 140 30 610 300
Category 2 1020 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0
Category 1 1850 4115 11900 2900 3250 1540 90 655 800 3573 0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Total Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Category 1 Linear (Total) Total Spill Volume by Year
Spill Volume (Gallons)
Year
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 59, Packet Page 109 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
49 | P a g e
The City expects to identify and work towards strategies to reduce the number of SSOs experienced based on the cause information identified above, which are over 80% operational, through changing Operations and Maintenance practices and modifications in the City FOG and Root Control Program.

Figure 9.3 SSO Incident Map from CIWQS Database
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total 14 15 10 5 7 6 7 8 10 8
Category 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
Category 3 9 9 5 2 4 3 5 3 6 2
Category 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Category 1 4 6 5 3 3 3 2 4 1 5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Total Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Category 1 Linear (Total) Total Number of Spills per Year
Number of Spills
Year
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 60, Packet Page 110 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
50 | P a g e
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 61, Packet Page 111 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
51 | P a g e
Element 10: Internal Audits
WDR Requirement: The Plan shall include internal audit procedures, appropriate to the size and performance of the system, for the Enrollee to comply with section 5.4 (Sewer System Management Plan Audits) of this General Order.

The City of Monterey conducts regular audits of its Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) to ensure its continued effectiveness and compliance with regulatory requirements. In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ, the City has updated its audit procedures and frequency to reflect the latest provisions of the Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).

10.1 SSMP Audit Frequency and Schedule
To comply with the 2022 WDR, the City will conduct internal SSMP audits at least once every three (3) years.

Audits will be completed by staff designated by the Public Works Director and may include representatives from Engineering, Environmental Regulations, Fire, Harbor, Permits & Inspections, Construction Management, and Operations & Maintenance. The City will maintain a record of completed audits, including dates and responsible personnel. This schedule replaces the previous two-year audit interval used under the 2006 WDR.

10.2 Scope and Content of SSMP Audits
Each SSMP audit will be sized and scaled to the City’s system complexity and resources, and will:

1. Evaluate the implementation of each SSMP element to determine if all required activities are being performed as documented;

2. Assess the effectiveness of the SSMP in achieving its intended goals—specifically, reducing the number and severity of SSOs;

3. Identify deficiencies in the SSMP or its implementation and recommend modifications needed to improve compliance, efficiency, or effectiveness;

4. Propose a schedule for correcting identified deficiencies, including milestones for significant updates.

10.3 Documentation and Recordkeeping
The City will document each SSMP audit in a written report, which will:
 Summarize the review and findings for each SSMP element;  Include data and evidence used in the evaluation process;  List of recommended modifications with responsible parties and timelines;  Provide an overall assessment of SSMP performance.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 62, Packet Page 112 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
52 | P a g e
A log of audit recommendations and follow-up actions will be maintained in Appendix 21 of the SSMP. This log will be updated after each audit and will help the City track outstanding recommendations, completed improvements, and their status.

10.4 SSMP Audit Update and Accuracy
To ensure accountability and transparency, this section will be reviewed periodically along with the full SSMP.

If any errors, outdated information, or discrepancies are found, they will be corrected, and the revision will be noted with the date and responsible individual or team. All updates will be recorded in the SSMP Change Log or errata sheet, located in Appendix 20.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 63, Packet Page 113 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
53 | P a g e
Element 11: Communication Program
WDR Requirement: the Plan must include procedures for the Enrollee to communicate with the Public for spills and discharges resulting in closures of public areas, or that enter a source of drinking water. The development, implementation and update of its Plan, including opportunities for public input to Plan implementation and updates. Also include procedures for owners of systems that connect into the enrollee’s system, including satellite systems for system operation, maintenance, and capital improvement-related activities.

In accordance with Order No. WQ 2022-0103-DWQ, the City of Monterey has established a comprehensive Communication Program to ensure timely, accessible, and transparent engagement with the public and satellite systems. This program provides both routine and emergency communications and encourages public input on the development, implementation, and updates of the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).

11.1 Public Communication and Outreach
The City maintains a proactive public communication strategy designed to educate residential, commercial, and industrial users about the importance of proper system maintenance and the City’s efforts to reduce SSOs.

Purpose: To raise public awareness of the SSMP, provide access to relevant documents and data, notify stakeholders of major events (e.g., spills), and collect feedback on system management and performance.

Communication Channels and Outreach Activities:

Activity Frequency Stakeholders Year Implemented
2024 2025 2026 2027
City Website:
www.monterey.gov
Year-round All
X X
City Council Meetings First and Third
Tuesdays of
each Month
All
X X
City Focus Newsletter One to four
issues per year
All
X X
City and M1W FOG
Control Program
Year-round Residential,
Commercial X X
Joint Utility Meeting Monthly Utility
owners/operat
ors
X X
Public Works
Department Manager
Meetings
Weekly All X X
City Website and SSMP Updates
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 64, Packet Page 114 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
54 | P a g e
The City of Monterey uses its website (www.monterey.gov) to share up-to-date information regarding the development, implementation, and updates of the SSMP. This includes:
 Posting the full SSMP document and update summaries
 Sharing details on capital improvement projects and operational updates  Providing forms for public comment and contact information  Making audit findings and response actions accessible City Council Meetings and Public Input
City Council meetings occur on the first and third Tuesdays of each month and serve as a public forum to discuss SSMP updates, sewer projects, capital improvement plans, and other relevant activities. These meetings provide opportunities for community members to ask questions and offer input into City sewer system operations.

Information about how to participate in Council meetings is posted on the City’s website. SSMP topics are included in meeting agendas when updates or policy actions are required.

Spill and Emergency Notifications
Per Attachment D.11 of the WDR, the City notifies the public about significant spills or discharges that:
 Result in the closure of public areas (e.g., beaches, parks, roads)  Impact or threaten to impact sources of drinking water Notification methods include:
 On-site signage and warning tape
 City website alerts and updates
 Email and press releases
 Social media notifications (e.g., Twitter, Facebook)
 Coordination with Monterey County Health Department and Monterey One Water (M1W)

11.2 Communication with Satellite and Interconnected Systems The City of Monterey both receives flows from tributary satellite systems and conveys flows to Monterey One Water (M1W). The City participates actively in M1W governance and coordinates with agencies whose systems are tributary to the City collection system.

City Role as Satellite to M1W
The City is represented on the M1W Board of Directors, which includes:
 Cities: Pacific Grove, Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Sand City, Salinas  Agencies: U.S. Army/Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District, Castroville Community Services District, Boronda County Sanitation District, Monterey County
M1W Board meetings are held on the last Monday of each month at 5 Harris Court, Building D, Monterey.

Agendas and materials are posted publicly at montereyonewater.org.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 65, Packet Page 115 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
55 | P a g e
City Satellite Systems and Coordination
The City receives sewer flows from the following entities:

1. U.S. Naval Support Activity (NSA) Monterey

2. NSA Monterey La Mesa Village

3. NSA Monterey Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanographic Center

4. Monterey Peninsula College

5. Monterey Regional Airport
The City maintains intergovernmental agreements, including with the Presidio of Monterey (POM), to coordinate sewer operations, maintenance, and emergency response. The City also collaborates with satellite agencies to:
 Notify about planned maintenance or projects that may impact their facilities  Exchange technical data and inspection records
 Coordinate during SSOs and wet weather events
 Assist with SSO response, if required
The City continues to develop and refine its formal satellite communication plan to ensure enhanced and efficient interagency coordination.

11.3 Periodic Review and Update
This section of the SSMP will be periodically reviewed for accuracy and relevance. If changes are needed, updates will:
 Be recorded in the SSMP Change Log (Appendix 20)
 Identify the nature of the update, date, and responsible staff member  Reflect current practices and compliance requirements under the Reissued WDR City Website
Information posted on the City of Monterey website www.monterey.gov includes links to the Sanitary Sewer Program, SSMP, FOG information, City meeting minutes and agendas, flyers, education material, public service announcements, and City CIP. Various City of Monterey webpages speak to or provide information regarding aspects of the City’s sewer program, projects, permits, and actions, and those City webpages include but are not limited to:
 City Meetings Calendar (for City Council meeting agendas, minutes, and resolutions)  Sanitary Sewer Program, SSMP, SSO Response, Sewer Rehab Projects, City Sewer Rate Study  Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Fixing Sewers
 Plans and Public Works Department
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 66, Packet Page 116 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
56 | P a g e
 Engineering Office and Environmental Regulations Office  Streets and Utilities Office
 City Permit and Inspection Services Office
 City Focus Online Newsletter (for community/residents/business/visitors/public) City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the council chambers. Sewer CIP projects, SSMP updates, and other sewer-related information are presented to the public during Council meetings to receive public input on the projects, SSMP, or other City sewer efforts. The City website includes information about “How to Participate in Council Meetings”.

FOG Control Program
As described in Element 7, the City and partners provide public FOG communication outreach in many forms.

Links to the City of Monterey FOG Control Program, ClogBusters, and M1W FOG Information which is always available at the below websites:
 City FOG Program – Monterey.gov/sewer
 ClogBusters Information - clogbusters.org
 Monterey One Water FOG Program – montereyonewater.org  M1W Source Control Program – montereyonewater.org
Public outreach and education efforts to FSEs have been an on-going City and regional effort over the last ten plus years and have also included numerous presentations to the City Council since 2004 about code and program updates, agreements, and budgeting.

Satellite Communication Program
The City is itself a satellite agency to the Monterey Regional Treatment Plant operated by Monterey One Water (M1W). Accordingly, the City is a member of the M1W Board of Directors, which is comprised of M1W and appointees from the following entities:

1. City of Pacific Grove,

2. City of Monterey,

3. City of Del Rey Oaks,

4. City of Seaside,

5. City of Sand City,

6. U.S. Army/Fort Ord,

7. Marina Coast Water District,

8. Castroville Community Services City,

9. Boronda County Sanitation District,

10. City of Salinas, and,

11. Monterey County.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 67, Packet Page 117 City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Sewer System Management Plan May 2025 Update
57 | P a g e
This Board of Directors is designed to be a venue for communication and coordination between these agencies.

Meetings are held on the last Monday of each month at the M1W Administration Office located at 5 Harris Court, Bldg. D, Monterey, CA 93904. Meeting agendas and board packets are available to the public at montereyonewater.org.

City Collection System Satellite Communication Program
The City collection system satellites are the following:

1. U. S. Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSA Monterey)

2. NSA Monterey La Mesa Village

3. NSA Monterey Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanographic Center

4. Monterey Peninsula College

5. Monterey Regional Airport
The City of Monterey has an intergovernmental services agreement with the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (POM). Through this agreement, the two agencies partner and communicate daily on any needs related to Presidio infrastructure, including sanitary sewer flows, overflows, operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs.

The NSA Monterey Public Works Department manages their infrastructure, and City of Monterey Fire Department and Public Works Streets and Utilities Division may respond to and assist with NSA Monterey SSO incidents, as needed. The City also coordinates with NSA Monterey in relation to the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of selected City sanitary sewer collection pipes that run through NSA Monterey property via utility easements.

In 2018, the City developed a formal sanitary sewer satellite communication program with the five (5) satellite system entities that are tributary to the City sewer collection system and continue to have annual outreach.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 68, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Approve an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (ReGen Monterey) and Member Agencies Regarding Compliance with Organic Waste Recycling and Food Recovery Laws (SB 1383) to include FY 2025-2026 Costs of $43,178 for These Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
amendment to the MOU with ReGen Monterey (ReGen)
for FY 2025-2026 costs of $43,178 for these services
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction
Strategy law (SB 1383) requires the City to comply with waste diversion goals. As a result, the program
implementation, monitoring, tracking, public outreach,
and reporting to the State are responsibilities assigned to the City. While the City could work to address these responsibilities on its own, collaborating with the other jurisdictions in the region facing the same regulatory
requirements offers a potentially more efficient and costeffective response.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

ReGen estimates that the total MOU implementation cost for FY2025-2026 will be $326,762 for all member agencies combined. Some costs which were not applied to the City of Monterey, including HF&H franchise management and Recyclist database fees (Attachment 3).

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
approve an amendment to the MOU
with ReGen Monterey for FY 2025-
2026 costs of $43,178.
 SB 1383 mandates organic waste
recycling and food recovery to
reduce methane emissions from
landfills.
 Collaboration with regional agencies
offers a cost-effective approach to
compliance with SB 1383
requirements.
 Key tasks include waste collection,
monitoring, enforcement, food
recovery programs, education, and
reporting.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 №11/24
Of the $326,762, the City’s portion, when factored by population, waste hauler franchise, and subtracting non-applicable costs, is $43,178 (Attachment 4). The City has appropriated funds for this cost in the Community Development Department’s FY 25/26 adopted budget.

ReGen will also be applying for a State grant to supplement funds for SB 1383 implementation.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

No alternatives were considered for this action.

DISCUSSION:

SB 1383 has been regarded as one of the most significant diversion legislation efforts in the past 30 years. The State of California estimates that 20 to 23 million tons of organic waste (food/yard waste) are disposed of per year, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of all disposal.

In addition to the amount of waste, the other main concern with this waste stream is the production of methane, which is estimated to be 80 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years that it reaches the atmosphere. Landfills are estimated to be responsible for 21% of the State’s methane emissions.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of SB 1383 requirements, ReGen member agencies, regional waste haulers, and the two solid waste management agencies in the County (ReGen Monterey and Salinas Valley Recycles) began meeting to discuss compliance strategies in Q4 of 2020. While each member agency is responsible for compliance on its own, the funding and staffing levels required are greatly reduced by collaborating with regional agencies expected to comply with the same regulations.

Some of the key tasks associated with the SB 1383 compliance require extensive program implementation by the City, including:
 Collection and Processing – Processing of organic (green/food) waste from commercial and residential sources, labeling and color coding all carts  Monitoring and Enforcement – Conducting annual route reviews for contaminants, perform waste composition studies, issue notices and violations and penalties
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 №11/24
 Product Procurement – Annually procure an amount of organic material (compost, renewable gas, mulch) that complies with the target established by CalRecycle
 Ordinance Adoption – Adopt code requiring compliance with SB 1383 and establishing enforcement mechanism
 Edible Food Recovery Program – Implement a program that connects edible food generators with recovery organizations
 Education and Outreach – Annually provide information including but not limited to edible food recovery, material separation, waste prevention, methane reduction
 Record Keeping and Reporting – Maintaining a centralized implementation record relating to SB 1383 compliance (available within 10 days notice) in addition to annual reporting to the State
The proposed amendment to the MOU continues the effort by ReGen member agencies to share in the costs of implementing or expanding diversion programs in order to comply with SB 1383. The MOU also has a potential benefit in that when demonstrating efforts to comply with State law, member agencies can show that they are making every reasonable effort to comply by cooperating with neighboring jurisdictions and working on compliance plans together.

For these reasons, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the amendment of the MOU with ReGen for FY 2025-2026 costs.

TJT/
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Existing MOU

3. Updated Shared Costs for FY 25/26

4. Jurisdictional Allocations for FY 25/26
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. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (REGEN

MONTEREY) AND MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING AND FOOD RECOVERY LAWS (SB 1383) TO INCLUDE FY 2025- 26 COSTS OF $43,178 FOR THESE SERVICES
WHEREAS, SB 1383 is recognized throughout the industry as being the most significant solid waste legislation in the past 30 years and focuses on the diversion of organic waste from disposal in landfills;
WHEREAS, according to the State of California, in 2017, 67% of waste in the state was organic;
WHEREAS, organic waste generates methane during decomposition, which has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide within the first 20 years of reaching the atmosphere; WHEREAS, recovering edible food is critical in that 1 in 9 Californians are food insecure, and that unrecovered food becomes an organic waste product; WHEREAS, regulatory compliance will require the City, its waste hauler, and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) to establish new or increase existing waste diversion programs to comply with state regulations; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the City Manager is authorized to execute the amendment to the existing MOU between ReGen Monterey and its member agencies to include services related to SB 1383 compliance and to increase FY 2025-26 costs by $43,178, which is included in the adopted budget.

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. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ITS

MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING ASSISTANCE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1383
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into as of the date of the signatures set forth below by and between the MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (“District”, “MRWMD”), a California Garbage and Refuse Disposal District, and its member agencies including the cities of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, MARINA, MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE, SAND CITY, and SEASIDE; THE PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT; and THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY (“Member Agencies”). Collectively these entities shall be known herein as “Parties” or individually as a “Party.”
Recitals
A. The State of California has passed legislation, known as Senate Bill 1383, California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutants regulation. The regulation will have significant impact on each Member Agency, with the goal of reducing organic material being landfilled by 75% by 2025, compared to a 2014 basis. The legislation mandates that Member Agencies undertake certain activities around the handling of organic waste materials collected within their jurisdictions. The regulation also requires 20% recovery of edible food by 2025 to direct it to a beneficial use and thus prevent it from entering the waste stream. Regulations take effect, and local program implementation will begin, on January 1, 2022.

B. The Member Agencies have determined that it is in their best interest to coordinate their activities related to this legislation. This coordination is being facilitated by the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from each Member Agency, the three Haulers in the District service area (Haulers), Salinas Valley Recycles (SVR) and MRWMD.

C. The Member Agencies have further determined that the District has the expertise and resources necessary to implement some of these activities on the Member Agencies’ behalf and have now requested that the District incur costs to provide these activities.

D. The Member Agencies have agreed to reimburse the District for proportionate shares of certain designated annual costs incurred by the District for these activities.

E. The form and content of this MOU have been presented to the TAC, and the TAC has recommended it for approval by the Parties
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the District and the Member Agencies, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the Parties agree as Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 1 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124 2 follows:

Section 1. Recitals: The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.

Section 2. Purpose: The purpose of this MOU is to provide a structure for the Member Agencies to reimburse the District for SB 1383 related activities it performs on behalf of the Member Agencies.

Section 3. Voluntary: This MOU is voluntarily entered into by the Parties for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of SB 1383.

Section 4. Term: This MOU shall become effective on the last day of its execution by a Party and shall remain in effect until terminated by the Parties.

Section 5. Scope of Work, Costs & Cost Sharing: The scope of work, and associated costs, are set out in Exhibit A, entitled Detailed Activities and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Allocation of such costs to the Member Agencies is set out in Exhibit B, entitled Member Agencies’ Annual Proportionate Shares and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit C outlines estimated individual Member Agencies’ allocations related to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (OWR1: 2021-22), attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit D defines the estimated annual procurement requirements of organic material and estimated cost per ton of compost for each Member Agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

No later than March 1 of each year, and at such other times as directed by the Parties, the TAC shall meet to consider and, if deemed necessary, modify Exhibits A, B, C, and/or D subject to direction from the governing bodies of each Member Agency to its TAC representative.

Section 6. The District Agrees:
(a) District staff will manage activities as identified in Exhibit A, C, and D which activities include contracting with third party vendors when reasonably necessary and paying those vendors for contracted costs.
(b) Two times per year, on dates to be determined by the TAC, District will invoice Member Agencies for each Member Agency’s proportionate share of costs as shown in Exhibit B with each invoice to be fifty percent (50%) of the Member Agency’s share of costs. (c) Upon award of CalRecycle SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funds, the District will invoice Member Agencies for their full allocation of grant funds as shown in Exhibit C. Four times during the grant term, aligned with dates identified by CalRecycle grant Terms & Conditions, the District shall report to Member Agencies a summary of actual grant expenditures and progress toward grant tasks to date.

Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 2 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 125 3 (d) District will maintain an accounting of activities and expenses and provide reconciliation of payments annually. Material differences between estimated costs and actual incurred costs will result in either: 1) an adjustment made to the final annual payment for each Member Agency, or 2) such cost difference shall be incorporated into the subsequent year cost allocation.
(e) In year one only, in recognition of expected continuation of improved recycling revenues for the District from recyclable material sales, the District will off-set $140,000 of the costs identified in Exhibit A. This off-set is reflected in the cost allocations set out in Exhibit B for FY 2021-22.

Section 7. The Member Agencies Agree:
(a) To reimburse the District for all expenses incurred by the District under this MOU in accordance with each Member Agency’s proportionate share as shown on Exhibit B, C, and D. (b) To make a full-faith effort to cooperate with one another and with the District to achieve the purposes of this MOU by providing information, reviewing information in a timely manner, and informing their respective administration and governing bodies.

Section 8. Termination. Any Party may terminate its participation in this MOU upon giving written notice to the District no later than April 1 of any calendar year during the term of this MOU. Within ten days following a Party’s termination date, such party shall pay District all charges then due and payable and shall pay when determined any additional charges that shall later come due under the MOU, subject to the limits set out in Exhibits A, B, C, and D.

Section 9. General Provisions.
(a) This MOU is binding and for the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each Party and the District; provided however, no Party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the District. (b) This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
(c) If any provision of this MOU is determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU will not be affected, and this MOU will be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.
(d) Waiver by the District or any Party to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.

Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 3 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 126 4 Waiver by the District or any Party of any breach of the provisions of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU.
(e) This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which is an original but all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts have been delivered to all parties to this MOU. (f) All parties acknowledge they have been represented, or have had the opportunity to be represented, by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU will be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities will be resolved in a collaborative manner by the District and the Parties and must be rectified by amending this MOU.
(g) This MOU supersedes and replaces all prior MOUs between the District and the Parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date of their respective signatures.

MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 4 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 127 5 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 5 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 128 6 CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 6 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 129 7 CITY OF MARINA
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 7 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 130 8 CITY OF MONTEREY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 8 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 Hans Uslar, City Manager 10/25/2024 | 12:12 PM PDT
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 131 9 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 9 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 132 10 SAND CITY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 10 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 15, Packet Page 133 11 CITY OF SEASIDE
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 11 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 16, Packet Page 134 12 PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 12 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 17, Packet Page 135 13 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
By: ________________________ DATE: _______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 13 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 18, Packet Page 136 14 EXHIBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2024-2025
Scope of Work
The activities related to the implementation of SB 1383 may include contracting and policy development; public education; materials purchasing and distribution; reporting; contamination monitoring; edible food waste recovery; enforcement; procurement; organics processing; rate setting; cost monitoring; and any other related activities the Parties choose to address.

The District will take the lead producing public education campaigns in concert with the alreadyprovided Hauler and/or Member Agency resources. The Member Agencies will be responsible for production and mailing fees associated with outreach. The District will also contract with a vendor to administer contamination monitoring in the form of curbside lid flipping. The District will also provide CalRecycle reporting services to the Member Agencies. In addition, funds will be allocated to food recovery organizations for procurement of refrigerated holding facilities or transport vehicles to support edible food recovery efforts.

Costs
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 14 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 19, Packet Page 137 15 EXHIBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2024-2025 (CONTINUED)
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 15 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 20, Packet Page 138 16 EXHIBIT B
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ANNUAL PROPORTIONATE SHARES & COSTS*
FY 2024-2025
*Member Agencies’ proportionate costs subject to adjustment annually in accordance with any change in scope and total costs. Costs “with minimums” will be utilized.

Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 16 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 21, Packet Page 139 17 EXHIBIT C
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF CALRECYCLE LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING (OWR1: 2021-22)**
The Member Agencies of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) join the Local Assistance Grant Program as a regional collaborative project for the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, in coordination with other jurisdictions of the Monterey County region to maximize project impact and cost-effectiveness across the countywide area.

This regional grant-funded project will be coordinated through the two local waste management governmental agencies within Monterey County, Monterey Regional Waste Management (MRWMD), and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA).

The Member Agencies, along with each of the MRWMD and SVSWA member agencies are applying individually to this grant program using a unified regional project design, budget and implementation approach. All participating jurisdictions’ individual grant funding will be pooled together and expended in a cooperative manner by their agencies’ respective waste districts, MRWMD and SVSWA. The County of Monterey is applying separately and will manage its budget and project implementation independently, in coordination with broader regional planning efforts.

Based on current regional needs and findings to date related to SB 1383 in Monterey County, the following four major components will comprise the principal focus areas of program expenditures under the proposed regional project approach:
1) Grant Management, Tracking & Reporting
2) Agency Procurement Support
3) Edible Food Recovery Implementation and Capacity Building 4) Organics & Edible Food Recovery Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance Each element will be informed by regional coordination through the established MRWMD and SVSWA Technical Advisory Committee forums, Capacity Planning Assessments and related studies completed or in process throughout the region, and new data and information obtained through program implementation trials, stakeholder feedback and best practices as identified.

All expenditures will be incurred jointly, facilitated through each respective waste agency, and tracked and reported by each jurisdiction, based on the percentage of grant funds received by each agency compared to the full funding received collectively by all participating member agencies. CalRecycle, based on per capita calculations, using the Department of Finance’s January 2021 population statistics, estimates jurisdictions’ proportionate grant allocations. A summary of individual and collective agency grant allocations is presented below as Table 1.

Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 17 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 22, Packet Page 140 18 Table 1. Thirteen Agency Collaborative Approach Budget Summary ** Working in coordination with the designated CalRecycle grant manager or other agency representatives as appropriate, the region may adjust these proposed expenditure areas, amounts, or priorities, consistent with grant expenditure eligibility requirements, as needed during the course of the grant term based on the needs of the region.

Agencies Estimated
Funding
% of District
Subtotal
% of Region
Total
Waste
District
Carmel-by-the-Sea $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Del Rey Oaks $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Marina $29,771 14% 6% MRWMD
Monterey $38,247 18% 7% MRWMD
Pacific Grove $21,398 10% 4% MRWMD
Sand City $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Seaside $43,151 20% 8% MRWMD
Pebble Beach Community
Services District
$20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Subtotal (MRWMD): $212,566 100% 41%
Gonzales $20,000 6% 4% SVSWA
Greenfield $25,157 8% 5% SVSWA
King City $20,665 7% 4% SVSWA
Salinas $211,143 68% 40% SVSWA
Soledad $33,095 11% 6% SVSWA
Subtotal (SVSWA): $310,060 100% 59%
TOTAL (13 Agency Regional
Approach): $522,626 100%
Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 18 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 23, Packet Page 141 19 EXHIBIT D
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED PROCURMENT REQUIRMENTS

OF ORGANIC MATERIAL
The list below indicates the annual recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each jurisdiction (city, county, or city and county) that will be in effect from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2026 per CalRecycle.

Agreement #: Ag-11691 - Page 19 of 19
Docusign Envelope ID: 30B983D6-3827-4FEC-B6C6-27DDB0011CC7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 24, Packet Page 142 1 EXHBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2025-2026
Scope of Work
The activities related to the implementation of SB 1383 may include contracting and policy development; public education; materials purchasing and distribution; reporting; contamination monitoring; edible food waste recovery; enforcement; procurement; organics processing; rate setting; cost monitoring; and any other related activities the Parties choose to address.

The District will take the lead producing public education campaigns in concert with the already provided Hauler and/or Member Agency resources. The Member Agencies will be responsible for production and mailing fees associated with outreach. The District will also contract with a vendor to administer contamination monitoring in the form of curbside lid flipping. The District will also provide CalRecycle reporting services to the Member Agencies. In addition, funds will be allocated to food recovery organizations for procurement of refrigerated holding facilities or transport vehicles to support edible food recovery efforts.

Costs
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 25, Packet Page 143 1 EXHBIT B
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ANNUAL PROPORTIONATE SHARES & COSTS*
FY 2025-2026
*Member Agencies’ proportionate costs subject to adjustment annually in accordance with any change in scope and total costs.

Member agencies will be invoiced an annual amount not to exceed column below titled “with minimums.”
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 26, Packet Page 144 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Following Actions Related to the Jacks Park Improvement Project:
(1) Submission of a Land Water Conservation Fund Grant Application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Jacks Park Improvements Project and, If Awarded, Execute Grant Agreement; (2) Accept $150,000 in Grant Funds from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation; (3) Amend Resolution 25-060, the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, to Add this Project; and (4) Appropriate Grant Funds to the Project’s CIP Fund (Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Not a Project and Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution to:

1. Approve the filing of an application for the Jacks Park Improvements Project with the California Department of
Parks and Recreation LWCF.

2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a grant
agreement with the California Department of Parks and
Recreation with the City to provide matching funds.

3. Accept $150,000 grant funds from the Monterey
Peninsula Foundation to be used as matching funds for
the LWCF grant.

4. Authorize the Finance Director to appropriate the
Monterey Peninsula Foundation Grant funds and the
LWCF grant funds upon award of the grant to the Jacks
Park Improvements Projects in the Capital Projects Fund.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action supports the Strategic Priority to “identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and
infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library,
museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.” Agenda Report Highlights
 The City plans to apply for a Land
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
grant to fund improvements at Jacks
Park, including turf replacement,
irrigation upgrades, and ADA
enhancements.
 A $150,000 grant from the Monterey
Peninsula Foundation will be used
as matching funds for the LWCF
grant, reducing reliance on the
City's General Fund.
 Jacks Park serves over 60,000
annual attendees and hosts various
recreational programs, sports
leagues, and community events.
 Planned improvements aim to
enhance safety, accessibility, and
usability, including upgrades to
netting, lighting, batting cages, and
restroom facilities.

Date: 7/15/2025
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 145 №11/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The LWCF grant would provide additional funds for the Jacks Park Improvements project, thus saving the City from using limited general fund or CIP resources. The minimum match of $250,000 will be funded through in-kind City services such as permitting and administration, existing appropriations of $100,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and a grant of $150,000 from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation. Additional matching funds donated by local community organizations continue to be sought. The City is applying for a minimum of $250,000 for the LWCF grant.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action, including filing a grant application, authorizing a grant agreement, providing matching funds for a grant, and accepting grant funds 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.

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project proposes to prepare plans to make improvements to Jacks Park. Once the project plans have been fully developed, the project will be subject to additional environmental review.

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 project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 146 №11/25
project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

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 scenic highway impacts will occur because the park site is not visible from a scenic highway.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The park does not include any hazardous waste site. No impact will occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

An alternative would be to not submit a LWCF grant application for improvements at Jacks Park and not accept the funds from the Monterey Foundation for the project, however, this would limit the scope of potential improvements.

DISCUSSION:

LWCF Grant
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established by Congress in 1964 to fulfill a bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage, and to provide recreation opportunities to all Americans. On August 4, 2020, the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) was signed into law, authorizing $900 million annually in permanent funding for LWCF. The LWCF supports increased public access to and protection for federal public lands and provides matching grants to state governments for the acquisition and development of public parks and other outdoor recreation areas. These grants can be used for a range of projects from establishing baseball fields and community green spaces; to providing public access to rivers, lakes and other water resources; to protecting historic and cultural sites; and conserving natural landscapes.

Since 1965, over one thousand parks throughout California have been created or improved with LWCF assistance. The LWCF enables urban communities to create new outdoor recreation spaces, reinvigorate existing parks, and helps strengthen communities by providing connections between people and the outdoors.

The City has identified Jacks Park as suitable project for this LWCF grant opportunity. Jacks Park is the largest softball field in the City of Monterey. The natural turf outfield allows for as many playable days as possible during good weather conditions enabling usage of over 300 days per year with an annual attendance of over 60,000. This field is used year-round for multiple co-ed recreational programs such as the Monterey Recreation Youth Soccer League, Monterey Sports Center’s Sports Camps, adult softball leagues, and also serves as host to occasional City-sponsored community-wide special events.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 147 №11/25
The field serves Recreation Division participants of all ages and genders from Pee Wee programs with youngsters four to five years of age to adult sports leagues with individuals 65 years and older. In addition, sports offered through Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, PONY Baseball/Softball, local schools, youth and adult sports organizations also serve more individuals from a wide variety of demographics and geographic locations. Jacks Park also serves as the home field for the Monterey High School softball team.

Jacks Park Improvements Project
Jacks Park needs significant capital improvements as the field and its amenities are aging. The proposed project is to prepare plans and develop a scope of work to remove the existing turf and irrigation, upgrade the underground drainage and irrigation system and replace the aged outfield with new turf and resurface the existing clay infield. This new infield and outfield surface, along with improved irrigation, would provide a safer playing surface for both student athletes and our adult population. Recreational features that could be funded include the replacement of safety netting, landscaping, upgrading batting cages, adding shade for dugouts and bleachers and updating the lighting system to allow for remote access. ADA improvements are also planned as part of the grant, including updates to the path of travel to bleachers, dugout, and restrooms. The City may also use LWCF funds for restroom renovations, ADA improvements and playground upgrade replacement if funding allows. . Once the project concept’s construction details are developed, it will be possible to prepare the project’s environmental analysis.

Monterey Peninsula Foundation Grant
The Monterey Peninsula Foundation has been extremely supportive of the City throughout the years by funding improvements at Sollecito Ballpark. The Foundation has now generously awarded the City $150,000 to fund the improvements for Jacks Park listed above, thus saving the City from using its General Fund revenues
The City is able to capitalize on existing funding from both NCIP and the Monterey Peninsula Foundation Grant in order to meet the LWCF matching fund requirements. With this additional grant funding, the City will be able to substantially address the much-needed park and field improvements at Jacks Park.

HU/sl
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Felicia Ming, Grant Coordinator
Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
Thys Norton, Park Operations Manager
Chinyere Ogbonna, NCIP Committee Chair
Dennis Duke, NCIP Committee Vice Chair
Parks and Recreation Commission
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 148 №11/25
Shari Edghill, California Consulting
Tommy Bommarito, Monterey Pony Baseball/Softball, Inc.

Michael Groves, Save Our Sports
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. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 149 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE JACKS PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: (1) SUBMISSION OF A LAND WATER CONSERVATION

FUND GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS

AND RECREATION FOR THE JACKS PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND, IF AWARDED, EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENT; (2) ACCEPT $150,000 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MONTEREY PENINSULA FOUNDATION; (3) AMEND RESOLUTION 25-060, THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, TO ADD THIS PROJECT; AND (4) APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized the establishment of a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing matching funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures governing applications by local agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, the applicant certifies by resolution the approval of the application and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of the application to the State; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-060 approving the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025-2029; WHEREAS, on August 13, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed the ranked NCIP projects and confirmed the Jacks Park Improvements project to be consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plans, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan;
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed projects and determined that the recommended Parks and Recreation related projects including the Jacks Park Improvements project to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan;
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council adopted and approved the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) (Resolution 24-179 C.S.);
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council appropriated $100,000 to the Jacks Park Improvements Project (DT-04) Account (ncp2528); Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 150 WHEREAS, on April 23, 2025, the Monterey Peninsula Foundation awarded the City $150,00 to fund eligible improvements to Jacks Park, thus saving the City from using its general fund revenues;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action, including filing a grant application, authorizing a grant agreement, providing matching funds for a grant, and accepting grant funds 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.

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project proposes to prepare plans to make improvements to Jacks Park. Once the project plans have been fully developed, the project will be subject to additional environmental review.

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 project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 151 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 scenic highway impacts will occur because the park site is not visible from a scenic highway.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The park does not include any hazardous waste site. No impact will occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project plans will be for informational purposes so the project’s environmental impacts can be accessed.

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

1. Approves the filing of an application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance for the proposed Jack’s Park Improvements Project;

2. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide;

3. Agrees to abide by 54 U.S.C. §200305(f)(3) which requires, “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation use. The Secretary shall approve a conversion only if the Secretary finds it to be in accordance with the then-existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only on such conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to ensure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.”

4. Certifies that said agency has matching funds from eligible source(s) and can finance 100 percent of the project, which up to half may be reimbursed; and

5. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 152

6. Appoints the City Manager, or their designee, as agent of the applicant to conduct all negotiations and execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, contracts, amendments, payment requests, and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.

7. Amends Resolution 25-060, the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, to add this project as follows:

Funding
Allocations:

General
Fund
FY 25/26 Description Project
Number
Project
Name
Jacks Park
Improvements
$150,000 Prepare plans and
develop a scope of work
to remove irrigation
system, replace/upgrade
drainage system, and
replace playing surface
with new grass turf at
Jacks Park, resurface
the existing clay infield,
replacement of safety
netting, landscaping,
upgrading batting cages,
adding shade for
dugouts and bleachers,
updating the lighting
system to allow for
remote access, restroom
renovations, ADA
improvements and
playground upgrade
replacement if funding
allows.
ncp2528 Jacks Park
Improvements

8. Authorizes the Finance Director to a, or their designee, to appropriate the funds upon award of the LWCF grant to the Jacks Park Improvements Project in the Capital Projects Fund.

9. Accepts the $150,000 grant from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation and authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to increase FY26 revenue by $150,000 and Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 153 appropriate $150,000 in grant funds from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation to the Jacks Park Improvements Project in the Capital Projects Fund.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 154 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kevin Anderson, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: Adopting an Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project and Authorization to Proceed with Project Implementation (Adopt Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopts the attached resolution
adopting the Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey
Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR for the Lake El
Estero Stormwater Diversion Project, dated June 2025,
and authorizes City staff to proceed with project
implementation consistent with the adopted mitigation
measures and project description.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action aligns with the City of Monterey General Plan goals related to environmental protection, sustainability, and water resource management. It supports regional
efforts to enhance sustainable water supply through
recycled water projects.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the Addendum. Project implementation costs will be addressed through separate agreements or funding sources approved in prior or future Council actions.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
adopt the Addendum to the Pure
Water Monterey Groundwater
Replenishment Project EIR for the
Lake El Estero Stormwater
Diversion Project.
 The project aims to divert up to 209
acre-feet per year of stormwater for
advanced purification, reducing
pollutant discharge to Monterey
Bay and enhancing water reuse.
 The project aims to divert up to 209
acre-feet per year of stormwater for
advanced purification, reducing
pollutant discharge to Monterey
Bay and enhancing water reuse.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 155 №11/25
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The PWM/GWR Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified October 8, 2015 (SCH No. 2013051094) by Monterey One Water, with subsequent addenda and a Supplemental EIR certified April 29, 2021 to address project modifications. The Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project was identified in the original PWM/GWR Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a potential source water component, but detailed engineering plans were not available at that time, necessitating further environmental analysis prior to implementation.

An Addendum to the certified PWM/GWR EIR has been prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, dated June 2025, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, to analyze the environmental effects of the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum is appropriate where an EIR has been certified and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with California Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15168. As documented in the addendum, none of the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to adopt an addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR. However, that is not recommended because this would prevent the City from implementing the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is a participant in the regional Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR), which is managed by Monterey One Water (M1W) in partnership with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The PWM/GWR Project was originally analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in 2015 (State Clearinghouse No. 2013051094). Since that time, several addenda and a Supplemental EIR have been prepared and certified to evaluate project refinements and an expansion of the PWM/GWR project.

The Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project is a component of the original PWM/GWR Project and was broadly evaluated in the certified EIR as a potential stormwater source. Since EIR certification, engineered drawings for the diversion project have been prepared, requiring additional environmental documentation.

An Addendum, dated June 2025, has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. The Addendum concludes that Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 156 №11/25
the Lake El Estero Diversion Project will not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those identified in the original EIR or the 2021 Supplemental EIR. As such, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

The Addendum includes a comprehensive project description and environmental checklist evaluating potential environmental effects. The analysis confirms that:
 No new significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed project.  No previously identified impacts will become substantially more severe.  No new mitigation measures are necessary.
 Existing mitigation measures from the certified EIR remain applicable.

The project will divert up to 209 acre-feet per year of stormwater from Lake El Estero to the regional treatment plant for advanced purification, thereby reducing pollutant discharge to Monterey Bay and enhancing water reuse. City Council adoption of this Addendum will fulfill CEQA requirements and allow the City to proceed with implementation of the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project.

AR/ka
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Addendum to PWM EIR
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. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 157 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER

REPLENISHMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE LAKE

EL ESTERO STORMWATER DIVERSION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED

WITH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is a partner in the regional Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM/GWR Project), which is designed to enhance sustainable water supplies through the use of recycled water; WHEREAS, the PWM/GWR Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified October 8, 2015 (SCH No. 2013051094) by Monterey One Water, with subsequent addenda and a Supplemental EIR certified April 29, 2021 to address project modifications; WHEREAS, Monterey One Water, as the designated lead agency for the PWM/GWR Project, prepared the PWM/GWR EIR to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the consideration of the PWM/GWR and actions related thereto;
WHEREAS, the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project was identified in the original PWM/GWR EIR as a potential source water component, but detailed engineering plans were not available at that time, necessitating further environmental analysis prior to implementation;
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the certified PWM/GWR EIR has been prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, dated June 2025, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, to analyze the environmental effects of the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project;
WHEREAS, the PWM/GWR Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified October 8, 2015 (SCH No. 2013051094) by Monterey One Water, with subsequent addenda and a Supplemental EIR certified April 29, 2021 to address project modifications. The Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project was identified in the original PWM/GWR Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a potential source water component, but detailed engineering plans were not available at that time, necessitating further environmental analysis prior to implementation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 158 An Addendum to the certified PWM/GWR EIR has been prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, dated June 2025, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, to analyze the environmental effects of the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum is appropriate where an EIR has been certified and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with California Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15168. As documented in the addendum, none of the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred.

The Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project would incorporate and implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the PWM/EIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program (MMRP) as adopted by the M1W Board of Directors upon certifying the EIR and approving the PWM/GWR Project in October 2015 and the Expanded PWM/GWR Project in April 2021. Specific mitigation measures relevant to the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project are identified in the Addendum. Further, the MMRP adopted in conjunction with the PWM/GWR Project is included as Appendix A of the Addendum;
WHEREAS, the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project would incorporate and implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the PWM/EIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program (MMRP) as adopted by the M1W Board of Directors upon certifying the EIR and approving the PWM/GWR Project in October 2015 and the Expanded PWM/GWR Project in April 2021. Specific mitigation measures relevant to the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project are identified in the Addendum. Further, the MMRP adopted in conjunction with the PWM/GWR Project is included as Appendix A of the Addendum.

WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that the Lake El Estero Stormwater Diversion Project will not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those identified in the certified EIR, SEIR, and prior addenda, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those already adopted;
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum together with the certified PWM/GWR EIR and associated documents prior to taking action; and,

Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 159

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the Addendum to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR dated June 2025, and authorizes City staff to proceed with project implementation consistent with the adopted mitigation measures and project description.

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. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 160

ADDENDUM
TO THE

PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT

PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT

FOR THE

LAKE EL ESTERO WATER DIVERSION PROJECT
June 2025
Prepared for:

City of Monterey
Responsible Agency
Prepared by:

Denise Duffy and Associates
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 161 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 8, Packet Page 162 Table of Contents
Introduction and Background.....................................................................................................................7 Construction .......................................................................................................................................8 Operations and Maintenance.............................................................................................................8 Project Location........................................................................................................................................11 Surrounding Land Uses.............................................................................................................................11 Project Description - Proposed Project Modifications .............................................................................11 Proposed Project Modifications .......................................................................................................11 Construction .....................................................................................................................................14 Site Preparation and grading ............................................................................................................16 Operation and Maintenance.............................................................................................................16 Comparison to the Conditions Listed in CEQA Guidelines §15162...........................................................17 Changes to the Project..............................................................................................................................17 Project Background...........................................................................................................................17 Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................18 New Information...............................................................................................................................18 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................19 Attachment 1 Environmental Checklist for the Proposed Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project to Support an Addendum to the PWM/GWR EIR .........................................................................................20 Project Data ................................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...............................................................................................1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................2

1. Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................3 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................................3 Checklist..............................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents.....................................................................................3 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................4

2. Agricultural Resources........................................................................................................................5 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................................5 Checklist..............................................................................................................................................5 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents.....................................................................................5 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................6

3. Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................................6 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................................6 Checklist..............................................................................................................................................7 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents.....................................................................................7 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................7

4. Biological Resources .........................................................................................................................10 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................10 Checklist............................................................................................................................................14 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................14 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................15

5. Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................17 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................17 Checklist............................................................................................................................................17 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................18 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................18 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 9, Packet Page 163

6. Energy ...............................................................................................................................................19 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................19 Checklist............................................................................................................................................19 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................19 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................19

7. Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................................20 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................20 Checklist............................................................................................................................................21 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................21 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................22

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................................23 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................23 Checklist............................................................................................................................................23 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................23 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................24

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................................24 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................24 Checklist............................................................................................................................................25 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................25 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................25

10. Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................................27 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................27 Checklist............................................................................................................................................28 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................28 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................29

11. Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................................31 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................31 Checklist............................................................................................................................................32 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................32 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................32

12. Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................33 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................33 Checklist............................................................................................................................................34 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................34 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................34

13. Noise .................................................................................................................................................34 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................34 Checklist............................................................................................................................................35 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................35 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................36

14. Population and Housing....................................................................................................................37 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................37 Checklist............................................................................................................................................37 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................38 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................38

15. Public Services ..................................................................................................................................38 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................38 Checklist............................................................................................................................................40 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 10, Packet Page 164 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................40 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................40

16. Recreation.........................................................................................................................................41 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................41 Checklist............................................................................................................................................41 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................41 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................41

17. Transportation and Traffic................................................................................................................42 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................42 Checklist............................................................................................................................................42 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................43 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................43

18. Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................44 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................44 Checklist............................................................................................................................................44 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................45 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................45

19. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................................46 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................46 Checklist............................................................................................................................................47 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................47 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................48

20. Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................49 Existing Setting..................................................................................................................................49 Checklist............................................................................................................................................50 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................50 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................50

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................................51 Checklist............................................................................................................................................51 Summary of Impacts in Previous Documents...................................................................................51 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................52 Report Preparation and References.........................................................................................................54 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................55 List of Figures
Figure 1. Regional Map……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….12 Figure 2. Project Location…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………13 Figure 3. Land Use Map……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………15 Figure 4a. Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………12 Figure 4b. Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………13 Appendices
Appendix A. Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project Appendix B. Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study Appendix C. City of Monterey’s Detention Basin Management Project Biological Resource Report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 11, Packet Page 165 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 12, Packet Page 166 Denise Duffy & Associates 7
June 2025

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), and in cooperation with other affected agencies and entities, the City of Monterey (“City”) has prepared this Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Final Environmental Impact Report (“PWM/GWR EIR”), certified by the Monterey One Water (“M1W”) Board of Directors on October 8, 2015 (SCH No. 2013051094).

M1W, in partnership with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”), sponsored the PWM/GWR Project, which involves developing purified recycled water to replace existing urban supplies and an enhanced agricultural irrigation system in northern Monterey County. Water supplies to be recycled and reused as part of the PWM/GWR Project include municipal and industrial wastewater, urban stormwater runoff, and surface water diversions, including diversions from Lake El Estero in the City of Monterey.

The PWM/GWR EIR described the Lake El Estero Diversion as follows:

Monterey Peninsula urban stormwater and dry weather runoff that flows into Lake El Estero is currently stored in the lake and then pumped by the City of Monterey, or allowed to flow by gravity, through storm drain pipelines to Del Monte Beach. To use water from this source for the Proposed Project, the portion of the Lake El Estero water that currently is pumped or flows onto Del Monte Beach into Monterey Bay would, instead, be diverted via a short new pipeline, using a new pump or by gravity flow, into the municipal wastewater system at a sanitary sewer manhole immediately adjacent to the existing Lake El Estero pump station. After the lake water enters the manhole, it would flow through an existing 21-inch City sanitary sewer main into the existing Pacific Grove interceptor and then to the existing MRWPCA Monterey Pump Station1.

From there, the water would flow through the existing MRWPCA conveyance system to the Regional Treatment Plant. This new diversion system would capture stormwater which would otherwise be discharged to the Monterey Bay; the average lake level would remain unchanged.

This source would yield an average raw water supply of 87 AFY, based upon estimated daily runoff into the Lake and available conveyance capacity in the municipal wastewater system2.

The Lake El Estero Source Water Diversion System would consist of one (1) of the following options: (1) installation of a new pumping system, consisting of a new column pump installed in the wet well of the existing lake management pump station, upgrades to the existing electric panel, and a new 30-foot long, 12-inch diameter discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer; or (2) installation of a new gravity system, consisting of a new headwall and screened intake pipe on the lake bank, a new 40-foot long, 12-inch diameter discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer, and a new controlled and motorized isolation valve. Both systems would be entirely underground or 1Note: M1W formerly changed their name from the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Pollutions Control Agency or MRWPCA to M1W.
2This flow estimate was based on monitoring data collected between November 2013 and March 2014 at the existing 21-inch City of Monterey sanitary sewer gravity main between the Lake El Estero diversion site and the M1W collection system (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2014a). Schaaf & Wheeler updated this information for the current Proposed Project and yields were increased, (See Appendix B, Schaaf & Wheeler 2024).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 13, Packet Page 167 Denise Duffy & Associates 8
June 2025
within existing pump dry and wet well structures and the connecting pipeline would include a flow meter and a check valve to prevent backflow of sewage into the lake. The City and MRWPCA would select the preferred option based upon technical and economic considerations at the time that design plans are prepared.

Construction
At the Lake El Estero Diversion site, less than 0.1 acres of disturbance would occur. The disturbance would be entirely within the paved area of the existing pump station at that site.

Pavement demolition, trenching and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities, and flow meters would all be installed below grade using only equipment delivery trucks, loaders, and backhoes.

Operations and Maintenance
The Lake El Estero diversion pump station would operate autonomously, based upon lake levels and water levels in the receiving sanitary sewer. System operators from the City would visit the site with the same frequency as operators visit the existing pump station, approximately once per week when not operating and multiple times per day while in operation. If a lakeside intake is used, approximately once per month an operator may need to physically clear vegetation or debris from the intake screen. The pumps would require annual inspection and servicing, using a lift truck to remove the pumps from the wet well. This maintenance may be scheduled to coincide with the adjacent pump station. The flow meter would require inspection and calibration less than once per year.

Following certification of the PWM/GWR EIR, M1W and MPWMD prepared three (3) addenda and a Supplemental EIR to address changes to the PWM/GWR project. Each of these documents are summarized as follows:

Addendum Number 1. On June 20, 2016, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”) adopted Addendum No. 1 to the certified PWM/GWR Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (“EIR/EA”). Addendum No. 1 addressed the potential impacts of construction and operation of the Hilby Avenue Pump Station as part of the PWM/GWR and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (“ASR”) projects. Addendum No. 1 did not include a discussion of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion.

Addendum Number 2. On February 22, 2017, the MPWMD adopted Addendum No. 2 to the certified PWM/GWR EIR for proposed realignment of the Monterey Pipeline component of the PWM/GWR and ASR projects. Addendum No. 2 describes the proposed Monterey Pipeline realignment as a necessarymodification to avoid a hydraulic barrier posed by elevated terrain along a segment of the previously analyzed pipeline route. Addendum No. 2 assessed potential additional impacts from the proposed realignment and concluded the realignment would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental effects beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Addendum No. 2 did not include a discussion of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion.

Addendum Number 3. On October 31, 2017, the M1W Board of Directors adopted Addendum No. 3 to the PWM/GWR EIR. Addendum No. 3 addressed expansion of the Advanced Water Purification ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 14, Packet Page 168 Denise Duffy & Associates 9
June 2025
Facility (“AWPF”) from a capacity four (4) million gallons per day (“mgd”) to (5) mgd. Addendum No. 3 determined that the proposed AWTF expansion would implement mitigation measures previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR. Addendum No. 3 found no new significant impacts and no increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and did not identify new mitigation measures or alternatives that could lessen significant impacts beyond what the M1W Board previously adopted. Addendum No. 3 did not include a discussion of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion.

Supplemental EIR for the Proposed Modifications to the PWM/GWR Project. On April 29, 2021, the M1W Board of Directors certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) and approved modifications to expand the PWM/GWR Project to increase the AWPF peak capacity to up to 7.6 million gallons per day (“mgd”) and to increase recharge of the Seaside Groundwater Basin by up to 2,250 AFY for the purpose of providing additional water for extraction by California American Water (CalAm). The Expanded PWM/GWR Project includes additional product water conveyance pipelines, injection well facilities, potable supply extraction and distribution system facilities, and associated infrastructure.
3 The SEIR acknowledged the Lake El Estero Water
Diversion project as source water and did not change the project from how the PWM/GWR Project Final EIR described or evaluated the project previously. Furthermore, as discussed in the SEIR, the modifications proposed as part of the SEIR were not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects pertaining to the acquisition and use of source water components beyond those previously identified in the PWM/GWR Project Final EIR.

Addendum No. 4. On November 29, 2021, M1W adopted Addendum No. 4 and approved modifications to the Expanded Injection Well Area to include an additional replacement well and relocating a well and backflush basin. Addendum No. 2 assessed potential impacts due to the minor changes to the relocation and development of the deep injection well(s), extension of pipeline and other minor modifications to the PWM/GWR Project and found these modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental effects beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and SEIR. Neither the SEIR nor the Addendum to the SEIR included any revisions to or discussions of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion.

The previous addenda reviewed the potential impacts in the topical subjects listed above related to changes to the PWM/GWR Project and Expanded PWM/GWR Project.
4 In all cases, the evaluations concluded that
there were: (1) no substantial changes to the PWM/GWR Project or Expanded PWM/GWR Project requiring major revisions to the PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and (3) no new, 3 The SEIR for the Proposed Modifications to the PWM/GWR Project (SCH No. 2013051094), as well as supporting material from the M1W Board hearing for the Final SEIR and Expanded PWM/GWR Project approval (April 26, 2021) can be found on the PWM/GWR website: https://purewatermonterey.org/reports-docs/cfeir/. 4 In addition to the previous CEQA compliance, National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) compliance has also been conducted for the PWM/GWR Project related to separate actions by federal agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) to comply with NEPA for Title XVI funds to be awarded to the PWM/GWR Project (April 2017). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, also prepared an EA and issued a FONSI for their November 2021 action to authorize re-issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit that included discharges from the PWM/GWR Project operating at its peak capacity of 5 mgd.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 15, Packet Page 169 Denise Duffy & Associates 10
June 2025
previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and SEIR would substantially reduce significant effects.

Since certification of the PWM/GWR EIR, construction and implementation of the PWM/GWR Project has been mostly completed with almost all of the project components constructed. However, the engineering, planning and construction of the Lake El Estero urban source water component was not undertaken by M1W as part of the overall PWM/GWR Project. The City of Monterey pursued and received a grant for the purpose of planning, designing, permitting, and constructing the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project.
5 The City of Monterey is now proposing implementation of the previously considered Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project. (“Project” or “Proposed Project”), with minor modifications.

The Project was included in the PWM/GWR EIR as an additional source water to support the PWM/GWR project, and evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR. However, since certification of the EIR and addenda, additional engineering detail has been developed and minor modifications to the Lake Estero water diversion project are proposed. Therefore, this Addendum describes these minor changes and evaluates whether implementation of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project modifications would result in a new significant impact or an impact that is substantially more severe than the impacts disclosed in the PWM/GWR EIR, as amended, or whether any other conditions triggering the need for a supplemental EIR have occurred.

This Addendum is supported by Attachment 1, Environmental Checklist, which concludes the following in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15464:
▪ No new or previously unidentified adverse significantimpacts would resultfrom implementation of the proposed Lake El Estero Diversion Project.
▪ The proposed diversion of surface water from Lake El Estero would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

As explained below in Section VI, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR. Additionally, there is no new information that shows new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Nor is there new evidence showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one (1) or more significant effects of the project, or that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one (1) or more significant effects on the environment. For these reasons, preparation of an addendum is appropriate under these circumstances.

The City of Monterey will consider this Addendum, along with the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda, prior to making a decision on any approvals pertaining to the Proposed Project. 5 Grant agreement No. D2218008, State Water Resources Control Board, City of Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 16, Packet Page 170 Denise Duffy & Associates 11
June 2025

PROJECT LOCATION
The Proposed Project is located approximately 450 feet south of Del Monte Beach, and adjacent to Del Monte Avenue in Monterey, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [“APN”] 001-994-001) (see Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2. Project Location). The Proposed El Estero Water Diversion Project modifications would occur within the approved project area of the PWM/GWR Project as shown in Figure

2. Project Location.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Lake El Estero (“Lake El Estero” or “the lake”) is within the El Estero Park Complex, which is designated as Parks and Open Space in the City of Monterey Land Use Plan (“City LUP”) and consists of playgrounds, sports facilities, a fishing pier, and a paddleboat wharf. The lake is bordered to the north, east, west, and south by Del Monte Boulevard, Camino Aguajito, Camino El Estero, and Fremont Street, respectively.

Other surrounding land uses include Commercial land containing commercial businesses, and Mediumand Low-Density Residential housing consisting of multi-family and single-family residences (see Figure 3, Land Use Map).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The Proposed Project would involve a new water diversion system to divert surface water from Lake El Estero to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system in lieu of discharging into the Monterey Bay. The Project would support the PWM/GWR Project by diverting the portion of untreated stormwater that currently flows from Lake El Estero into the Monterey Bay to the City’s sewer system to be treated at the M1W Regional Treatment Plant (“RTP”) and recycled for indirect potable reuse.

As discussed in Section I. Introduction and Background above, the PWM/GWR EIR anticipated more refined design plans would be developed for the El Estero Water Diversion Project. The following describes the minor modifications to the Proposed Project based on current engineering plans.

Proposed Project Modifications
The Proposed Project would continue to utilize the existing storage capacity of Lake El Estero to detain both wet- and dry-weather runoff for diversion. However, the Proposed Project anticipates an increased annual yield; an average of 209 acre-feet per year (“AFY”) of stormwater runoff would be diverted from the lake to the City’s sanitary sewer system compared to 87 AFY noted above. The remaining stored water would stay in the lake or continue to be discharged into the Monterey Bay. Lake El Estero water levels would not be altered as part of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 17, Packet Page 171 Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2022-49 Lake El Estero\El Estero Addendum.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting lanning and Environmental Consulting DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
5/7/2025
Date
Regional Map 1
173 ft
8 0
M o n t e r e y
H a r b o r
Fremont Blv d
Monterey
Pacific Grove
1056 ft
San Jose Creek
Gibson C reek
Malpaso Cr eek
H
ighway 1
C a r m e l
B a y C A R M E L C A N Y O N

S A D D L E

M O U N T A I N

P O T R E R O C A N Y ON

C H A M I S A L R I D G E
Carmel Val ley Rd
Carmel
Del Rey Oaks
604 ft
547 ft
oville Rd
W Mark

P I L ARCI T O S C A N Y ON
W Blanco
Marina
Municipal
Airport
Serra Village
Marina
Chupines
Creek
Harper Creek

C A L E R A C A N Y O N
W Carmel Valley Rd
Baronet
Estates
Ambler Park
Carmel Valley
F
0 2 4
Miles
Project Location
1 in = 2 mi
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 18, Packet Page 172 Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2022-49 Lake El Estero\El Estero Addendum.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting lanning and Environmental Consulting DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
5/7/2025
Date
Project Location 2
E Franklin S t
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Anthony S t
er Ln
ve
Pearl S t
Mesa Rd
Camino
El
Estero
son S t
S t
El Estero
1st St
2nd S t
Lake S t
Camino E
l Estero
Del Monte Ave Del Monte Ave
Camino
Aguajito
Monterey State
Beach
Pearl St
Pearl S t
Fishnet
Rd
4th S t
3rd S t
Fremont S t
Camin
o
Agua
Cemetario El jito
Encinal
San Carlos
Catholic
Cemetery
El Estero Park
Lagunita Mirada
Sloat Ave
Ocean Ave
2nd S t
3rd S t
Park
Ave
La Playa S t
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Del Monte Ave
Ocean Ave
5th S t
6th St
6th S t
8th S t
7th S t
3rd S t
Cam
ino Ag
uaj
ito
Oak Grove
Del Monte Ave Del Monte Ave
1 in = 366 ft
Project Site
F
0 250 500
Feet
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 19, Packet Page 173 Denise Duffy & Associates 14
June 2025
As with the PWM/GWR described project, the Proposed Project modifications would be constructed within existing paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, with the exception of the diversion.6 The water diversion system would consist of constructing a new gravity intake system on the bank of the lake connecting to the Lake El Estero Pump Station. The intake system would include a new headwall and screened intake pipe and a new discharge pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer. The size of the discharge pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer is slightly increased from the PWM/GWR EIR description, from a 40-foot long, 12-inch diameter pipeline, to a new 60-footlong, 16-inch diameter discharge pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer; and a new controlled and motorized isolation valve.

All components of the intake system would be entirely underground or within existing dry and wet well structures, consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR. The connecting pipeline would include a flow meter and a check valve to prevent any backflow of sewage into the lake. After water enters the connecting pipeline, the water would flow through an existing 21-inch City sewer main to an existing interceptor pipeline in Pacific Grove and to the M1W Monterey Pump Station to be conveyed to the RTP for treatment, as proposed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Although there is a slight increase in the pipeline length, all project components are within the previously described project impact area from the PWM/GWR EIR.

Construction
Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, Project construction is anticipated to occur over a duration of three (3) months; however, construction timing depends on seasonal factors, contractor scheduling, and the Project approval date. Construction activities would include removing the existing paved surfaces, trenching, installing pipeline, pouring concrete, compacting fill material, and repaving where pavement has been disturbed. The disturbance would be entirely within the paved area of the existing pump station with the exception of the temporary cofferdam which would be installed in the lake to support the construction of the diversion. Trenching for installation of the pipeline is anticipated to be completed in two (2) days.

Construction of the diversion would entail dewatering a small work area, removing a portion of the existing retaining wall on the bank of the lake, installing the intake frame, channel, and bar screen.7 The temporary cofferdam would be an inflatable bladder, stacked sandbags, or driven sheet piles. Water from the dewatering pump would be discharged to a settling tank and returned to the lake once construction of the intake is complete.
6 The PWM/GWR EIR identified two (2) options for the El Estero Water Diversion Project, described as follows: (1) installation of a new pumping system, consisting of a new column pump installed in the wet well of the existing lake management pump station or (2) installation of a new gravity system, consisting of a new headwall and screened intake pipe on the lake bank. Both systems included upgrades to the existing electric panel, and a new discharge pipe to the sanitary sewer and a new controlled and motorized isolation valve. Both systems were to be entirely underground or within existing pump dry and wet well structures.

The City selected the second option as described in this Addendum. 7 The diversion intake consists of a four (4)-foot wide gravity inlet on the bank of the lake. Dewatering would be within a 10-foot by five (5)-foot work area. 2.5-feet by 4.5-feet of the existing retaining wall would be removed.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 20, Packet Page 174 Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2022-49 Lake El Estero\El Estero Addendum.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting lanning and Environmental Consulting DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
5/7/2025
Date
Land Use Map 3
E Franklin S t
Monterey Bay Coastal Trl
Anthony S t
Taufner Ln
Del Monte Ave
Pearl S t
Perry Ln
Mesa Rd
Ca
mino
El
Estero
Robinson S t
Fremont S t
El Estero
1st St
2nd S t
Lake S t
Camino
E
l Estero
Del Monte Ave Del Monte Ave
Camino
Aguajito
Monterey State
Beach
Pearl St
Pearl S t
Via Mirada
Fishnet
Rd
4th S t
3rd S t
Fremont S t
Camin
o
Aguajito
Cemetario El
Encinal
San Carlos
Catholic
Cemetery
El Estero Park
Lagunita Mirada
Ocean Ave
2nd S t
1st S t
Park
Ave
La Playa S t
Mo
Del Monte Ave
5th S t
6th S t
3rd S t
Cam
ino Ag
uaj
ito
Oak
1 in = 337 ft
F
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site
Assessor's Parcels
Land Use Designations
Commercial
Low-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
Parks and Open Space
Public Semi-Public
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 21, Packet Page 175 Denise Duffy & Associates 16
June 2025
Construction equipment would generally include flatbed trucks, haul trucks, loaders, backhoes, compactors, pipe cutting and welding equipment, pavers, and generators. 8 Three (3) to seven (7)
construction workers would be on-site at any given time and an estimated two (2) to five (5) truck trips per day would be required to complete the infrastructure improvements. Construction would occur between 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No construction would occur on Sundays or holidays.

Site Preparation and grading
Site preparation would involve staging construction equipment and materials, demolition of pavement within the footprint of the Lake El Estero Pump Station, and initial grading. The Lake El Estero Pump Station would provide temporary equipment staging and materials storage. Additionally, appropriate signage would be placed, as needed, to inform the public of construction activities occurring adjacent to Del Monte Boulevard. No vegetation would be removed as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would disturb a total of approximately 1,040 square feet (0.02 acres), a minor modification, and reduction in the area of disturbance as compared to the larger area of disturbance identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. 9 All ground disturbance during construction would be within existing paved and previously disturbed areas except for the diversion which would be constructed in the lake or on the bank of the lake, as noted above.

Operation and Maintenance
A system operator from the City would visit the site approximately once per month to physically clear vegetation or debris from the intake screen. The flow meter would require inspection and calibration less than once per year.
8 Page 2-59 of the PWM/GWR EIR cites construction and equipment for the Project as follows: Pavement demolition, trenching and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities, and flow meters would all be installed below grade using only equipment delivery trucks, loaders, and backhoes. Table 2.21 of the PWM/GWR EIR, Proposed Project Construction Assumptions, Lake El Estero Diversion, on page 2-87 adds detail and lists additional construction equipment for the site, as follows: flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks for spoils transport, trucks for materials delivery, compaction equipment, baker tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine, generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane, skip loader, pavers and rollers. This Addendum updates the construction equipment anticipated based upon updated engineering plans available as well as communication with the consulting project engineer. 9 The PWM/GWR EIR determined that less than 0.1 acres of disturbance would occur.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 22, Packet Page 176 Denise Duffy & Associates 17
June 2025
COMPARISON TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 This Addendum to the PWM/GWR EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which states: “A lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 establishes the following criteria for the preparation of a subsequent EIR.
▪ Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; ▪ Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or ▪ New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
o The project would have one (1) or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
o Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one (1) or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or, o Mitigationmeasures oralternativeswhichare considerable differentfromthoseanalyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one (1) or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The following discussion summarizes the reasons why a subsequent or supplemental EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, is not required in connection with approvals for implementation of the proposed Lake El Estero Diversion as part of the approved PWM/GWR project. The following discussion further summarizesthe reasons why an addendum is appropriate.

CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
Project Background
The Proposed Project consists of implementation of the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project, which was previously evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR. Since certification of the PWM/GWR EIR, detailed engineering designs have been prepared for the Proposed Project which were not previously available. The Proposed Project modifications to the El Estero Water Diversion Project resulting from more detailed planning and engineering are referenced as “El Estero Water Diversion Project” or “Proposed Project” modifications.

These are evaluated in this Addendum and include the following:

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 23, Packet Page 177 Denise Duffy & Associates 18
June 2025

1. Revised Pipeline Sizing: The new discharge pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer has been slightly increased from 40-foot long, 12-inch diameter, noted above, to a 60-foot-long, 16-inchdiameter discharge pipeline.

2. Increased Yield: The updated yield study identified up to 209 AFY compared to 87 AFY in the PWM/GWR EIR.

3. Additional Construction Details: Modified (reduced) area of overall disturbance and updated details on temporary dewatering requirements during construction.

4. Additional Construction Timing: Additional construction timing details on pipeline installation indicating less than two (2) days for trenching and laying of pipeline.

This Addendum to the certified PWM/GWR EIR has been prepared to address these minor changes as a prerequisite for construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

Environmental Effects
As detailed in Attachment 1, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated with existing mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. In addition, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of environmental effects identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project were previously evaluated under CEQA.

The Proposed Project would not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously disclosed in connection with the PWM/GWR Project. Implementation of the Project would result in localized impacts within existing paved, developed; or previously disturbed areas. These impacts would be consistent with the type, extent, and scope of impacts already analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Project modifications are proposed in the same area of impact as evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR with disturbance area reduced compared to the previous extent of disturbance. The extension of the 20 feet of pipeline is within the area of impact as described in the PWM/GWR EIR. The project construction approach is substantially the same, with typical construction methods for pipeline construction as described in the PWM/GWR for the diversion structure (Option 2 method from the PWM/GWR was selected). The Proposed Project uses similar construction equipment with some modifications on the type of vehicles and equipment than as described in the PWM/GWR EIR.

No new adverse environmental effects would occur in connection with the Proposed Project or its modifications. This Addendum demonstrates that no substantial changes are proposed in the Project which would require major revisions of the previous environmental analysis, impacts, or mitigation requirements identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, despite minor project refinements described herein.

New Information
No new information of substantial importance has been identified or presented demonstrating that the Project would result in 1) significant environmental effects not identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda, or 2) an increase in the severity ofsignificant impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda, or 3) require mitigation measures which were previously determined not to be feasible or mitigation measures that are considerably different from those recommended in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 24, Packet Page 178 Denise Duffy & Associates 19
June 2025
Conclusion
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Based on the information in this Addendum, the City has determined that:
▪ No new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur as a result of construction and operation of the Lake El Estero Diversion Project.
▪ No substantial changes have occurred or would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Lake El Estero Diversion Project was originally undertaken, which would require major revisions to the previously certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
▪ No new information of substantial importance has been received or discovered, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR were certified as complete, and addenda adopted.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 25, Packet Page 179 ATTACHMENT 1
Environmental Checklist for the Proposed Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project to Support an Addendum to the PWM/GWR EIR
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 26, Packet Page 180 This page is intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 27, Packet Page 181 Denise Duffy & Associates 1
June 2025
Project Data
Project Title: PWM/GWR EIR Addendum for the Lake El Estero Diversion Project Responsible Agency Name and Address: City of Monterey, Public Works 580 Pacific Street Unit 7, Monterey CA 93940
Contact Person and Phone Number: Kevin Anderson, (831) 646 - 3746 Project Proponents: City of Monterey Public Works Department Project Location: The Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project (“Project” or “Proposed Project”) is located approximately 450 feet south of Del Monte Beach, and adjacent to Del Monte Avenue in Monterey, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [“APN”] 001-994-001) (see Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Project Location Map).

ProjectDescription: The Proposed Project would construct a new water diversion system to divert surface water from Lake El Estero to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. The Project would involve installation of a gravity intake system, including a 60-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter discharge pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer pipeline to divert the portion of untreated stormwater that currently flows from Lake El Estero into the Monterey Bay to the City’s sewer system to be treated at the M1W Regional Treatment Plant (“RTP”) and recycled for reuse. The Proposed Project would be constructed within existing paved and previously disturbed areas at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station.

Previous Environmental Documentation: The evaluation in this Checklist is used to support the use of an Addendum for the proposed Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project (“Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project was evaluated in the certified PWM/GWR EIR. Since the certification of the PWM/GWR EIR, engineering plans have been prepared for the Proposed Project which included minor modifications to the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. These engineering plans are evaluated in this Addendum; however, the physical boundaries have not changed, nor have the minor modifications increased the severity of impacts compared to the project evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
All of the following environmental factors identified below are discussed within Section III. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Those that are checked were found to be areas where the full implementation of the Proposed Project may result in a significant impact and would require implementation of mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Sources used for the analysis of environmental effects are listed in Section IV. References.
 Aesthetics  Agriculture/Forestry Resources ◼ Air Quality ◼ Biological Resources ◼ Cultural Resources ◼ Energy
Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◼ Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality ◼ Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 28, Packet Page 182 Denise Duffy & Associates 2
June 2025
 Recreation  Transportation ◼Tribal Cultural Resources ◼ Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The following section uses the CEQA Checklist to address potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. Specifically, the following sections consider the Proposed Project, address any changes since the PWM/GWR EIR was prepared (in reference to the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project Component). Overall, construction impacts would be substantially the same as those disclosed in prior environmental documentation. The Proposed Project would not change the physical boundaries or increase the size of the PWM/GWR facilities. As described below, no new significant environmental effects would occur in connection with construction and operation of the Proposed Project and associated infrastructure; and the severity of all previously identified impacts would remain unchanged. Existing mitigation that is applicable to the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project component of the PWM/GWR project would also be applicable to Proposed Project. No new impacts would occur, and no new mitigation would be required.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 29, Packet Page 183 Denise Duffy & Associates 3
June 2025

1. Aesthetics

EXISTING SETTING
Lake El Estero is located in the City of Monterey within an urban and developed landscape, and is surrounded by a mix of recreational, residential, and commercial developments. The site is bounded on the north by Del Monte Boulevard, Camino Aguajito to the east, Camino El Estero to the west, and Pearl street to the south. The lake, which is a prominent visual feature, lies within the El Estero Park Complex which includes a playground, youth center, ballpark, dance studio, boating concession, snack bar, and skate park, the San Carlos, Saint John’s and El Encinal cemeteries, a city dog park, as well as various walking trails. The Proposed Project site located on the northeast corner of the Lake and is immediately adjacent to Del Monte Boulevard (see Figure 2). Del Monte Boulevard is identified as a “proposed scenic road” in the City of Monterey General Plan (“City General Plan”) (City of Monterey, 2005). The City’s General Plan also indicates that Lake El Estero is a significant visual resource. The Proposed Project site is developed and previously disturbed in connection with the existing pump station. The site contains a concrete slab at the site, which protrudes slightly into the lake; beneath the slab are various pieces of equipment that regulate and control the water levels of the lake.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?   ◼  b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
  ◼ 
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality?
  ◼ 
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential Project-related impacts to aesthetics. The PWM/GWR EIR determined that Lake El Estero is considered a significant visual resource located adjacent to Del Monte Boulevard, which is identified as a proposed scenic road in the City General Plan. However, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded that the Project would have no operational impacts to aesthetics and impacts from Project construction would be less than significant. Project construction would be temporarily visible from Del Monte Boulevard and other local roadways and intermittently from the Monterey Peninsula ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 30, Packet Page 184 Denise Duffy & Associates 4
June 2025
Recreational Trail and pathways in Lake El Estero Park. However, construction activities would not block views of the lake and would be limited to three (3) months. Additionally, Project construction would have the appearance of a typical public works improvement project. Furthermore, because no nighttime construction would occur and because the Project would be located in an urbanized area containing several existing sources of light and glare (e.g., businesses, residences, and park lighting), construction lighting would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded construction impacts would be less than significant. The PWM/GWR EIR also determined that because Project components would be underground and would be located at the existing paved and developed Lake El Estero Pump Station, no permanent impacts from Project operation would occur.

DISCUSSION
a) – c) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to a scenic vista, would not substantially damage scenic resources within a scenic highway, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Consistent with the Project analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project would consist of constructing and operating a gravity intake system and pipeline to connect Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The Project site would be within the area of impact and location as analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, and disturbance would be entirely within the paved area of the existing pump station at that site. Pavement demolition, trenching, and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities and flow meters would all be installed below grade. The Proposed project modification extends a pipeline by 20 feet to connect to the existing sanitary sewer system within a paved area at the location as addressed in the PWM/GWR EIR; this extension does not increase the area of disturbance and would be underground. The Proposed Project would use similar construction equipment as presented in the PWM/GWR EIR; construction would be temporary and within a disturbed areas near a major arterial roadway and if equipment vehicles are present, would not increase the severity of the impacts cited in the PWM/GWR EIR.
10 As a result, the Project would not result in any new significant impacts to a scenic vista or the scenic quality of the site or surrounding area beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Additionally, the Proposed Project is not within view of a state scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway is State Route 1 (“SR 1”), located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the Project site (Caltrans, 2024). The Project is in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and views of the Proposed Project site from SR 1 are inhibited by topography and existing development.

Therefore, the Project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those identified in previous environmental documentation.
d) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. No nighttime construction would occur, and the Project would be located in an urbanized area containing several existing sources of light and glare (e.g., businesses, residences, and park lighting). As a result, construction lighting would not result any impacts. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, since Project components would be underground and would be located at the existing paved and developed Lake El Estero Pump Station, no permanent impacts from Project operation would occur. Therefore, the Project 10 The PWM/GWR EIR evaluated construction equipment and lists the anticipated equipment for the Lake El Estero Diversion component on pages 2-59 and 2-87.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 31, Packet Page 185 Denise Duffy & Associates 5
June 2025
would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the previous environmental documentation.

Conclusion: The Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project would not result in any new significant aesthetics impacts or worsen the severity of any significant impacts previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

2. Agricultural Resources

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project site does not contain agricultural or forest lands and is not located within the vicinity of agricultural or forest lands (CDC, 2022 and 2023). The Project is located in the City of Monterey in the urban and developed landscape, and is surrounded by a mix of recreational, residential, and commercial developments.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
   ◼
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
   ◼
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
   ◼
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   ◼
e) Involve other changesin the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined no construction impacts would occur to agricultural or forestry resources as a result of the Proposed Project and that potential indirect effects resulting from Project operation would be less than significant. The PWM/GWR EIR determined that because the Project would be ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 32, Packet Page 186 Denise Duffy & Associates 6
June 2025
constructed entirely within paved and previously disturbed areas in the City of Monterey, which is Urban and Built Up, construction of the Project would not result in any temporary conversion of farmland.

Project operation would introduce new source water influent to the RTP to be recycled and used for agricultural irrigation, which could change the quality of irrigation water used for crop production.

However, Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project water is a minor contribution to influent and further, the PWM/GWR EIR determined these indirect water quality effects would not result in farmland conversion and would be less than significant.

DISCUSSION
a) – e) No Impact. The Project site and surrounding area do not contain agricultural or forest lands. The PWM/GWR EIR previously determined the Project would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use or involve other changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or impact a Williamson Act contract, nor would the Project impact forest resources. The Project would be constructed in the same area as previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in conversion of farmland or impacts to forest resources. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, Project operation would introduce new source water for agricultural irrigation which could result in indirect impacts to crop yield due to water quality changes. However, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded these impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion: The Project would involve the same operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

3. Air Quality

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is in the North Central Coast Air Basin (“NCCAB”), which encompasses Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties. The NCCAB is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (“MBARD”). The MBARD is responsible for producing an Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”) that reports air quality and regulates stationary air pollution sources throughout the NCCAB.

The MBARD is responsible for measuring the concentration of pollutants and comparing those concentrations against the Ambient Air Quality Standards (“AAQS”). AAQS establish levels of air quality required to be maintained to protect the public from the adverse effects of air pollution and are established for “criteria air pollutants” which include ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. MBARD is responsible for monitoring criteria pollutants to determine whether they are in attainment or not in attainment with the AQMP.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 33, Packet Page 187 Denise Duffy & Associates 7
June 2025

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
  ◼ 
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal orstate ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
 ◼  
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
  ◼ 
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
  ◼ 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined the Proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts from Project construction and operation. Project construction would result in temporary, localized carbon monoxide (“CO”) emissions; however, the NCCAB is in attainment for this pollutant and emissions from the Project would be well below the ambient air quality standard. The NCCAB is a nonattainment area for O3 and PM10. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would result in total emissions of PM10 and O3 precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG, NOx, and PM2.5) of less than one (1) lb./day, far below established thresholds. However, because PM10 emissions for construction and operation of all PWM/GWR project components would exceed established thresholds, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded cumulative PM10 emissions would be significant and included Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan for all PWM/GWR project components where ground disturbance would occur.

The PWM/GWR EIR found that impacts to sensitive receptors during Project construction would be less than significant due to intervening distances and the temporary and limited nature of construction. The PWM/GWR EIR also concluded that impacts to sensitive receptors from Project operation would be less than significant given the minimal increase in vehicle trips for operation and maintenance activities for all PWM/GWR project components, including the Proposed Project.

DISCUSSION
a) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines §15125(b) requires that a project be evaluated for consistency with applicable regional plans, including the AQMP. The most recent AQMP update (MBARD, 2017) was approved in March of 2017. This plan addresses attainment of the State ozone standard and federal air quality standard. The AQMP accommodates growth by projecting growth in emissions based on population forecasts prepared by the AMBAG and other indicators. Consistency determinations are issued for commercial, industrial, residential, and infrastructure-related projects that have the potential to induce population growth. A project is considered inconsistent with the AQMP if it has not been accommodated in the forecast projections considered in the AQMP.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 34, Packet Page 188 Denise Duffy & Associates 8
June 2025
The Proposed Project would consist of constructing and operating a gravity intake system and pipeline to connect Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Operation of the Project would provide a new source water to support the previously approved PWM/GWR project. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed consistency of the entire PWM/GWR project, including the Proposed Project, with the applicable regional air quality plan and determined the Proposed Project would not substantially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. The Project would be within the same area of disturbance, would use substantially the same or similar construction approach and equipment, and would consist of the same components as previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. 11 Additionally, the construction area is
confined to an area of approximately 0.10 acres and nearest sensitive receptors are 350 feet away from the construction area. The length of time and hours of the day are unchanged from the PWM/GWR EIR, and the typical construction activities cited would remain consistent with those presented in the PWM/GWR EIR. Pavement demolition, trenching and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities, and flow meters would all be installed below grade. In addition to equipment deliveries using haulers, trucks, loaders, and other similar equipment, backhoes and excavators would be employed for trenching and demolition as well as hauling. The equipment substitution would not result in a substantial increase in exposure at sensitive receptors since the use of this equipment was evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR, and therefore, would not result in a new or more severe significant impact under CEQA.

Further, there would be less construction disturbance compared to the PWM/GWR EIR due to the reduced Project footprint. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts or cause an increase in the severity of any significant impacts previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. As a result, the Project would not conflict with and/or otherwise obstruct the implementation of MBARD’s AQMP and impacts. This represents a less than significant impact. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. MBARD has two (2) guidelines for CEQA evaluation, one (1) meant to assist other lead agencies in evaluating potential air quality impacts and one (1) for when MBARD is the lead agency. The MBARD 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are meant to assist other lead agencies in their evaluation of potential air quality impacts. The MBARD 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains standards of significance for evaluating potential air quality effects of projects subject to the requirements of CEQA. According to MBARD, a project would not have a significant air quality effect on the environment if the following criteria are met:

Construction of the project would:
▪ Emit (from all sources, including exhaust and fugitive dust) less than; o 137 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
o 137 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG)
o 82 pounds per day of respirable particulate matter (PM10) o 55 pounds per day of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
o 550 pounds per day carbon monoxide (CO)
Operation of the project would:
▪ Emit (from all project sources, mobile, area, and stationary) less than; o 137 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
11 Equipment listed in the PWM/GWR EIR, Project Description and Table 2.21 on page 2.87, for the Lake El Estero Diversion component is similar to those evaluated this Addendum.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 35, Packet Page 189 Denise Duffy & Associates 9
June 2025
o 137 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG)
o 82 pounds per day of PM10
o 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
o 550 pounds per day carbon monoxide (CO)
▪ Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ▪ Not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for with the project region is non-attainment;
▪ Not exceed the health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the Air District; ▪ Not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; and ▪ Be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans (MBARD, 2008).

The Guidelines also state that a project would result in less than significant impacts if daily grounddisturbing activities entail less than 8.1 acres of minimal earthmoving or less than 2.2 acres of grading and excavation. Construction projects below these acreage thresholds would be below the applicable MBARD 82lb/day threshold of significance and would constitute a less-than-significant effect for the purposes of CEQA (MBARD, 2008).

The Proposed Project would require a total of approximately 0.02 acres of earthmoving, less than the 0.10 area of disturbance evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR, and far less than the 2.2-acre per day and 8.1-acre per day thresholds set by MBARD. The Proposed Project would be in the same area, would use substantially the same construction methods and equipment, and would not increase the amount of grading required for Project construction beyond what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. The pipeline connecting to the sanitary sewer is slightly longer, 60 feet compared to the 40-feet identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, and is larger in size (16 inches from 12 inches). Minor increases in pipe sizing and length would not change the timing or methods of construction or result in a perceptible increase in dust or particulates. Construction of the 60-foot, 16-inch pipeline will use open trench construction, consistent with the methods and process presented in the PWM/GWR EIR. The PWM/GWR EIR identified use of an open-trench pipeline construction process and typical trench excavations (6 feet to 12 feet wide).

The key air quality impacts during construction are primarily related to emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Per the PWM/GWR EIR, typical pipeline installation progresses at a rate of 150 to 250 feet per day, with steel plates used to maintain access across trenches, if needed. The pipeline installation including trenching would be completed in approximately two (2) days. The modified pipeline length and size would not increase the time or method of construction. The construction time frame for the site assumed a 3-month construction period in the PWM/GWR EIR and typical construction equipment, including hauling (trucks), backhoes, and equipment necessary for site preparation and grading. More defined engineered plans have been provided; under the refined plans, this time frame would be slightly reduced. Since the construction area would be smaller, the project would use substantially the same methods and equipment, and the length of time from site preparation to completion reduced, emissions would be similar or less than those previously assessed. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in additional impacts or cause an increase in the severity of significant impacts beyond those assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan is required. This mitigation applies to all PWM/GWR Project component sites where ground disturbance would occur and states that “standard dust control measures shall be implemented during construction to help prevent potential nuisances to nearby receptors due to fugitive dust and to reduce contributions to exceedances of the state ambient air quality standards for PM10, in ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 36, Packet Page 190 Denise Duffy & Associates 10
June 2025
accordance with MBAD’s CEQA Guidelines”. This mitigation would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level and no additional mitigation is required. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed mitigation measures applicable to the Proposed Project.
c) – d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, nor would the Project result in significant exposure of receptors to other emissions such as odors. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed impacts on sensitive receptors and exposure to odors, and concluded all impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The Proposed Project’s area of disturbance is reduced, the Project would be in the same area, and would use substantially the same construction methods and equipment previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Conclusion: The proposed Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project would result in the same or lesser impacts compared with those previously analyzed in the certified PWM/GWR EIR. No additional construction disturbance, increase in construction or operational emissions or increase to operational air quality effects would occur as a result of Project activities. The Proposed Project would involve construction activities using substantially the same types of equipment and methods as those analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, and would disturb a smaller area than what was previously considered. As a result, the air quality impacts from construction activities would be expected to be similar to, or less than, those identified in the original EIR.

Operation of the Proposed Project would not expose any new sensitive receptors or generate additional emissions, either directly or indirectly. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Previously identified mitigation would still apply to the Proposed Project and no additional mitigation is required.

4. Biological Resources

EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is on the northeast corner of Lake El Estero, within the Urban and Developed landscape.

The Project is surrounded by a mix of recreational, residential, and commercial developments. The site is bounded on the north by Del Monte Boulevard and the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail, on the south by Lake El Estero, on the east by Camino Aguajito and on the west by Camino El Estero. The Proposed Project is primarily within paved, developed or previously disturbed areas in the footprint of the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station. Immediately adjacent to the Project site is ruderal habitat, developed land, and sensitive habitats associated with the lake (i.e., emergent wetland). Suitable habitat for nesting raptors, migratory birds, and other avian species afforded protection under the California Department of Fish and Game Code is present in the vegetation surrounding the project site. No other special-status wildlife or plant species are known to be present at the Project site, and none are expected to occur within the site due to the lack of suitable habitat and the anthropogenic influence of the surrounding development. Wetlands and water of the U.S., associated with Lake El Estero, are present within the project site. DD&A prepared a biological resources report for the City of Monterey’s Detention Basin Management Project, dated June 5, 2017. The report included a wetland delineation for Lake El Estero.

The wetland delineation was reviewed for purposes of understanding the presence and location of sensitive habitat (i.e., emergent wetland) – which was found south of the existing Pump Station, see Figure 4a and Figure 4b. The wetland delineation prepared for the City’s detention basin management project is ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 37, Packet Page 191 Denise Duffy & Associates 11
June 2025
included as Appendix C. Fishery resources of the Lake El Estero watershed are limited to a modified estuary system. Due to insufficient flows and both natural and human caused barriers, no anadromous salmonids, tidewater gobies, or other special status aquatic species are known to occur in Lake El Estero.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 38, Packet Page 192 Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2022-49 Lake El Estero\El Estero Addendum.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting ning and Environmental Consulting DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
5/7/2025
Date
4a Lake El Estero
Wetland Delineation Map N/A
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 39, Packet Page 193 Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2022-49 Lake El Estero\El Estero Addendum.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting ning and Environmental Consulting DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
5/7/2025
Date
Lake El Estero Habitat Map 4b
N/A
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 40, Packet Page 194 Denise Duffy & Associates 14
June 2025

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 ◼  
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or othersensitive natural community identified in local orregional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
 ◼  
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
 ◼  
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
  ◼ 
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
  ◼ 
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed the construction and operational impacts of the Proposed Project and determined that all operational impacts would be less than significant. The PWM/GWR EIR determined construction of the Project could result in potentially significant impacts and included appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the PWM/GWR EIR determined there was suitable habitat (e.g., mature trees, riparian habitat) for nesting raptors, migratory birds, and other protected avian species adjacent to the Project site and that construction activities (e.g., tree trimming, vegetation removal, and equipment noise, vibration, and lighting) could result in harm, injury, or death of protected birds, or abandonment of an active nest. Therefore, the PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measure BT-1a: Implement Construction Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measure BT-1k: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, including, but not limited to, white-tailed kite and California horned lark to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed the construction and operational impacts of the Proposed Project on fisheries resources and determined that there would be no construction or operational impacts associated with the El Estero Project Component. The PWM/GWR EIR further determined all other potential impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 41, Packet Page 195 Denise Duffy & Associates 15
June 2025

DISCUSSION
a) – c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PWM/GWR EIR assessed potential construction and operational impacts to sensitive species and habitat from the Proposed Project and determined construction impacts could result in potentially significant impacts.

Construction
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the Project site during biological surveys conducted for the PWM/GWR EIR. No special-status species are expected to occur within the Project site; with the exception of nesting raptors, migratory birds, and other protected avian species that may nest in suitable habitat surrounding the Project site. The Project would be constructed in the same localized area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, and primarily within a paved and previously disturbed area associated with the existing pump station. Construction would require temporary work within the modified bank12 of Lake El Estero. Construction activities would consist of installing a temporary cofferdam, dewatering the work area, and removing a portion of the existing retaining wall, installing the intake frame, channel, and bar screen.13 The temporary cofferdam would be an inflatable bladder, stacked sandbags, or driven sheet piles. Water from the dewatering pump would be discharged to a settling tank and returned to the lake once construction of the intake is complete.

No nighttime construction is proposed that would produce disruptive lighting or glare. Additionally, Project construction would not involve tree trimming or removal; however, consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, indirect impacts to protected birds (e.g., abandonment of active nests) could result from equipment noise and vibration during construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BT1a: Implement Construction Best Management Practices and BT-1k: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, Including, but not Limited to, White-Tailed Kite and California Horned Lark, as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. These measures respectively require implementing best management practices during all phases of construction (i.e., pre-, during, and post-) to reduce impacts to special status plant and wildlife species and conducting pre-construction surveys at each PWM/GWR Project component site for suitable nesting habitat within and surrounding the component study area (see Appendix A for detailed mitigation measures). Because the Proposed Project would use substantially the same construction equipment and methods that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, these mitigation measures would remain sufficient for reducing potential impacts and no additional mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to nesting raptors, migratory birds, and other protected avian species.

As discussed above, construction of the Proposed Project would require temporary installation and use of a cofferdam and dewatering in and along the bank of Lake El Estero immediately adjacent to the existing pump station. Based on the 2017 wetland delineation, Lake El Estero does contain emergent wetland habitat, however, no emergent wetland habitat is present within the area proposed for disturbance, see Figure 4a and Figure 4b, above. The Proposed Project will only result in modification of the retaining wall associated with the existing pump station, therefore no permanent impacts to sensitive habitats are 12 The bank of El Estero Lake at this location consists of retaining wall. 13 The diversion intake consists of a four (4)-foot wide gravity inlet on the bank of the lake. Dewatering would be within a 10-foot by five (5)-foot work area. 2.5-feet by 4.5-feet of the existing retaining wall would be removed.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 42, Packet Page 196 Denise Duffy & Associates 16
June 2025
expected to occur. Moreover, ongoing maintenance activities associated with the City’s existing pump station also contribute to routine disturbance of the Proposed Project site, therefore construction of the diversion is not anticipated to generate new impacts, or increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the PWM.GWR EIR. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, mitigation measures will be applied to ensure construction will not adversely affect identified sensitive habitats. In addition to protection of sensitive species, Mitigation Measures BT-1a would also apply to protection of sensitive habitats adjacent to the Project site.

Because the Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would involve substantially the same construction equipment and methods as those previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, no additional construction impacts beyond what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR would occur from the Project, nor would the Project cause an increase in the severity of any significant impacts previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

Mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would remain applicable to the Proposed Project and no additional mitigation would be required to reduce construction-related impacts.

Operation
The PWM/GWR EIR determined potential operational impacts to sensitive species and habitats would be less than significant and would therefore not require mitigation to reduce impacts. Project operation and maintenance activities would be the same as those previously assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., diverting water from the lake to the City’s sewer system and clearing vegetation and debris from the gravity intake system approximately once per month). Additionally, the PWM/GWR EIR anticipated a yield of 87 AFY based on runoff capture monitoring data collected between November 2013 and March 2014.

More recent monitoring data from 2024 suggests that the Proposed Project would have a higher yield of 209 AFY without reducing the existing water level of the lake (please see Appendix B). Therefore, the higher yield anticipated for the Proposed Project would have substantially the same impact on sensitive species and habitats as evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR. As such, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in any additional or increase the severity of impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Operational impacts would remain less than significant. Please also refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality for additional detail. d) – e) Less than Significant Impact. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed Project impacts related to the movement of native wildlife, nursery sites, and conflict with local policies, ordinances, and provisions of adopted local, regional, and state habitat conservation plans. All potential impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project would be located in the same area that was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, entirely within existing developed areas (i.e., Lake El Estero Pump Station). Consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project site is not located in an area identified as a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Lake El Estero contains open aquatic habitat inhabited by various introduced freshwater fish species; no native fish species inhabit the lake. Construction of the Proposed Project would require temporary activities along the bank of the lake. However, this area has been previously disturbed in connection with the retaining wall associated with the existing pump station; and ongoing maintenance activities associated with the City’s pump station also contribute to routine disturbance of the Proposed Project site. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur from interference with fish migration or fish populations as a result of the Project.

Similarly, because the Proposed Project would occur within primarily paved, developed, and previously ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 43, Packet Page 197 Denise Duffy & Associates 17
June 2025
disturbed areas, no trees would be removed as part of the Project. Any vegetation removal required along the bank of Lake El Estero for Project construction or ongoing Project maintenance would be required to comply with the applicable policies in the City of Monterey Stormwater Ordinance. Moreover, the Project would be within the same area of disturbance and location as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would require substantially the same construction methods and operational activities as those previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, Project construction and operation would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

This represents a less than significant impact.
f) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not within an area covered in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no conflicts would result from the Proposed Project and the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. No impact would occur.

Conclusion: The Proposed Project would result in the same or lesser impacts previously analyzed in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Mitigation Measures BT-1a and BT-1k, as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, would be applicable to the Proposed Project. No additional mitigation is required.

5. Cultural Resources

EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is located in the City of Monterey at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, in the northeast corner of Lake El Estero and within the Lake El Estero Park Complex. Lake El Estero Park is zoned as Open Space with a Historic (H1) overlay (City of Monterey, 2005). The Project site is within existing paved and previously disturbed areas (i.e., the Lake El Estero Pump Station). Several archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of Lake El Estero; however, none of these recorded sites are within or near the Proposed Project site, which is located at the northeastern corner of Lake El Estero(PWM/GWR EIR, 2015).

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
   ◼
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
 ◼  
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
 ◼  
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 44, Packet Page 198 Denise Duffy & Associates 18
June 2025

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed tribal cultural resources at the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site. The PWM/GWR EIR identified two (2) prehistoric sites located within 0.5 miles of the Proposed Project; however no cultural sites were identified to be in or close to the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to known historical or paleontological resources would result . However, the Project could result in a significant impact to cultural/archaeological resources or unknown human remains during construction. The PWM/GWR EIR therefore included Mitigation Measures CR-2a: Archaeological Monitoring Plan, CR-2b: Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Human Remains, and CR-2c: Native American Notification to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

DISCUSSION
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project is located within 0.5 miles of the Royal Presidio Chapel historic site; however, this site is located near the southwestern corner of Lake El Estero and is not within or near the Project footprint, which is located in the northeastern corner of the lake. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential impacts to historic resources from construction and operation of the Proposed Project and determined no impacts would occur. The Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would use substantially the same construction equipment and methods as what was included in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not increase the amount of ground disturbance beyond what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. The Proposed Project would result in no impact to historic resources.
b) – c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PWM/GWR EIR determined construction of any of the PWM/GWR Project components could result in potentially significant impacts to unknown resources or human remains during construction. Per the PWM/GWR EIR, “Such resources are of particular concern, however, at the Lake El Estero Diversion site. Based on the geoarchaeological assessment developed by ESA (ESA, 2014), there is potential for deeply buried well-developed soil horizons to be located in the Area of Potential Effects near Lake El Estero in the City of Monterey, with the potential for archaeological resources associated with those buried soils to be encountered during project work. Project construction activities could result in damage or disturbance to such resources if they exist and are determined to be a historical resource or unique archaeological resource, a potentially significant impact.” The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measures CR-2a, and CR-2b, and CR-2C to ensure any impacts to previously unknown cultural resources or human remains would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a requires archaeological monitoring during construction in the event that unknown archaeological resources are encountered; Mitigation Measure CR-2b requires that if archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (160 feet) of the find until a qualified professional can evaluate the find; and Mitigation Measure CR-2c requires notifying all listed Native American Contacts of any and all discoveries of archaeological resources in the project area. The Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would utilize substantially the same construction equipment and methods analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Construction of the Proposed Project could result in impact to ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 45, Packet Page 199 Denise Duffy & Associates 19
June 2025
unknown resources or human remains, consistent with the findings of the PWM/GWR EIR. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, thisimpact would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of previously identified mitigation and no additional mitigation would be required.

Conclusion: The Proposed Project would not result in additional impacts and would not result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Mitigation Measures CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-2c would remain applicable to the Proposed Project and no additional mitigation is required.

6. Energy

EXISTING SETTING
Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) provides electricity and natural gas throughout Monterey County, and thus would be the energy utility provider for the Proposed Project. Beginning in 2018, all PG&E customers within Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties were automatically enrolled in Central Coast Community Energy (“3CE”). 3CE is a locally controlled public agency providing carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses. 3CE is a joint powers authority and based on a local energy model called community choice energy. 3CE partners with PG&E, which continues to provide billing, power transmission and distribution, customer service, grid maintenance services, and natural gas services to Monterey County.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
 ◼  
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
 ◼  

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined that Project construction could result in potentially significant impacts from temporary energy use if construction equipment is not properly maintained or haul trips are not planned efficiently. The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measure EN-1 Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan to ensure construction-related energy impacts were less than significant. The PWM/GWR EIR determined energy impacts related to Project operation would be less than significant and no mitigation was required to reduce these impacts.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) Less the Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would not result in a ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 46, Packet Page 200 Denise Duffy & Associates 20
June 2025
potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project was previously evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR, which determined significant energy impacts could occur from Project construction if equipment is not properly maintained or is left idling. However, inefficient energy use from leaving equipment idling for more than five (5) minutes when equipment is not in use would violate state idling limitations for diesel-fueled vehicles. Therefore, the PWM/GWR EIR identified Mitigation Measure EN-1: Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan to ensure impacts were minimized to less than significant. The Proposed Project would utilize substantially the same construction equipment and methods as previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. The Project would employ typical construction methods for pipeline and diversion construction as described in the PWM/GWR. The Proposed Project uses similar construction equipment with some modifications and greater specificity related to the type of vehicles and equipment than as described in the PWM/GWR EIR.

However, the Project is not expected to require additional truck or vehicle trips beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure EN-1, and additional mitigation is not required.

Conclusion: The Project would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and implement required mitigation to reduce impacts related to energy. Therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

7. Geology and Soils

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California, an area considered seismically active, as are most areas of California. The Coast Ranges comprise a series of parallel, northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys generally controlled by faults. Faults juxtapose blocks of geologic units of different origins called belts. The Monterey area is located within the Salinian block which is a northwest-trending belt bounded to the east by the San Andreas Fault, and to the west by the San Gregorio (Sur) fault.

The Project site is situated approximately 500 feet south of the Pacific Ocean, in the City of Monterey.

Local potentially active faults in the vicinity of the Project site include the Navy Fault and Sylvan thrust faults, located approximately 0.6 miles east and 1.3 milessouth of the Project site, respectively (Monterey County, 2023a).

The Proposed Project site is mapped as being underlain by Holocene basin and alluvial deposits, artificial fill materials, and Monterey formation (PWM/GWR EIR, 2015). Soil at the Project site consists of Baywood sand, which is derived from stabilized eolian sands near the coast and is poorly aggregated, sandy material. As such, this soil is somewhat excessively drained, with low shrink-swell potential (NRCS, 2023).

The Project site is mapped as an area with moderate erosion potential, high to variable liquefaction ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 47, Packet Page 201 Denise Duffy & Associates 21
June 2025
susceptibility, and low landslide potential (County of Monterey, 2023a) and is not located on or near any known sites of containing paleontological resources (Rosenberg and Clark, 2001).

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
  ◼ 
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist forthe area or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
   ◼
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?   ◼ 
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?   ◼  iv) Landslides?   ◼ 
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?   ◼  c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
  ◼ 
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UniformBuilding Code (1994), creating substantialrisksto life or property?
  ◼ 
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?    ◼
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR analyzed Project impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil; soil instability and potential collapse; Project exposure to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and expansive soils; and exposure to coastal erosion and sea level rise. The PWM/GWR EIR determined no significant impacts related to geology and soil would result from the Proposed Project and no mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, the PWM/GWR EIR determined no impacts would occur from rupture of an Alquist-Priolo fault because the Project site was not located along or near a delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial risk due to fault rupture or seismic ground shaking, including liquefaction.

The PWM/GWR EIR also concluded the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil because the Proposed Project would require minimal ground disturbance and would be on a flat, paved and previously disturbed area. The PWM/GWR EIR further determined that no geotechnical ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 48, Packet Page 202 Denise Duffy & Associates 22
June 2025
issues related to unstable soils have been identified at the Project site, which is developed and previously disturbed; therefore, exposure to or creation of soil instability or collapse, or exposure to expansive soils would not be expected from Project implementation. While the PWM/GWR EIR determined the Proposed Project site was in a tsunami inundation zone, the PWM/GWR EIR also concluded the Proposed Project would be outside of the coastal erosion hazard area; therefore, the site would not be subject to coastal erosion or retreat or damage from a major storm event during its lifetime and no impact related to sea level rise.

DISCUSSION
ai) No Impact. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed impacts associated with rupture of a known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault. The PWM/GWR EIR determined no impacts would occur because the Project site was not located along or near a fault delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the area (County of Monterey, 2023a). The Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the Project would not be on or near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and would result in additional or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. No impact would occur. aii) – d) Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with the analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to seismic activity, erosion, and soil instability. The Project site would be in the same area as what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, which consists of a flat, paved area at the Lake El Estero Pump Station. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, no geotechnical issues related to unstable soils have been identified at the Project site, which is developed and previously disturbed; therefore, exposure to or creation of soil instability or collapse, or exposure to expansive soils would not be expected from Project implementation. Furthermore, the Project would not result in additional ground disturbance beyond what analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, no additional impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. For these reasons, Project activities would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR.

The Project would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required. e) and f) No Impact. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, the Proposed Project does not involve septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no unique paleontological resources are located at the Project site. Paleontologists conducted a review of nearly 700 known fossil localities within the County in 2001; 12 fossil sites were identified as having outstanding scientific value. The Project site is not located on or near any of those sites (Rosenberg and Clark, 2001). The Project would be in the same area as what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or more severe significant impacts beyond what was identified in previous environmental documentation. No impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area as previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would result in reduced ground disturbance beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Project would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. All impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 49, Packet Page 203 Denise Duffy & Associates 23
June 2025

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

EXISTING SETTING
Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated (generated by humankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (“GHGs”). Emissions of GHGs from human activities, such as electricity production, motor vehicle use, and agriculture, are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and are reported to have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or global climate change.

MBARD has not yet adopted a threshold for construction-related GHG emissions but recommends utilizing thresholds set by neighboring districts (e.g., Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [“SMAQMD”]). SMAQMD adopted an updated threshold based on the 2030 target year in April 2020.

According to SMAQMD, a Project would result in a significant GHG-related impact if the Project would emit more than 1,100 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent-CO2e (“MTOCO2e”) per year. Operation of a stationary source project would not have a significant GHG impact if the project emits less than 10,000 MTOCO2e per year).

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
  ◼ 
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?   ◼ 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined that construction and operation of all PWM/GWR project components would result in a less than significant GHG impact. Because the MBUAPCD did not have GHG thresholds or recommendations for assessing construction impacts at the time the PWM/GWR EIR was written, to provide a complete analysis of impacts, the construction impacts were modeled with operational impacts.

Construction period emissions from the entire PWM/GWR project were amortized over a 30-year life and the resulting average annual emissions were added to the annual operational emissions and compared to the GHG significance threshold. The annual amortized GHG emissions associated with construction of the PWM/GWR project were estimated to be 201 MT/year and total operational impacts were estimated to have a maximum of 1,900 MT/year, below the adopted project-specific threshold of 2,000 MT/year threshold.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 50, Packet Page 204 Denise Duffy & Associates 24
June 2025

DISCUSSION
a) – b) Less than Significant. The Proposed Project would not result in significant GHG-related impacts. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed GHG impacts for the entire PWM/GWR project, including the Proposed Project, and determined impacts for the entire Project would be below the established significance thresholds.

Because the Proposed Project would comprise one (1) small-scale component of the greater PWM/GWR project(i.e., approximately 0.02 acres), the Proposed Project would contribute only a fraction of the total GHG emissions that were estimated in the PWM/GWR EIR for the entire project; therefore, GHG emissions would be well below any established thresholds. The Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would use substantially the same construction methods and equipment as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, GHG emissions from construction equipment and vehicle trips are not expected to change from what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR ( see Section 17, Transportation and Traffic for additional detail related to traffic impacts). Project is not expected to generate GHG emissions that would exceed applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda and no mitigation is required.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would not result in additional ground disturbance beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Additionally, the Project would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the environmental documentation. All impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is located within the City of Monterey. A search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database shows there are no contaminated cleanup sites within the Project site. The nearest cleanup site in the vicinity of the Project is a voluntary PG&E cleanup site at the corner of Figueroa Street and Del Monte Avenue, located approximately 190 feet west of the Proposed Project. Other sites located within 400 feet of the Project site include a Military Evaluation site at the Naval Postgraduate School, a Military Evaluation site in the Pacific Ocean, and a State Response site (i.e., a former laundromat) approximately 330 feet southwest of the Project site (CDTSC, 2024). The Project site is located within two (2) miles of the Monterey Regional Airport and within the Monterey Airport Influence Area.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 51, Packet Page 205 Denise Duffy & Associates 25
June 2025

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
  ◼ 
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
 ◼  
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
   ◼
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
   ◼
e) For a projectlocated within an airportland use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?    ◼
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
  ◼ 
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?   ◼ 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, and determined the only potentially significant impact that would require mitigation to reduce to less than significant would be from accidental release of hazardous materials during Project construction. This impact was found to be significant due to proximity of the Project site to hazardous materials release sites (i.e., within 0.25 miles of release sites). The PWM/GWR EIR identified Mitigation Measures HH-2a:

Environmental Site Assessment, HH-2b: Health and Safety Plan, and HH-2c: Materials Disposal Plan because the Project site would be within 0.25 miles of hazardous materials release sites that were actively undergoing mitigation at the time the PWM/GWR EIR was prepared. The PWM/GWR EIR found all other construction and operational impacts to be less than significant.

DISCUSSION
a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project may require temporary storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials that are routinely used for construction activities (e.g., fuels, ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 52, Packet Page 206 Denise Duffy & Associates 26
June 2025
lubricants). Consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would be required to comply with state and local regulations and manufacturer labels regarding the handling, use, and transport of hazardous materials. To reduce risk of exposure, spill, or other environmental impacts as a result of handling, use and transport, standard construction Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) would also be implemented during construction. Because the Proposed Project would consist of less than one (1) acre of earthmoving activity, the Project would not be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). Additionally, the Proposed Project would utilize substantially the same construction methods and equipment previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed, and would not result in additional ground disturbance beyond what was previously analyzed. For these reasons, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts beyond those identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PWM/GWR EIR identified potential impacts from hazardous materials release that could occur during construction of the Proposed Project.

Due to the Project’s location to several hazardous materials sites undergoing remediation activities, the PWM/GWR EIR included mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

The hazardous materials release sites that were undergoing remediation in proximity to the Proposed Project at the time the PWM/GWR EIR was prepared (see Table 4.9-1 of the PWM/GWR EIR, pp. 4.9-11) are no longer active; however, three (3) new hazardous materials cleanup sites are located within 0.25 miles of the Project site. These include a voluntary PG&E cleanup site at the corner of Figueroa Street and Del Monte Avenue, located approximately 190 feet west of the Proposed Project; a State Response site (i.e., a former laundromat) approximately 330 feet southwest of the Project site; and a Military Evaluation site at the Naval Postgraduate School, a Military Evaluation site in the Pacific Ocean, within 400 feet of the Project site (CDTSC, 2024). No contaminated cleanup sites are within the Project site; however, consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, due to the proximity and number of known sites that are undergoing remediation, encountering unanticipated soil or groundwater contamination could result in a substantial risk to the public or the environment due to hazardous materials release. This potential impact would be considered significant. The Proposed Project would implement previously identified Mitigation Measures HH-2a: Environmental Site Assessment, HH-2b: Health and Safety Plan, and HH-2c: Materials Disposal Plan to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation beyond the measures identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
c) – e) No Impact. The Project site is not within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is San Carlos School, located approximately 0.47 miles southwest of the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur from hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of a school. The Proposed Project is also not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project site is located within two (2) miles of the Monterey Regional Airport and is included in the Monterey Airport Influence Area (“AIA”). The PWM/GWR EIR previously concluded that because the Proposed Project would consist entirely of underground infrastructure, no impacts related to the AIA would occur from Project construction or operation.

The Proposed Project would be in the same area that was previously evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR and ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 53, Packet Page 207 Denise Duffy & Associates 27
June 2025
would not involve additional infrastructure beyond what was included in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. No impact would occur as a result of the Project.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project would consist entirely of underground components, including a new pipeline connection and gravity intake system. As such, Project operation would not increase hazards related to emergency access.

Construction equipment and vehicles would be staged and parked outside of roadways to limit impacts related to emergency access to the extent feasible and would not result in significant impacts. Please also refer to Section 17, Transportation and Traffic and Section 20, Wildfire for additional detail. The Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. For these reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
g) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in the PWM/GWR EIR, all potential impacts related to wildland fire hazards would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would consist of underground water diversion and conveyance infrastructure (i.e., gravity intake system and pipeline). As such, no potential wildfire hazards would result from Project operation. However, Project construction would involve the use of equipment that could produce a spark or flame (e.g., combustion engine, gasoline-powered tools). Project construction could therefore temporarily increase fire risks from production of sparks and the use of flammable materials (e.g., gasoline); however, these impacts would be temporary and limited. Additionally, Project components would be constructed in compliance with existing fire regulations (see also Section 20, Wildfire). The Proposed Project would use substantially the same construction methods and equipment identified in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, Project construction is not anticipated to result in additional wildfire risks due to sparks or flames. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not result in additional significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would have a less than significant impact related to increased risks involving wildfire.

Conclusion: The Project would be located in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Previously identified mitigation (Mitigation Measures HH-2a, HH-2b, and HH-2c) would remain applicable to the Project and no additional mitigation is required.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project site is located at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, in the northeastern corner of Lake El Estero. Lake El Estero collects stormwater runoff from approximately 3.78 mi2 of urban, suburban, and wooded area and is fed by four (4) ephemeral streams and percolation of shallow groundwater. The City maintains the lake’s water levels for aesthetics and recreational use by pumping water from the lake to Del Monte Beach through existing pipeline infrastructure located at the Lake El Estero Pump Station. The ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 54, Packet Page 208 Denise Duffy & Associates 28
June 2025
Project site is entirely paved and previously disturbed and is relatively flat. Stormwater runoff at the site flows into the maintained lawn immediately surrounding the site or directly into Lake El Estero. The Project site is in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) 100-year flood zone (FEMA, 2023) and is approximately 0.10 miles south of the Pacific Ocean, within a tsunami hazard area (City of Monterey, 2024).

Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (“Schaaf & Wheeler”) prepared an Urban Runoff Yield Study for the Proposed Project (“Yield Study”) in October 2024. The Yield Study estimated the water yield that would be obtained from diversion of water from Lake El Estero to the City’s sewer system, analyzed potential water quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project, and provided recommendations for ensuring the Project would not result in adverse impacts. The following discussion is in part based on the findings of the Yield Study. The Yield Study is also provided in Appendix B of this document.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
  ◼ 
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
  ◼ 
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
  ◼ 
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?   ◼  ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site?   ◼ 
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?   ◼ 
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?   ◼ 
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
  ◼ 
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?    ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR analyzed potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from Project construction ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 55, Packet Page 209 Denise Duffy & Associates 29
June 2025
and operation, and determined the Project would not result in any significant impacts. More specifically, the PWM/GWR EIR found that impacts to surface water quality during construction would be less than significant because the Project would result in minimal disturbance, would include implementation of standard construction BMPs. The PWM/GWR EIR also determined operational impacts to water quality from the Proposed Project would be less than significant or beneficial; the Project would divert untreated stormwater from Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system to be treated for reuse in lieu of diverting untreated stormwater onto Del Monte Beach and into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Therefore, the Project would prevent untreated water from entering the Monterey Bay and could benefit marine water quality. The PWM/GWR EIR also determined that although the Proposed Project would be in a tsunami hazard zone, within a 100-year flood zone, and in a coastal hazard zone, any impacts related to tsunami, flooding, or coastal inundation from sea level rise would be less than significant.

DISCUSSION
a) Less than Significant Impact. The PWM/GWR EIR previously assessed potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality from implementation of the Proposed Project and determined impacts would be less than significant. Construction of the Project would occur within the existing paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, which were previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, Project construction would require grading and trenching, which could result in erosion of on-site soils and sedimentation during heavy wind or rain events. However, as discussed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would be required to comply with the conditions of general waste discharge requirements and the Project would implement standard construction BMPs related to runoff and erosion (e.g., installing sediment barriers such as silt fencing) to minimize impacts to surface and groundwater quality. Because the Project would disturb less than one (1) acre of land, the Project would not be required to implement a SWPPP.

Construction would require activities on the bank of the lake (e.g., installation of a cofferdam and dewatering); activities such as dewatering, sediment removal, or vegetation removal would potentially have temporary impact on water quality as a result of increased turbidity due to the disturbance of sediment. However, these impacts would be temporary and consistent with ongoing maintenance activities occurring at the existing pump station. Therefore, these temporary impacts are not anticipated to result in a new or significantly more severe impact than what was previously evaluated, nor would they be different than what is occurring under baseline conditions. There would be no new significant impacts or increase in severity of impacts to water quality as a result of construction of the Proposed Project.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required comply with existing stormwater permits issues by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act Section 401).

Project operation would divert untreated stormwater to the City’s sanitary sewer system in lieu of discharging directly to the beach and into the Monterey Bay. It is therefore anticipated that operation of the Project would not result in impacts to water quality from discharges into the Monterey Bay. Rather, the Proposed Project would result in net beneficial impacts as it would reduce discharge of untreated water into the Monterey Bay (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2024). However, the addition of stormwater into the sewer system could increase the risk of sanitary sewer overflows if the system is not maintained properly and best management practices (or safeguards) are not put in place; therefore, Schaaf & Wheeler (2024) recommended that the following best management practices be included as part of the Proposed Project to avoid sewer overflows during peak diversions:

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 56, Packet Page 210 Denise Duffy & Associates 30
June 2025
▪ Inspection of sewer pipeline and manholes for cracks and leaking joints and repair of cracks or leaks, if found.
▪ Installation of pressure sensors in one (1) or more manholes to identify backwater effects in the system.
▪ Shutoff of the stormwater system if the combined stormwater and sewer flows exceed the gravity capacity of the sewer main.

The Proposed Project would implement the best management practices identified above and referenced in the report prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler (2024). Additionally, the Proposed Project would be in the same area and would use substantially the same construction methods identified in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require additional ground disturbance beyond what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s impact analysis, the Proposed Project would adhere to permitting requirements and would implement BMPs to ensure impacts are less than significant. For these reasons, the Project would not result in additional impacts beyond what was assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda and would not increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would temporarily increase water demand for typical construction-related water use (i.e., surface watering for compaction and dust control).

Construction-related water demand would be temporary and limited. The PWM/GWR EIR previously determined construction water demand for PWM/GWR project components would be negligible (approximately 1.1 acre-foot per acre of ground disturbance; see pp. 4.10-52 and 4.18-29 of the PWM/GWR EIR for additional detail). The Proposed Project would disturb a total of approximately 1,040 square feet (approximately 0.02 acres), which would require less than one (1) acre-foot of water.

Therefore, construction-related groundwater demand would not exceed what was previously evaluated.

Similarly, Project operation would not require additional water supplies to serve the Project for the foreseeable future. The Proposed Project consists of connecting Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system, to provide supplemental wastewater flows for recycling and reuse. The Project would divert Stormwater from Lake El Estero to the sanitary sewer system in lieu of allowing the untreated stormwater to flow into the Pacific Ocean. The recycled water would then be used for groundwater recharge and irrigation as part of the PWM/GWR project. As such, Project operation would be beneficial for groundwater recharge. For these reasons, the Project would not result in additional impacts or result in an increase in the severity of impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda and would result in less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to altered drainage patterns. The Project would consist of installing and operating water conveyance infrastructure (i.e., a new connecting pipeline and gravity intake system) at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station. All Project components would be below ground and within existing paved and previously disturbed areas, as previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. The Project would not result in new impervious cover and all areas would be repaved immediately following construction. Therefore, the Project would not result in permanent impacts to onsite drainage patterns. The PWM/GWR EIR assessed potential construction-related impacts to drainage and determined the Project would result in less than significant impacts. The Project would involve substantially the same construction methods that were identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and would not involve additional ground disturbance or grading beyond what was assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would implement standard construction BMPs to minimize potential impacts. Because the Project would implement standard BMPs ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 57, Packet Page 211 Denise Duffy & Associates 31
June 2025
and would be in the same area and use substantially the same construction methods as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not result in additional impacts or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. For these reasons, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is in a FEMA 100-year flood zone (i.e., the site has a one [1] percent chance of flooding in a given year) and is approximately 0.10 miles south of the Pacific Ocean, in a tsunami inundation area and a coastal hazard zone (FEMA, 2023; City of Monterey, 2024; EMC, 2016). However, the PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential tsunami, flood, and sea level rise impacts associated with the Proposed Project and determined all impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would involve the same components as those previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., gravity intake system and pipeline) and would be in the same area as what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., the Lake El Estero Pump Station). Additionally, the Project would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were identified in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Schaaf & Wheeler’s Yield Study included an attached memorandum from the City which assessed the potential impacts of sea level rise on the Proposed Project under low, medium-high, and extreme risk aversion scenarios and included recommendations for preventing potential impacts associated with sea level rise. Electrical equipment would be designed with protection to account for potential inundation and ensure any impacts from flooding, tsunami, or sea level rise are less than significant (see Appendix F of the Yield Study). Because the Proposed Project would be in the same area and would involve substantially the same components and construction and operational activities as those previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, and the Project would incorporate safety design features consistent with the City’s recommendations, the Project would not result in additional impacts or result in an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The Project would result in a less than significant impact. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would involve connecting Lake El Estero to the City’s sewer system to be treated for recycling and reuse in lieu of discharging untreated water into the Pacific Ocean. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Proposed Project proposes an increase in the amount of stormwater runoff that would be diverted from the lake to the City’s sanitary sewer system. All remaining water stored would stay in the lake or continue to be discharged into the Monterey Bay. Lake El Estero water levels would not be altered as part of the Proposed Project and the changes to the project would reduce discharges of storm water into Monterey Bay. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Conclusion: The Project would be located in the area that was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

11. Land Use and Planning

EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is in the City of Monterey at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station in the northeast corner of Lake El Estero and within the Lake El Estero Park Complex. Lake El Estero Park is zoned as Open ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 58, Packet Page 212 Denise Duffy & Associates 32
June 2025
Space with a Historic (H1) overlay (City of Monterey, 2005). Project components would be within paved and previously disturbed areas at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station. Additionally, the site contains numerous above-ground pipelines, valves and other infrastructure used for lake and stormwater management. Surrounding the Pump Station are a landscaped lawn, a decomposed granite trail, planted trees, and the sidewalk on the south side of Del Monte Boulevard. The lake shore adjacent to the Proposed Project Site is man-made rock riprap and includes a concrete box culvert within which the lake pumps are located.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?    ◼
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
 ◼  

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined the Proposed Project would potentially conflict with applicable land use policies pertaining to solid waste production during construction. The PWM/GWR EIR therefore concluded potential conflicts with applicable plans and policies would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The PWM/GWR EIR included the following mitigation measures to ensure compliance with land use plans and policies applicable to the Lake El Estero Diversion Project:
▪ AQ-1: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan
▪ BT-1a: Implement Construction Best Management Practices ▪ BT-1c: Implement Non-Native, Invasive Species Controls ▪ BT-1k: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, including but not limited to, white-tailed kite and California horned lark ▪ CR-2b: Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Human Remains ▪ CR-2c: Native American Notification
▪ PS-3: Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan No mitigation beyond what was included in the PWM/GWR EIR would be required to reduce impacts land use to less than significant. Please see Appendix A for detailed mitigation measures applicable to the Proposed Project.

DISCUSSION
a) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project would consist of connecting Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system; all infrastructure would be underground, and no additional infrastructure would be required that ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 59, Packet Page 213 Denise Duffy & Associates 33
June 2025
would result in division of an established community. Additionally, the PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential Project-related land use impacts and determined no impacts would occur from Project construction or operation. The Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed. The discharge pipeline is slightly modified from a 40-foot, 12-inch diameter pipeline to a 60-foot, 16-inch diameter pipeline. The Proposed Project would install the discharge pipeline underground and in a previously disturbed area. As with the 40-foot, 12-inch diameter pipeline evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR, this modified pipeline would have no impact with regards to physically dividing an established community.

Therefore, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or more severe impacts beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and would result in no impact. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would involve construction and operation of a new gravity intake system and pipeline connection at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential impacts due to Project conflicts with land use policies and regulations and concluded that implementation of all PWM/GWR project components, including the Proposed Project, could result in significant impacts due to a conflict with policies related to waste reduction and recycling. The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measure PS-3: Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan to reduce any impacts from waste production during construction to less than significant. Impacts and mitigation associated with solid waste are addressed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems of this document. The Proposed Project would use substantially the same construction equipment and methods, and would require the same operational activities previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project is not expected to result in solid waste production beyond what was assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR. For these reasons, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts and would not result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR addenda. The Project would not require any additional mitigation beyond what was included in the PWM/GWR EIR to reduce impacts to less than significant.

12. Mineral Resources

EXISTING SETTING
Mineral resources are determined in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”) of 1975, and the California Geological Survey (“CGS”) which maps regional significance of mineral resources. The Project site is mapped as Mineral Resource Zone (“MRZ”)-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence (CGS, 2023).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 60, Packet Page 214 Denise Duffy & Associates 34
June 2025

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
   ◼
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR determined that the PWM/GWR project components located in areas identified as MRZ-1 would not result in impacts to mineral resources, as these areas do not contain significant mineral deposits or have little likelihood for containing such deposits. The Proposed Project is mapped as an MRZ1 area and is not located in a locally important mineral resource recovery site or within the immediate vicinity of a mineral resource recovery site.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located in an area with known mineral resources (CDC, 2021). Additionally, the PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential Project-related impacts to mineral resources and determined no impacts would occur from Project construction or operation at the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would be in the same area as what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Therefore, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. No impact would occur from implementation of the Proposed Project.

Conclusion: The Project would be located in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, which does not contain any known mineral resources of regional or local importance; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

13. Noise

EXISTING SETTING
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are most commonly characterized in California by the A-weighted sound level (“dBA”). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events (i.e., the “Leq”). The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 61, Packet Page 215 Denise Duffy & Associates 35
June 2025
events of specified duration.

The Project site is in the City of Monterey at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, in the northeast corner of Lake El Estero and located within the Lake El Estero Park Complex, which is designated as Open Space.

Surrounding land uses include roadways, residences, the Monterey Bay Lodge, and commercial businesses.

Recreational users of the Lake El Estero Park Complex, the Monterey Bay Lodge (located approximately 350 feet southeast of the Project), and residential land uses(approximately 500 feet southeast of the Project site) are considered sensitive receptors. Existing noise levels at the Project site were measured in 2013 as part of the PWM/GWR EIR preparation. Average daytime Leq at the Project site was between 57 and 66 dBA and average nighttime Leq was 53-61 dBA. Normally acceptable noise levels for land uses at and surrounding the Project site are generally between 50 and 70 decibels (“dB”) (PWM/GWR EIR, 2015; City of Monterey, 2005).

CHECKLIST
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?   ◼ 
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
  ◼ 
c) For a projectlocated within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
  ◼ 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR assessed potential noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The PWM/GWR EIR determined the Project would not result in impacts from noise exceeding local standards but would result in less than significant impacts from construction noise and vibration and noise associated with Project operation. Noise levels during construction of the Proposed Project were estimated to reach up to 90 Lmax and 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the noise source; attenuation of noise would result in levels up to 70 dBA Lmax and 66 dBA Leq at a distance of 500 feet and 73 dBA Lmax and 69 dBA Leq at 350 feet, which are the distances of the Project to the nearest stationary sensitive receptors. Construction noise would therefore be below the daytime significance threshold (70 dBA Leq) and no nighttime construction would occur, which the PWM/GWR EIR concluded represents a less than significant impact. Similarly, the PWM/GWR EIR found that vibration impacts would be less than significant because buildings surrounding the PWM/GWR project components appeared to be structurally sound, and all construction equipment that would be used for various PWM/GWR project components would result in less than 0.3 in/sec PPV. Therefore, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded vibration from construction would not cause structural damage to nearby buildings. Similarly, because the Proposed Project components would consist of pipeline connections and a pump or motor located entirely ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 62, Packet Page 216 Denise Duffy & Associates 36
June 2025
underground, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded the Project would not result in any substantial noise or vibration impacts from Project operation.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would generate temporary increases in noise associated with the use of construction equipment; however, construction noise would be temporary and limited to daytime hours (between 7 AM and 8 PM). The PWM/GWR EIR previously determined construction noise would reach 69 DBA Leq at a distance of 350 feet from the noise source, which is the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, construction noise levels would be below the City’s daytime significance threshold for speech interference (70 dBA Leq). The PWM/GWR EIR similarly determined vibration from Project construction would be less than 0.3 in/sec PPV, which would be below the 0.5 in/sec PPV recommended by Caltrans. Additionally, all Project components would be underground and Project operation is not expected to result in any increases in ambient noise or vibration levels.

Furthermore, the Project would implement the following noise-reducing best management practices (“BMPs”) to minimize noise generated by construction activities:
▪ Properly maintain equipment. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Close equipment engine shrouds during equipment operations and require all contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain and tune-condition all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.
▪ Locate, to the extent feasible, all stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., compressors) and equipment staging areas at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses receptors.
▪ Do not allow noise‐generating equipment to be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use.

The Proposed Project would utilize substantially the same construction equipment and methods as those analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, which included an evaluation of noise impacts associated with construction activities. Given that the Proposed Project would disturb a smaller area, the potential for noise impacts is expected to be the same or less than those previously identified.

Construction noise levels are primarily influenced by the length of time exposure to noise, type of equipment used, construction methods, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. The Proposed Project would be within the same area previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would utilize substantially the same types of noise-producing construction equipment identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would disturb approximately 0.02 acres, less than the construction area analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR (0.10 acres), and the nearest sensitive receptors are 350 feet away from the construction noise. The length of time and hours of the day are unchanged from the PWM/GWR EIR, and the typical construction activities cited would remain consistent with those presented in the PWM/GWR EIR. Pavement demolition, trenching and installation of new pumps/pump motors, electrical facilities, and flow meters would all be installed below grade. In addition to equipment deliveries using haulers, trucks, loaders, and other similar equipment, backhoes and excavators would be employed for trenching and demolition as well as hauling. Although excavators generally produce slightly higher noise levels than backhoes (approximately 2–5 dBA higher at 50 feet), the overall construction noise levels would remain within the range analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. The equipment substitution would not result in a ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 63, Packet Page 217 Denise Duffy & Associates 37
June 2025
substantial increase in noise exposure at sensitive receptors, and therefore, would not result in a new or more severe significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, no additional noise generation beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR is anticipated as part of the Proposed Project. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not result in additional impacts, nor would the Project cause an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation would be required.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located in the Monterey Airport Land Use Plan and is approximately two (2) miles from the Monterey Regional Airport. This airport is not highly trafficked and because construction of the Project would be temporary, exposure to air traffic noise would be minimal.

Additionally, the Project site is in an urbanized landscape, adjacent to a highly trafficked roadway. Noise from airport traffic would be intermittent and would not result in substantially greater noise levels beyond those of the surrounding land use. Because the Proposed Project would be in the same footprint that was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not result in any additional environmental effects beyond those previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and all impacts would remain less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would involve the substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Project would implement the BMPs identified above to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. All impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

14. Population and Housing

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is located in the City of Monterey. The U.S. Census population of the was 29,116 persons in July of 2023, living in 13,988 households(U.S. Census Bureau, 2023a and 2023b). The estimated City population as of January 2024 was 27,106 (California Department of Finance, 2024). Based on the Association of Monterey Bay Governments (“AMBAG”) projections, population in the City of Monterey is expected to increase from 26,845 to 29,583 persons between 2023 and 2030 (AMBAG, 2024).

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)?
   ◼
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
   ◼
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 64, Packet Page 218 Denise Duffy & Associates 38
June 2025

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR analyzed potential population and housing impacts of all PWM/GWR project components, including the Proposed Project collectively and determined the entire PWM/GWR project would not directly or indirectly result in substantial population growth. Because the PWM/GWR project would not include construction of new homes or businesses, the project would not directly induce population growth. Operation of the PWM/GWR project would result in only nine (9) new employees, which would not result in substantial population growth from new job production. Additionally, the PWM/GWR project would be used to replace a portion of current water withdrawals from the Carmel River by CalAm; the PWM/GWR project was not designed to accommodate any future increases in CalAm customer demand. Therefore, the PWM/GWR project would not provide additional water supplies but would provide a new water supply source to replace existing sources that are required to be curtailed and would thus not result in substantial indirect population growth by providing additional water resources to support future growth. Furthermore, the PWM/GWR EIR determined no impacts would occur from displacement of existing people or housing because no housing units are located in the proposed construction areas and construction and operation of PWM/GWR project components would not require removal of housing or construction of additional housing.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would consist of installing underground infrastructure to connect Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system. As such, the Project would not induce population growth or displace existing people or housing. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project is not designed to accommodate any future increases in water demand and would not provide additional water supply. The Project would provide source water to support the replacement of existing CalAm withdrawals from the Carmel River that need to be curtailed. The discharge pipeline is slightly modified from a 40-foot, 12-inch diameter pipeline to a 60-foot, 16-inch diameter pipeline. The Proposed Project would install the discharge pipeline underground and in a previously disturbed area. As with the 40-foot, 12-inch diameter pipeline evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR, this modified pipeline would have no impact on population growth in the area. Thus, the Project would not result in additional impacts or more severe impacts beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. The Proposed Project would not cause indirect population growth by providing additional water resources. No impact would occur.

Conclusion: Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not involve activities that would displace existing people or housing and is not designed to provide additional water supply which could lead to unplanned population growth in the area; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

15. Public Services

EXISTING SETTING
The following sections describe the public services provided in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.

Fire Protection
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 65, Packet Page 219 Denise Duffy & Associates 39
June 2025
The City of Monterey Fire Department provides fire protection to the City of Monterey and all areas within its jurisdictional boundaries, including the Army Defense Language Institute and Foreign Language Center, the Presidio of Monterey, and the Naval Postgraduate School and its military housing at La Mesa Village.

The Monterey Fire Department also provides fire protection to the cities of Sand City and Pacific Grove.

The Monterey Fire Department has 70 paid staff, two (2) part-time fire inspectors, and six (6) fire stations (City of Monterey Fire Department, 2024).

Police Protection
The City of Monterey Police Department (“MPD”) provides police protection services for the City of Monterey. The MPD consists of 53 sworn officers and 24 civilian staff (MPD, 2024) and is located approximately 0.8 miles from the Proposed Project.

Schools
The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District serves the City of Monterey as well as the cities of Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and Del Rey Oaks and the former Fort Ord military base (PWM/GWR EIR, 2015). No schools are within a quarter mile of the Proposed Project. The nearest school to the Project site is San Carlos Elementary, located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project.

Parks
The Proposed Project is adjacent to Lake El Estero, which contains the Lake El Estero Park Complex (including a playground, youth center, ballpark, dance studio, boating concession, snack bar, and skate park), the San Carlos, Saint John’s and El Encinal cemeteries, a city dog park, as well as various walking trails. The City of Monterey maintains Lake El Estero for aesthetics and recreational fishing and paddle boating. Pearl Street bisects the Lake El Estero Park Complex, providing primary access to many of the Park facilities. The Park Complex is also accessible via Del Monte Boulevard, Camino Aguajito, Camino El Estero, and Fremont Street.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 66, Packet Page 220 Denise Duffy & Associates 40
June 2025

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?   ◼ 
Police protection?   ◼ 
Schools?    ◼
Parks?    ◼
Other public facilities?    ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR found that all impacts to public services resulting from Project construction and operation would be less than significant. During Project construction, incidents requiring fire protection, law enforcement, or other emergency response services could occur; however, incidents are expected to be minor and would not exceed the existing capacity of local service providers. Project operation would not result in any additional demand for school or park facilities, and any demand for fire or police protection services would be minor and would not exceed the capacity of local service providers to a degree requiring new or physically altered public facilities.

DISCUSSION
a) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts to public services. The Project is a water diversion project; therefore, Project operation would not increase the need for fire and police protection or increase the use of schools, parks, or other public facilities. All impacts would be associated with temporary construction impacts related to fire and police protection services. As previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, Project construction could require law enforcement, fire protection, or emergency services for incidents. Any temporary increase in incidents is anticipated to be minor and would not exceed the capacity of existing local service providers.

No new or expanded facilities would be required as part of the Project. The Project would be located in the same area and would incorporate the same construction methods previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. As such, the number of personnel, hours of construction, and types of equipment and vehicles on-site are expected to remain the same as what was included in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to public services.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 67, Packet Page 221 Denise Duffy & Associates 41
June 2025
Conclusion: The Project would be located in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. All impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

16. Recreation

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is located at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, at the northeast corner of Lake El Estero, in the El Estero Park Complex. The El Estero Park Complex consists of a playground, youth center, ballpark, dance studio, boating concession, snack bar, and skate park, as well as various walking trails. The City of Monterey maintains Lake El Estero for aesthetics and recreational fishing and paddle boating. Pearl Street bisects the Lake El Estero Park Complex, providing primary access to many of the Park facilities. The Park Complex is also accessible via Del Monte Boulevard, Camino Aguajito, Camino El Estero, and Fremont Street.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?    ◼
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
   ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR found that no recreational impacts would result from construction or operation of the Proposed Project. While the Project site would be in the El Estero Park Complex, the Project would be constructed at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, not in a recreational area. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not include construction of new recreational facilities. Furthermore, the Project would not increase the local population such that the demand for recreational facilities would be increased. Therefore, the PWM/GWR EIR concluded no impact would occur to recreational facilities.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) No Impact. The PWM/GWR EIR previously determined construction and operation of the Project would not result in recreational impacts. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project consists of installing a new gravity intake system and underground pipeline to connect Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system. As such, the Project would not increase the use of neighborhood and ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 68, Packet Page 222 Denise Duffy & Associates 42
June 2025
regional parks or other recreational facilities, nor would the Project require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Project would be in the same area as what was analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., at the Lake El Estero Pump Station in the Lake El Estero Park Complex); consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, construction would occur in previously disturbed and paved areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, away from recreational areas associated with the Park Complex. Because the Proposed Project would be constructed in the same area that was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and the Project would involve substantially the same components that were previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not result in new impacts or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. Therefore, consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not result in recreational impacts.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, in paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, away from recreational areas; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

17. Transportation and Traffic

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project would be constructed within paved and previously disturbed areas at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, located in the northeast corner of Lake El Estero. The Project site is on the corner of Del Monte Boulevard and Camino Aguajito, in the City ofMonterey. Del Monte Boulevard and Camino Aguajito are highly trafficked roadways, with several transit stops along their lengths. One (1) transit stop is located approximately 350 feet east of the Proposed Project, at the corner of Del Monte Boulevard and Camino Aguajito. State Route 1 (“SR 1”) and State Route 68 (“SR 68”) are located approximately 0.5 miles and one (1) mile southeast of the Project site, respectively. Materials would be transported to and from the site via SR 1 to Camino Aquajito to Del Monte Boulevard.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
  ◼ 
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
  ◼ 
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
 ◼  
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?   ◼ 
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 69, Packet Page 223 Denise Duffy & Associates 43
June 2025

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR analyzed potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project was estimated to result in a maximum of 10 one-way truck trips and 16 one-way worker trips per day during construction and would occur over a three (3)-month period. The PWM/GWR EIR determined worker and truck trips would not result in significant construction-related traffic and emergency access impacts because trips during peak traffic hours would be minimal, limited, would be split between multiple routes, and construction would primarily be located within the Lake El Estero Pump Station, outside of roadways. The PWM/GWR EIR also determined all operational impacts would be less than significant; however, significant impacts could occur from construction-related road deterioration where the use of trucks could result in significant impacts from deterioration of local roadways not designed to support use by heavy construction vehicles and equipment. To reduce potential impacts to less than significant, the PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measures TR-3: Roadway Rehabilitation Program.

DISCUSSION
a), b), and d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in a short-term increase in localized traffic during construction; however, construction impacts would be temporary and limited. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.2 subdivision (b) requires the evaluation of transportation impacts of projects be based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). The PWM/GWR EIR determined construction of the Project would require 10 one (1)-way truck trips and 16 one (1)-way worker trips per day during construction, which would occur over a three (3)-month period. Project construction would occur in the same area and would require substantially the same equipment and methods previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

As a result, overall construction duration and number of construction workers on-site are not anticipated to change from what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, because the Project would consist of the same components that were evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., gravity intake system and pipeline to divert water from Lake El Estero to the City’s sewer system), operation and maintenance of the Project would not change from what was originally evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Additionally, the Project would not substantially impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian access and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, construction of the Proposed Project would occur within existing paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station. Equipment staging and parking would occur at the Lake El Estero Pump Station, off of roadways. Consistent with the impact analysis in the PWM/GWR EIR, worker access to and from the Project site would generally occur outside of peak hour traffic and would be split across multiple routes. Project construction would occur within the Lake El Estero Park Complex; however, all construction would occur within the existing Pump Station, not in recreational areas. All impacts related to increased traffic and site access would be temporary and limited, and would result in less than significant impacts. The Project would be in the same area and would utilize the same construction methods and equipment as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, no additional personnel or equipment are expected to be required and no additional impacts beyond those previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would occur from implementation of the Project. No mitigation is required. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction and operation of the Project would not increase hazards due to a design feature; however, the PWM/GWR EIR previously determined construction of the Project could result in temporary impacts to roadways not designed to support use by heavy construction vehicles and equipment. This would result in a potentially significant impact that ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 70, Packet Page 224 Denise Duffy & Associates 44
June 2025
would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-3:

Roadway Rehabilitation Program, as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Mitigation Measure TR-3 requires that pre-construction conditions for all local construction access and haul routes proposed for substantial use by PWM/GWR Project-related construction vehicles and access routes be returned to pre-construction conditions following implementation of PWM/GWR Project components, as needed. The Proposed Project would use substantially the same construction methods, and would require substantially the same construction equipment and vehicles previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR (e.g., haul trucks, compactors, backhoes, etc.).
14 Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would implement previously identified mitigation to ensure impacts are less than significant and no additional mitigation would be required. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts than those previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area, would include substantially the same components, and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. The Proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TR-3, as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, which would ensure impacts remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

18. Tribal Cultural Resources

EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is located in the City of Monterey at the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station, in the northeast corner of Lak El Estero and within the Lake El Estero Park Complex. Lake El Estero Park is zoned as Open Space with a Historic (H1) overlay (City of Monterey, 2005) and the Project site lies within the currently recognized ethnographic territory of the Costanoan (Ohlone) linguistic group (Jones & Stokes, 2006). The Project site is entirely within the existing paved and previously disturbed Lake El Estero Pump Station. Several archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of Lake El Estero; however, none of these recorded sites are within the Proposed Project site (PWM/GWR EIR, 2015).

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a  ◼  
14 Table 2.21, PWM/GWR EIR, Proposed Project Construction Assumptions, Lake El Estero Diversion on page 2-87, identifies “Flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks for spoils transport, trucks for materials delivery, compaction equipment, baker tank(s), pickup trucks, arc welding machine, generators, air compressors, 80-ton crane, skip loader, pavers and rollers”.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 71, Packet Page 225 Denise Duffy & Associates 45
June 2025
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(K)?
   ◼
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
 ◼  

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed tribal cultural resources at the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site. The PWM/GWR EIR determined that four (4) cultural sites, two (2) of which are prehistoric sites, are located within 0.5 miles of the Proposed Project. However, the PWM/GWR EIR also determined no cultural sites were within or close to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects, located at the northern end of Lake El Estero. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to historical or paleontological resources; however, the Project could result in a significant impact to cultural/archaeological resources or unknown human remains during construction due to the Project’s location in an area of “High Probability of Pre-Historic Artifacts. Native American tribal consultation was conducted for the PWM/GWR; however, tribes contacted did not identify resources in the vicinity of the Project beyond what was identified in a Sacred Lands File Search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”). The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measures CR-2a: Archaeological Monitoring Plan, CR-2b: Discovery of Archaeological Resources and Human Remains, and CR-2c: Native American Notification to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

DISCUSSION
ai) No Impact. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential impacts to historical resources from construction and operation of the Proposed Project and determined that due to the location of the Project site, no impacts would occur as a result of the Project. The Project would be constructed in the same area as what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to historic resources beyond what was evaluated in the PWM/GWR EIR. Please also see Section 5, Cultural Resources for additional detail. aii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources from implementation of the Proposed Project.

The PWM/GWR EIR concluded that potentially significant impacts could occur from disturbance of previously unknown resources or human remains due to the Project’s location in an area with “High Probability of Pre-Historic Artifacts.” Native American tribal consultation was conducted for the PWM/GWR; however, tribes contacted did not identify resources in the vicinity of the Project beyond what was identified in a Sacred Lands File Search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”). The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measures CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-2C to ensure any impacts to previously unknown cultural resources or human remains would be less than significant. The Project would be in the same area as what was assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 72, Packet Page 226 Denise Duffy & Associates 46
June 2025
not result in additional ground disturbance beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional impacts or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would be applicable to the Proposed Project and no additional mitigation would be required to reduce impacts. Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources for detailed mitigation measures.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. The Proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CR2a, CR-2b, and CR-2c, as previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, which would ensure impacts remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

19. Utilities and Service Systems

EXISTING SETTING
The Proposed Project is located in the City of Monterey. Utilities service systems include the following:

Water Supply and Wastewater
California American Water (“CalAm”) operates the Monterey Peninsula’s water supply system, which consists of over 680 miles of pipeline and over 100 storage tanks. CalAm serves approximately 100,000 people in the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Sand City, and Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Del Rey Oaks as well as the unincorporated communities of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, and areas along the Highway 68 corridor (CalAm, 2024).

The City of Monterey provides sanitary sewer collection and conveyance services for the City. The City service area and sewer infrastructure consists of 99 miles of gravity sewer mains and 1.5 miles of force mains,seven (7) liftstations, and over 2,300 manholes and structureslocated in the City. This also includes sewer collection infrastructure on the federally owned U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, and a few select sewer easements through the U.S. Naval Support Activity Monterey. City wastewater is collected and conveyed to M1W’s regional wastewater collection system and RTF in Marina through several interceptor pipelines. With the exception of the lift stations, which are operated by M1W, City staff maintain and operate all other water system components.

Electricity
Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) provides electricity and natural gas throughout Monterey County, and thus would be the energy utility provider for the Proposed Project. Beginning in 2018, all PG&E customers within Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties were automatically enrolled in Central Coast Community Energy (“3CE”). 3CE is a locally controlled public agency providing carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses. 3CE is a joint powers authority and based on a local energy model called community choice energy. 3CE partners with PG&E, which continues to provide billing, power transmission and distribution, customer service, grid maintenance services, and natural gas services to Monterey County.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 73, Packet Page 227 Denise Duffy & Associates 47
June 2025
Solid Waste
ReGen Monterey manages the Monterey Peninsula’s solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling system. ReGen Monterey operates the Monterey Peninsula Landfill which comprises approximately 461 acres. The landfill currently receives approximately 600,000 tons of solid waste annually. At the current level of service, the landfill is expected to serve the present service area for over 100 years (ReGen Monterey, 2018). Any solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the landfill or diverted for recycling or reuse at the materials recovery facility.

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
  ◼ 
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
  ◼ 
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
  ◼ 
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
  ◼ 
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  ◼  

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed potential impacts to utilities and service systems from construction and operation of the entire PWM/GWR project, including the Proposed Project. The PWM/GWR EIR determined the only impact that would require mitigation to reduce to less than significant would be from construction-generated solid waste. The PWM/GWR EIR found that solid waste generated during construction would potentially conflict with state and local statues, policies, and regulations related to solid waste because construction of all PWM/GWR project components would generate approximately 35,000 cubic yards of debris; if all excavated materials were disposed of at a landfill, the PWM/GWR project would potentially be out of compliance with State and local solid waste programs which would constitute a significant impact. To reduce this impact, the PWM/GWR EIR proposed Mitigation Measure PS-3: Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan that encompasses all PWM/GWR project components.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 74, Packet Page 228 Denise Duffy & Associates 48
June 2025

DISCUSSION
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts from relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. As previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would consist of a water utility project to connect Lake El Estero to the existing sanitary sewer system. The Project would involve the same components as those analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR (i.e., new gravity intake system and pipeline) and would be located in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR (i.e., the existing Lake El Estero Pump Station), which is paved and previously disturbed. As a result, the Project would not result in new significant impacts or result in more severe significant impacts beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. This represents a less than significant impact.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, the Proposed Project would consist of connecting an existing stormwater basin (i.e., Lake El Estero) to the City’s sanitary sewer system to be used as an additional source water for recycling and reuse. The PWM/GWR EIR previously concluded the Project would result in less than significant construction and operational impacts related to water supply and wastewater generation. The Project would involve the same Project components and would be in the same area as what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would utilize substantially the same construction equipment and methods as those previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. As such, the Project would not require additional water supplies for construction beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Furthermore, consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, operation of the Proposed Project would consist of diverting stormwater from Lake El Estero to the sanitary sewer system in lieu of allowing the untreated stormwater to flow into the Pacific Ocean; therefore, Project operation would not require additional water supplies but would use an existing water supply for reuse.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, Project construction would result in minimal wastewater generation from use of portable toilets by construction workers. Also consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR’s analysis, wastewater from Project construction would be disposed of at the RTP, which the PWM/GWR EIR determined has more than sufficient capacity to treat construction-generated wastewater. The Proposed Project would not require changes to the construction methods or the number of personnel on-site at any given time. Therefore, Project construction is not anticipated to result in additional wastewater beyond what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Project operation would involve diverting wastewater from Lake El Estero to the City’s sewer system, where it would be treated at the RTP and recycled for reuse, as was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. As discussed in Section 4.18 of the PWM/GWR EIR, the existing RTP treats an average of 16 to 17 mgd of wastewater and therefore has capacity to treat additional flows from Project operation. Operational diversions of the Proposed Project would not result in substantially different rates of diversion than what was considered in the PWM/GWR EIR because diversions to the City’s sanitary sewer system are limited by the capacity of the existing sewer infrastructure. Furthermore, Schaaf & Wheeler (2024) recommended safeguards to be included as part of the Proposed Project to avoid overwhelming the City’s sewer system during peak diversions (see Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality for additional detail). For these reasons, wastewater generated from operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of the City’s sanitary sewer system or the capacity of the RTP, and the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. Therefore, the ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 75, Packet Page 229 Denise Duffy & Associates 49
June 2025
Project would result in a less than significant impact. d) Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in solid waste generation; therefore, all impacts would be related to solid waste generation during construction. The PWM/GWR EIR previously analyzed Project-related solid waste generation and concluded impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would consist of construction within the same footprint that was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR and would not require changes to the construction methods or number of personnel onsite at any given time. Therefore, Project construction is not anticipated to result in additional solid waste beyond what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to solid waste generation.
e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The PWM/GWR EIR previously determined that solid waste generated by all PWM/GWR project components would potentially conflict with statutes, policies, and regulations related to solid waste. The PWM/GWR EIR included Mitigation Measure PS-3:

Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan, applicable to all PWM/GWR project components, to reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant. Consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, the Proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure PS-3 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Because the Project would involve the same construction methods as those included in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts and would not result in an increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. No additional mitigation beyond what was identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would be required to reduce impacts.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. Additionally, the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure PS-3, as identified in the PWM/GWR EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. No additional mitigation is required.

20. Wildfire

EXISTING SETTING
The Project site is located in the southeast corner of Lake El Estero, in the City of Monterey. The Project site is not located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or in a State Responsibility Area (“SRA”); the Project site lies within in a Local Responsibility Area (“LRA”) and is mapped in the City General Plan as being in a low fire hazard severity zone (City of Monterey, 2005).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 76, Packet Page 230 Denise Duffy & Associates 50
June 2025

CHECKLIST
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
  ◼ 
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
  ◼ 
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   ◼
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?    ◼

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR analyzed potential fire hazards associated with the Proposed Project in Section 4.9, Hazards, and Hazardous Waste. The PWM/GWR EIR determined operation of all PWM/GWR project components, including the Proposed Project, would not result in a fire-related impact. The PWM/GWR EIR also determined Project construction would result in a less than significant fire impact because the Project components would be constructed in compliance with existing fire regulations which restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment that has an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided onsite for various types of work in fire prone areas.

DISCUSSION
a) – b) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is in an area of low fire hazard severity and is not located in a SRA. Additionally, as was previously analyzed in PWM/GWR EIR, the Project would consist of new pipeline connections located entirely underground and a new gravity intake system located below the lake’s waterline. As such, Project operation would not increase hazards related to fire or emergency access. Project construction could temporarily increase fire risks from production of sparks and the use of flammable materials (e.g., gasoline); however, these impacts would be temporary and limited.

Additionally, consistent with the PWM/GWR EIR, Project construction would be required to comply with existing fire regulations. Construction equipment and vehicles would be staged and parked outside of roadways to limit impacts related to emergency access (please also refer to Section 17, Transportation and Traffic). The Proposed Project would be in the same area previously analyzed by the PWM/GWR EIR and would not require changes to construction methods that were previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR. For these reasons, the Project would not result in additional significant impacts or result in an increase ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 77, Packet Page 231 Denise Duffy & Associates 51
June 2025
in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR. This represents a less than significant impact.
c) – d) No Impact. The Project would not involve installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts. As was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR, the Project consists of connecting Lake El Estero to the City’s sanitary sewer system and would involve underground pipeline connections and a gravity well in paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump Station. No new roads, fuel breaks, utilities, or other associated infrastructure would be constructed as part of the Project. The PWM/GWR EIR did not identify potentially significant impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to risks from flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire instability or drainage changes. The Project would consist of the same components and would be constructed in the same area as what was previously analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Therefore, the Project would not cause additional significant impacts or increase the severity of significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in previous environmental documentation.

Conclusion: The Project would be in the same area, would connect to the identified City system, and would involve substantially the same construction and operational activities that were analyzed in the PWM/GWR EIR; therefore, the Project would not result in additional or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. No mitigation is required.

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance

CHECKLIST
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
  ◼ 
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” meansthatthe incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
  ◼ 
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
  ◼ 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
The PWM/GWR EIR identified construction-related impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 78, Packet Page 232 Denise Duffy & Associates 52
June 2025
cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and utilities and service systems.

All of which would be temporary in nature and reduced to less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable with implementation of the mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and described in this Addendum to the PWM/GWR EIR. Operational impacts would not be significant or cumulatively considerable, as they would comply with any and all agency/regulatory requirements and would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing mitigation described within the PWM/GWR EIR.

Cumulative Impacts and mitigation measures previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and in the 2021 certified SEIR are summarized in Appendix B of the SEIR, available online at https://purewatermonterey.org/reports-docs/cfeir/. Table 2 in Appendix B of the SEIR provides a summary of the cumulative impacts and the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project contribution to those impacts, as applicable. The PWM/GWR EIR found that the PWM/GWR Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative construction or operational impacts in all issue areas. The SEIR determined the Proposed Modifications associated with the Expanded PWM/GWR Project would not cause the PWM/GWR Project to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative construction or operational impacts in all issue areas. Under Air Quality and GHG, the SEIR found that the total GHG emissions from the PWM/GWR Project, with the Proposed Modifications, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions and the effects of climate change. The SEIR concluded “The Proposed Modifications would potentially make a considerable contribution to significant cumulative regional emissions of PM10; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact would be reduced to less than significant.”

DISCUSSION
a-c) Lessthan Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade or reduce wildlife species or habitat or impact historic resources, as identified in this analysis. The Project site is located within existing paved and previously disturbed areas at the Lake El Estero Pump station. Potential temporary construction impacts to wildlife and paleontological or other cultural and archaeological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures that were previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and identified in this Addendum. No additional mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (see Section 4, Biological Resources, Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources for detailed mitigation measures).

Potential cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project would primarily occur in connection with temporary construction-related effects; these effects have already been accounted for in previous environmental documentation. As described above, the PWM/GWR EIR included a cumulative analysis for the PWM/GWR project, including the Proposed Project, and mitigation was previously identified to reduce impacts to less than significant where applicable. These mitigation measures would still apply to the Project, as proposed, to reduce potentially significant impacts. No changes to the conclusions of the cumulative impact analysis would occur due to implementation of the Proposed Project. While there are some modifications to the Proposed Project (i.e., modified diversion pipeline, increased yield, and modified (reduced) construction area and activities), these changes result in substantially the same Project footprint, construction activities, and operational activities as assessed in the PWM/GWR EIR.

Because the Proposed Project does not increase the extent or intensity of any construction or operational ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 79, Packet Page 233 Denise Duffy & Associates 53
June 2025
activities, there would be no increase to the severity of any cumulative impacts, nor would there be any new cumulative impacts. The Project would not result in any new significant cumulative impacts or worsen the severity of any significant cumulative impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR or SEIR.

These impact conclusions and previously identified mitigation measures remain the same as in the PWM/GWR EIR and SEIR. No additional mitigation beyond what was previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR would be required.

Construction and operation ofthe Proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly; potential impacts would be temporary in nature and mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures (to the extent they are applicable) previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR and described throughout this Addendum. The Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PWM/GWR EIR, SEIR, and addenda. No additional mitigation beyond what was identified in previous environmental documentation would be required to reduce impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 80, Packet Page 234 Denise Duffy & Associates 54
June 2025
Report Preparation and References

LEAD AGENCY
City of Monterey Public Works Department

REPORT PREPARATION
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant Denise Duffy, Principal
Oliviya Wyse, Deputy Project Manager
Mikaela Bogdan, Assistant Planner
Luke Hiserman, Assistant Planner
Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers
Andrew Sterbenz, Principal Engineer
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 81, Packet Page 235 Denise Duffy & Associates 55
June 2025
Bibliography
[AMBAG] Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 2024. Regional Growth Forecast. Available online at: https://www.ambag.org/plans/regional-growth-forecast [CalAm] California American Water. 2024. California American Water Files Motion to Dismiss Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s Condemnation Suit. Available from:
https://www.amwater.com/press-room/press-releases/california/california-american-waterfiles-motion-to-dismiss-monterey-peninsula-water-management-districts-condemnationsuit#:~:text=California%20American%20Water%20and%20its,complex%20water%20systems %20in%20California.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder Map. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ California Department of Conservation. 2024. Monterey County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/monterey [CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2021. Update of the Mineral Land Classification for Construction Aggregate Resources in the Monterey Bay Production-Consumption Region.

Special Report 251. Available for download from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/ California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. 2023. California Historical Resources. Available online at:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=27 California Department of Finance. 2024. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2024 with 2020 Census Benchmark. Available online at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2021-2024-with-2020-census-benchmark/ California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=pebble+beach%2C+ca California Department of Transportation. 2023. State Scenic Highway Map. Available online at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8 057116f1aacaa
City of Monterey. 2005. City of Monterey General Plan As Amended. Available from:
https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/GeneralPlan/19_0604-General-Plan.pdf ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 82, Packet Page 236 Denise Duffy & Associates 56
June 2025
City of Monterey. 2024. Tsunami Inundation Map. Available from:
https://files.monterey.gov/Emergency%20Resources/Tsunami%20%20Preparedness/Tsuna mi-Inundation-map.jpg
City of Monterey Fire Department. 2024. https://monterey.gov/city_hall/fire/about/index.php [COSFM] California Office of the State Fire Marshal. 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Available online at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597 ab693d008
Denise Duffy and Associates. 2015. Consolidated Final Environmental Impact Report forthe Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project.

Denise Duffy and Associates. 2016. Addendum to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project EIR/EA and the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR for the Hilby Avenue Pump Station.

Denise Duffy and Associates, 2017a. Addendum No. 3 to the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project EIR/EA and Addendum No. 2 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR for the Monterey Pipeline.

Denise Duffy and Associates, 2017b. Addendum No. 3 Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project EIR for the Advanced Water Treatment Facility Expanded Capacity Project Modifications.
[EMC] EMC Planning Group. 2016. 2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions, and Issues Report.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2023. FEMA Flood Map. Available online at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b55 29aa9cd
[MBARD] Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2008. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. http://mbard.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/Attachment_Guidelines-for- Implementing-CEQA.pdf, accessed online on August 23, 2021.
[MBARD] Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2017. Air Quality Management Plan. Dated March 15, 2017.
[MBUAPCD] Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Available online at: https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf [MBUAPCD] Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Available online at:

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 83, Packet Page 237 Denise Duffy & Associates 57
June 2025
https://www.mbard.org/files/b4d8179d3/CEQA+Implementation.pdf.

Monterey County. 2023a. Geologic Hazards Map for Monterey County. Available online at:
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=80aadc38518a4588 9751e97546ca5c53.

Monterey County. 2023b. Monterey County Archaeological Sensitivity Zones. Available online at:
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=90ca28af371c482ba c6ff01dd914fccf
Monterey One Water, 2017. Addendum No. 3 to the Pure Water Monterey/Groundwater Replenishment Project Environmental Impact Report, October 2017. Accessed at https://purewatermonterey.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/EIR-Addendum-NPDES-10-24- 2017.pdf
Monterey One Water, 2020. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Modifications to the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, April 2020.

Accessed at https://purewatermonterey.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/Final-SEIRProposedModifications-PWM-GWR-Project-April-2020.pdf Monterey One Water. 2024. Regional Treatment Plant. Available online at:
https://www.montereyonewater.org/280/Regional-Treatment-Plant Monterey Police Department. 2024. Monterey PD Careers. Available online at:
https://www.montereypolicejobs.com/#:~:text=We%20are%20a%20tight%20knit,LEARN%20M ORE
ReGen Monterey. 2018. Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Available from:
https://regenmonterey.org/monterey-peninsula-landfill/
Rosenberg, Lewis, I. and Clark, Joseph C. 2001. Paleontological Resources of Monterey County, California. Available online at: https://purl.stanford.edu/xc583rw0668.

Schaaf & Wheeler. 2024. Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study.

Schaaf & Wheeler. April 2014. Groundwater Replenishment Project, Urban Runoff Capture at Lake El Estero.

United States Census Bureau. 2023a. City and Town Population Totals: 2020-2023. Available online at:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-cities-andtowns.html#v2023 United States Census Bureau. 2023b. Housing Units Monterey City, California. Available online at:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2022.B25001?t=Housing%20Units&g=160XX00US0648 872
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 84, Packet Page 238 APPENDIXA– MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE LAKE EL ESTERO WATER

DIVERSION PROJECT
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 85, Packet Page 239 Table of Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Lake El Estero Water Diversion Project1 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
Impact AQ-1:

Construction
Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan. The following standard Dust Control Measures shall be implemented during construction to help prevent potential nuisances to nearby receptors due to fugitive dust and to reduce contributions to exceedances of the state ambient air quality standards for PM10, in accordance with MBUAPCD’s CEQA Guidelines.
▪ Water all active construction areas as required with non-potable sources to the extent feasible; frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure and minimized to prevent wasteful use of water.
▪ Prohibit grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph).
▪ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. ▪ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
▪ Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
▪ Enclose, cover, or water daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). ▪ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

During project
construction
During project
construction
Impact BT-1:

Construction
Impacts to
Special-Status
Species and
Habitat
Mitigation Measure BT-1a: Implement Construction Best Management Practices. The following best management practices shall be implemented during all identified phases of construction (i.e., pre-, during, and post-) to reduce impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species:
▪ A qualified biologist must conduct an Employee Education Program for the construction crew prior to any construction activities. A qualified biologist must meet with the construction crew at the onset of construction at the site to educate the construction crew on the following: 1) the appropriate access route(s) in and out of the construction area and review project boundaries; 2) how a biological monitor will examine the area and agree upon a method which would ensure the safety of the monitor during such activities, 3) the special-status species that may be present; 4) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort; 5) the general provisions and protections afforded by the USFWS and CDFW; and 6) the proper procedures if a special-status species is encountered within the site.
▪ Trees and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used, to avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.
▪ Protective fencing shall be placed prior to and during construction to keep construction equipment and personnel from impacting vegetation outside of work limits. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least Prior to, during and
after project
construction
Prior to and
during project
construction
1 This table includes only mitigation measures applicable to the Lake El Estero Water Diversion component of the approved PWM/GWR Project. The full Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the PWM/GWR Project can be found on the PWM/GWR website: https://purewatermonterey.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/Volume-IV-EIR-Certification-and-Project-Approval-Jan-2016.pdf ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 86, Packet Page 240 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.
▪ Following construction, disturbed areas shall be restored to preconstruction contours to the maximum extent possible and revegetated using locally-occurring native species and native erosion control seed mix, per the recommendations of a qualified biologist.
▪ Grading, excavating, and other activities that involve substantial soil disturbance shall be planned and carried out in consultation with a qualified hydrologist, engineer, or erosion control specialist, and shall utilize standard erosion control techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation to native vegetation (pre-, during, and post-construction).
▪ No firearms shall be allowed on the construction sites at any time. ▪ All food-related and other trash shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed from the project area at least once a week during the construction period, or more often if trash is attracting avian or mammalian predators. Construction personnel shall not feed or otherwise attract wildlife to the area.
▪ To protect against spills and fluids leaking from equipment, the project proponent shall require that the construction contractor maintains an on-site spill plan and on-site spill containment measures that can be easily accessed.
▪ Refueling or maintaining vehicles and equipment should only occur within a specified staging area that is at least 100 feet from a waterbody (including riparian and wetland habitat) and that has sufficient management measures that will prevent fluids or other construction materials including water from being transported into waters of the state. Measures shall include confined concrete washout areas, straw wattles placed around stockpiled materials and plastic sheets to cover materials from becoming airborne or otherwise transported due to wind or rain into surface waters. ▪ The project proponent and/or its contractors shall coordinate with the City of Seaside on the location of Injection Well Facilities and the removal of sensitive biotic material.

Mitigation Measure BT-1k: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, including, but not limited to, white-tailed kite and California horned lark. Prior to the start of construction activities at each project component site, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for suitable nesting habitat within the component Project Study Area and within a suitable buffer area from the component Project Study Area. The qualified biologist shall determine the suitable buffer area based on the avian species with the potential to nest at the site. In areas where nesting habitat is present within the component project area or within the determined suitable buffer area, construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species shall be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season.

Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31. Alternatively, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the project proponents to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species where nesting habitat was identified and within the suitable buffer area if construction commences between February 1 and September 15. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding Prior to project
construction and if
found establish and
comply with nodisturbance buffer
Prior to project
construction
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 87, Packet Page 241 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final construction plans. If active raptor or other protected avian species nests are identified during the preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall notify the project proponents and an appropriate no-disturbance buffer shall be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance shall take place until the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Impact CR-2:

Construction
Impacts on
Archaeologic
al Resources
or Human
Remains
Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Each of the project proponents shall contract a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standard (Lead Archaeologist) to prepare and implement an Archaeological Monitoring Plan, and oversee and direct all archaeological monitoring activities during construction.

Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted for all subsurface excavation work within 100 feet of Presidio #2 in the Presidio of Monterey, and within the areas of known archaeologically sensitive sites in Monterey3. At a minimum, the Archaeological Monitoring Plan shall:
▪ Detail the cultural resources training program that shall be completed by all construction and field workers involved in ground disturbance;
▪ Designate the person(s) responsible for conducting monitoring activities, including Native American monitor(s), if deemed necessary;
▪ Establish monitoring protocols to ensure monitoring is conducted in accordance with current professional standards provided by the California Office of Historic Preservation;
▪ Establish the template and content requirements for monitoring reports;
▪ Establish a schedule for submittal of monitoring reports and person(s) responsible for review and approval of monitoring reports;
▪ Establish protocols for notifications in case of encountering cultural resources, as well as methods for evaluating significance, developing and implementing a plan to avoid or mitigate significant resource impacts, facilitating Native American participation and consultation, implementing a collection and curation plan, and ensuring consistency with applicable laws including Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code;
▪ Establish methods to ensure security of cultural resources sites; ▪ Describe the appropriate protocols for notifying the County, Native Americans, and local authorities (i.e. Sheriff, Police) should site looting and other illegal activities occur during construction with reference to Public Resources Code 5097.99.

During the course of the monitoring, the Lead Archaeologist may adjust the frequency—from continuous to intermittent—of the monitoring based on the conditions and professional judgment regarding the potential to encounter resources. If archaeological materials are encountered, all soil disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall Prior to and during
project construction
During project
construction
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 88, Packet Page 242 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
cease until the resource is evaluated. The Lead Archaeologist shall immediately notify the relevant Project proponent of the encountered archaeological resource. The Lead Archaeologist shall, after making a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological resource, present the findings of this assessment to the lead agency, or CPUC, for the CalAm Distribution Pipeline. In the event archaeological resources qualifying as either historical resources pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5 or as unique archaeological resources as defined by Public Resources Code 21083.2 are encountered, preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation.

If preservation in place is not feasible, the applicable project proponent(s) shall implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP). The Lead Archaeologist, Native American representatives, and the State Historic Preservation Office designee shall meet to determine the scope of the ARDTP. The ARDTP will identify a program for the treatment and recovery of important scientific data contained within the portions of the archaeological resources located within the project Area of Potential Effects; would preserve any significant historical information obtained; and will identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the resources, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report that provides a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, results of any special studies conducted, and interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context. All technical documents shall be placed on file at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.

Mitigation Measure CR-2b: Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Human Remains. If archaeological resources or human remains are unexpectedly discovered during any construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (±160 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. The County Coroner shall be notified in accordance with provisions of Public Resources Code 5097.98-99 in the event human remains are found and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code section 5097 if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin.

During project
construction
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure CR-2c: Native American Notification. Because of their continuing interest in potential discoveries during construction, all listed Native American Contacts shall be notified of any and all discoveries of archaeological resources in the project area.

During project
construction
During project
construction
Impact EN-1:

Construction
Impacts due
to Temporary
Energy Use
Mitigation Measure EN-1: Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan.

M1W2(for all components except the CalAm Distribution System) or CalAm (for the Cal Am Distribution System) shall contract a qualified professional (i.e., construction planner/energy efficiency expert) to prepare a Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan that identifies the specific measures that M1W or CalAm (and its construction contractors) will implement as part of project construction to increase the efficient use of construction equipment. Such measures shall include, but not Prior to project
construction
During project
construction
2 Formerly known as the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 89, Packet Page 243 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
necessarily be limited to: procedures to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained at all times; a commitment to utilize existing electricity sources where feasible rather than portable diesel-powered generators; consistent compliance with idling restrictions of the state; and identification of procedures (including the use of routing plans for haul trips) that will be followed to ensure that all materials and debris hauling is conducted in a fuel-efficient manner.

Impact HH-2:

Accidental
Release of
Hazardous
Materials
During
Construction
Mitigation Measure HH-2a: Environmental Site Assessment. If required by local jurisdictions and property owners with approval responsibility for construction of each component, M1W and CalAm shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with ASTM Standard 1527-05 to identify potential locations where hazardous material contamination may be encountered. If an Environmental Site Assessment indicates that a release of hazardous materials could have affected soil or groundwater quality at a project site, a Phase II environmental site assessment shall be conducted to determine the extent of contamination and to prescribe an appropriate course of remediation, including but not limited to removal of contaminated soils, in conformance with state and local guidelines and regulations. If the results of the subsurface investigation(s) indicate the presence of hazardous materials, additional site remediation may be required by the applicable state or local regulatory agencies, and the contractors shall be required to comply with all regulatory requirements for facility design or site remediation.

Prior to project
construction (if
presence of
hazardous materials
is identified, site
remediation or
design changes may
be required)
Only needed until
owner/contractor
deems each
construction site
is deemed safe for
required
construction
Mitigation Measure HH-2b: Health and Safety Plan. The construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for each site on which construction may occur, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation, grading, and construction. The HSP shall include the following, at a minimum:
▪ A summary of all potential risks to construction workers and the maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals (the HSP shall incorporate and consider the information in all available existing Environmental Site Assessments and remediation reports for properties within ¼-mile using the EnviroStor Database);
▪ Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed;
▪ Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital; ▪ Procedures to be followed in the event that evidence of potential soil or groundwater contamination (such as soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers) is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous
materials release, notifying Monterey County Department of Environmental Health, and retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling and remediation; and
▪ The identification and responsibilities of a site health and safety supervisor.

Prior to project
construction
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure HH-2c: Materials and Dewatering Disposal Plan.

M1W and CalAm and/or their contractors shall develop a materials disposal plan specifying how the contractor will remove, handle, transport, and dispose of all excavated material in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the disposal method for soil Prior to and during
project construction
During project
construction
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 90, Packet Page 244 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
and the approved disposal site, and include written documentation that the disposal site will accept the waste. For areas within the Seaside munitions response areas called Site 39 (coincident with the Injection Well Facilities component), the materials disposal plans shall be reviewed and approved by FORA and the City of Seaside. The contractor shall develop a groundwater dewatering control and disposal plan specifying how the contractor will remove, handle, and dispose of groundwater impacted by hazardous substances in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the locations at which potential contaminated groundwater dewatering are likely to be encountered (if any), the method to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials, and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods. If the dewatering effluent contains contaminants that exceed the requirements of the General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2011-0223, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001), the construction contractor shall contain the dewatering effluent in a portable holding tank for appropriate offsite disposal or discharge. The contractor can either dispose of the contaminated effluent at a permitted waste management facility or discharge the effluent, under permit, to the Regional Treatment Plant. Mitigation Measure HH-2c:

Materials and Dewatering Disposal Plan. M1W and CalAm and/or their contractors shall develop a materials disposal plan specifying how the contractor will remove, handle, transport, and dispose of all excavated material in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the disposal method for soil and the approved disposal site, and include written documentation that the disposal site will accept the waste. For areas within the Seaside munitions response areas called Site 39 (coincident with the Injection Well Facilities component), the materials disposal plans shall be reviewed and approved by FORA and the City of Seaside. The contractor shall develop a groundwater dewatering control and disposal plan specifying how the contractor will remove, handle, and dispose of groundwater impacted by hazardous substances in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the locations at which potential contaminated groundwater dewatering are likely to be encountered (if any), the method to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials, and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods. If the dewatering effluent contains contaminants that exceed the requirements of the General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2011- 0223, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001), the construction contractor shall contain the dewatering effluent in a portable holding tank for appropriate offsite disposal or discharge. The contractor can either dispose of the contaminated effluent at a permitted waste management facility or discharge the effluent, under permit, to the Regional Treatment Plant.

Impact LU-2:

Operational
Consistency
with Plans,
Policies, and
Regulations
See the following mitigation measures included in this table: AQ-1, BT1a, BT-1c, BT-1k, CR-2b, CR-2c, PS-3.See other rows for specific timing of
each mitigation
measure
See other lines for
responsibilities for
each mitigation
measure
Impact PS-3:

Construction
Solid Waste
Policies and
Regulations
Mitigation Measure PS-3: Construction Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. The construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a construction waste reduction and recycling plan identifying the types of construction debris the Project will generate and the manner in which those waste streams will be handled. In accordance with the California Prior to, during, and
after project
construction
Upon project
completion
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/15/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 91, Packet Page 245 Impacts Mitigation Measures
Timing of
Implementation
Timing of
Monitoring
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the plan shall emphasize source reduction measures, followed by recycling and composting methods, to ensure that construction and demolition waste generated by the project is managed consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. In accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code and local regulations, the plan shall specify that all trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils, and 50% of all other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, be diverted from landfill disposal. The plan shall be prepared in coordination with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District and be consistent with Monterey County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan. Upon project completion, M1W and CalAm shall collect the receipts from the contractor(s) to document that the waste reduction, recycling, and diversion goals have been met.

Impact TR-3:

ConstructionRelated
Roadway
Deterioration
Mitigation Measure TR-3: Roadway Rehabilitation Program. Prior to commencing project construction, M1W (for all components other than the CalAm Distribution System Improvements) and CalAm (for CalAm Distribution System Improvements) shall detail the preconstruction condition of all local construction access and haul routes proposed for substantial use by project-related construction vehicles. The construction routes surveyed must be consistent with those identified in the construction traffic control and safety assurance plan developed under Mitigation Measure TR-2. After construction is completed, the same roads shall be surveyed again to determine whether excessive wear and tear or construction damage has occurred. Roads damaged by project-related construction vehicles shall be repaired to a structural condition equal to, or greater than, that which existed prior to construction activities. In the City of Marina, the construction in the city rights-way must comply with the City’s design standards, including restoration of the streets from curb to curb, as applicable. In the City of Monterey, asphalt pavement of full travel lanes will be resurfaced without seams along wheel or bike paths.

Monterey City CouncilJuly 15, 2025

Monterey City Council
July 15, 2025